UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

[trainedobserver]

It is after all an inevitable question: "But what about the direction changes"?

The disk-like notched objects are obviously out of focus particles of some kind. They are not gigantic objects passing behind the tether. If you take that as established fact then to me at least, the direction changes become pretty uninteresting.

 

[Rramjet]

The disk-like notched objects are obviously out of focus particles of some kind. They are not gigantic objects passing behind the tether. If you take that as established fact then to me at least, the direction changes become pretty uninteresting.

Yes, that may be fine in principle for the STS-75 “tether” video, but there are some videos which do not show the tell-tale out-of-focus “disc-like notched objects”. They show actual objects that move in seemingly inexplicable ways. For example I have already indicated the STS-74 video

and the object that appears at 6:17 in the bottom right of frame. How are we to explain the direction (and velocity) changes of this object at 7:04, 7:23, 8:04 and 8:18?

As I indicated in my previous post, I do not necessarily buy into the ETH as an explanation, what I am more concerned about is the physics of the thing – no matter what the object is…

 

[Rramjet]

Continuing on the theme of UFOs: the Research the Evidence, here then is an interesting peer-reviewed and published research paper:

Deardorff, J., Haisch, B., Maccabee, B., & Puthoff, H. E. (2005) Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. Vol. 58. 43-50 (http://brumac.8k.com/JBISpaper/JBISpaper.pdf)

Abstract
It has recently been argued that anthropic reasoning applied to inflation theory reinforces the prediction that we should find ourselves part of a large, galaxy-sized civilisation, thus strengthening Fermi’s paradox concerning “Where are they?” Furthermore, superstring and M-brane theory allow for the possibility of parallel universes, some of which in principle could be habitable. In addition, discussion of such exotic transport concepts as “traversable wormholes” now appears in the rigorous physics literature. As a result, the “We are alone” solution to Fermi’s paradox, based on the constraints of earlier 20th century viewpoints, appears today to be inconsistent with new developments in our best current physics and astrophysics theories. Therefore we reexamine and reevaluate the present assumption that extraterrestrials or their probes are not in the vicinity of Earth, and argue instead that some evidence of their presence might be found in certain high-quality UFO reports. This study follows up on previous arguments that (1) interstellar travel for advanced civilizations is not a priori ruled out by physical principles and therefore may be practicable, and (2) such advanced civilisations may value the search for knowledge from uncontaminated species more than direct, interspecies communication, thereby accounting for apparent covertness regarding their presence.

 

[Randall]

Continuing on the theme of UFOs: the Research the Evidence, here then is an interesting peer-reviewed and published research paper ...

... In addition, discussion of such exotic transport concepts as “traversable wormholes” now appears in the rigorous physics literature. As a result, the “We are alone” solution to Fermi’s paradox, based on the constraints of earlier 20th century viewpoints, appears today to be inconsistent with new developments in our best current physics and astrophysics theories. Therefore we reexamine and reevaluate the present assumption that extraterrestrials or their probes are not in the vicinity of Earth, and argue instead that some evidence of their presence might be found in certain high-quality UFO reports ...

It's always interesting to hear how new science makes things possible. However one of the things that is often overlooked is that exotic technology isn't really necessary for alien visitation. Even technology not much further ahead of our own could probably do the job. Cetainly technology just a little more advanced than ours ( fusion power ) could do it. How?

We tend to think of the start and end points of alien visitation as being interstellar and requiring round trips in human lifespans. However if we consider that aliens may naturally have very long lifespans, and that they may not be making round trips, then all you need are really large ships capable of sustaining life for long periods of time. Then you could travel around at sublight speeds and over thousands of years you'd still get to where you are going. No warp drive or wormholes needed. If the reports of huge mother ships are true, then maybe they are gigantic multi-generation self-contained and self sufficient vessels that rarely need refueling or maintenance.

Also, if one takes unmanned probes into account. Who cares how long it takes? Energy isn't much of a concern. We've already launched our own interstellar probes. Perhaps someone at some distant point of time in the future will intercept a Voyager spacecraft. Maybe more advanced alien probes were launched in our direction thousands of years ago and are what some UFOs ( alien craft ) we have seen are. Again no exotic science is needed to make this scientifically possible.

[video=youtube_share;ebYyVz9mCFs]http://youtu.be/ebYyVz9mCFs[/video]

<!--JPLIMAGEMARKER __JPL_CAPTION_1
› Browse version of image

__JPL_CAPTION_2
› Browse version of image

__JPL_CAPTION_3
› Browse version of image
-->"More than 30 years after they left Earth, NASA's twin Voyager probes are
now at the edge of the solar system. Not only that, they're still working.
And with each passing day they are beaming back a message that, to scientists,
is both unsettling and thrilling."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-128


​

 

[Michael Allen]

The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations [we are one of them] ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

The problem with the Fermi paradox is the assumption humans have a concrete idea concerning the "observables" that would constitute evidence. We also assume that such evidence would be easily recognized by the human consciousness.

Just an exercise (not sure if it will work):

Certain Natives in the Amazon have worked out that the apparent size and age of the earth suggests that many other people like themselves (Natives elsewhere -- i.e. in Australia, for example) ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it



Finding an isomorphism between this paradox and human's examination of their own consciousness might be interesting (i.e. the Barber of Seville shaving all those who do not shave themselves)

"The barber shaves only those men in town who do not shave themselves."

In the case of civilizations looking for evidence of others, the real paradox (which isn't really a paradox) may be one of self-reference.

 

[Rramjet]

The problem with the Fermi paradox is the assumption humans have a concrete idea concerning the "observables" that would constitute evidence.

It seems to me that humans are in agreement that only “physical” evidence will constitute proof of ET visitation. As far as I know, no such physical proof exists.

We also assume that such evidence would be easily recognized by the human consciousness.

Failing access to physical evidence, we are left with circumstantial evidence. Then the question becomes – as you indicate – are we able to recognise the circumstantial evidence we do have as evidence for ET visitation?

Here the concept of “weight of evidence” comes in. It might be instructional to explore for a moment the concept of weight of evidence, as it is a perhaps difficult concept to grasp.

“Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

So does the weight of the circumstantial evidence we do have “fit” the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH)?

We have observations (which cannot be plausibly explained in terms of the mundane) of ostensible nuts-and-bolts craft (they are observable as such by humans and by technology such as radar and cameras and they seem able to directly interact with the environment) which seem to be intelligently controlled (they perform manoeuvres such as chasing and avoidance in response to human activity) and sometimes they are noted in association with beings.

If we cannot explain these observations in terms of the mundane, what alternative to the ETH is then left to us?

 

[Randall]

Ramjet,

Of course you and I are both all too aware that the issue becomes one of proof. For some people, no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise will ever constitute adequate proof. Others would accept a certain amount of evidence, but the critics and skeptics are notorious for moving the goalposts and are never really clear on what evidence they would find sufficient. I personally believe that any reasonable person who participates in ufology studies will inevitably arrive at the conclusion that it is reasonable to believe Earth has been visited by alien craft. But ultimately it is still only those who have seen these craft for themselves who have the proof they need. In my view that makes those people our best evidence.

The hard part is knowing who is giving a true and accurate account and who isn't. So although we can arrive at the conclusion that visitation by alien craft is a virtual certainty, we don't know with any certainty exactly which individual experience represents this truth. It's a sort of uncertainty principle for ufology, we know the truth about UFOs, but we can never be sure of both its value and location at the same time ... unless we see it for ourselves. This is where the so-called trickster element seems to come into play.

By now we should have some physical evidence, but anyone who studies ufology knows that there are forces that are keeping us from acquiring and sharing that evidence. Chris O. sees the Trickster elements ( MIB, UFOs, Aliens, Mystery Agents ) as manifestations of a larger process, some sort of transcendent influence. Perhaps on the grander scale he is correct, but what about dealing with what we have before us now? How do we do that? How do we sidestep the Trickster element and facilitate the process of realization for the average person who has been socially programmed not to believe? The truth is there for anyone to see if they only take the time to add it all up ... yet so many refuse to even try, or worse yet think we're the ones who have been programmed.

Ufology Society International Homepage

 

[IsaacKoi]

Video Comment

What I'd like to see is the daylight film that Gordon Cooper says was taken of a saucer that landed during one of his test exercises.

Have you looked into that case in any detail?

I've recently been collating relevant material (from the Project Bluebook files and other sources) and am in the process of obtaining further information from various researchers (including, hopefully, some recordings of the relevant witnesses).

If you've already investigated that incident, I'd be interested in exchanging material.

All the best,

Isaac

 

[boomerang]

Video Comment

Chris O. sees the Trickster elements ( MIB, UFOs, Aliens, Mystery Agents ) as manifestations of a larger process, some sort of transcendent influence. Perhaps on the grander scale he is correct, but what about dealing with what we have before us now?

One of the problems is advanced technology being indistinguishable from the transcendent. Is the transcendent here masquerading as advanced technology, or vice-versa? Or is this distinction meaningless? Since we have no tools by which to measure the transcendent, we can only proceed investigation along technological and anecdotal lines. Unfortunately, this isn't getting us very far.

Ponder the the degree of capability required for a technology-as-magic scenario to keep every shred of objective evidence from the public domain. I contend this would require control of our reality akin to the computer programmer's command of virtual reality. Of course, this also cannot be ruled out.

What is so frustrating is that almost nothing can be ruled out.

 

[Randall]

Transcendent Phenomena

One of the problems is advanced technology being indistinguishable from the transcendent. Is the transcendent here masquerading as advanced technology, or vice-versa? Or is this distinction meaningless? Since we have no tools by which to measure the transcendent, we can only proceed investigation along technological and anecdotal lines. Unfortunately, this isn't getting us very far.

Ponder the the degree of capability required for a technology-as-magic scenario to keep every shred of objective evidence from the public domain. I contend this would require control of our reality akin to the computer programmer's command of virtual reality. Of course, this also cannot be ruled out.

What is so frustrating is that almost nothing can be ruled out.

boomer ...

Excellent and to the point post. After realizing this situation myself some years ago, I began to take a more pragmatic approach. For example, instead of assuming some metaphysical or transcendent cause, I started asking, "what is the most basic way to explain the phenomena with technology we can relate to?" So instead of invoking a multi-dimensional explanation for UFOs because they have been reported to vanish, I proposed that some sort of cloaking device could accomplish the same effect. Back in the 1980s I suggested that such a device might be made using a combination of cameras and LCD screening. Since then, this very idea has been proposed and tested by others. Advanced cloaking technology might use other means, but you get the point.

On another level it's possible that the universe as we know it is some kind of generated construct ... and personally I think that the computational model makes the most sense given the circumstantial evidence. But that model ( like all the rest ) still leaves us with the infinite recursion problem. So I deal with that by saying "so what if we can't explain infinite recursion", if we are within a generated construct, how can we use that to our benefit? For example, after accepting that the world was indeed a sphere instead of flat, suddenly the shortest distance between two points on flat maps became curved lines and circumpolar routes were established. The point being that by adapting to new knowledge, new paths to greater knowledge open up as a natural consequence.

Using the same analogy, if we live in a generated construct, then from the point of view of the generator ( whatever it is ), distance becomes irrelevant. All we would need to be able to do is tap into the system somehow and literally cut and paste ourselves into another location. It wouldn't take any more time or energy to move us billions of light years than to simply leave us at our present location. This would allow us to tap resources and visit alien worlds all over the universe without having to build complex spaceships or worrying about velocity, energy consumption, time dilation or all the other problems associated with space travel. It's similar to a sci-fi stargate, but doesn't operate on the presumption of wormholes. I'm working on a sci-fi novel based on this concept in case anyone might be interested.

 

[bbridges]

Video Comment

It's not hard to get so intellectually trapped by these issues, that we lose our sense of place. these questions have no evidential answers-ask Kant and Descarte. But there is a here and now that counts for something, and it really is all we've got. Sometimes we ask a big question and fail to see that the answer presents itself in ways we aren't noticing so we miss it.. Sometimes we must hold the question, then look and notice with expectation and then see and interpret what is in front of us.

 

[Rramjet]

Video Comment

It's not hard to get so intellectually trapped by these issues, that we lose our sense of place. these questions have no evidential answers-ask Kant and Descarte. But there is a here and now that counts for something, and it really is all we've got. Sometimes we ask a big question and fail to see that the answer presents itself in ways we aren't noticing so we miss it.. Sometimes we must hold the question, then look and notice with expectation and then see and interpret what is in front of us.

Well put bbridges. This thread is all about research and evidence. As soon as we start talking about the “transcendent” and the “metaphysical” we will lose ourselves down a rabbit hole from which there is no escape. To some native civilisations an aeroplane was a transcendent phenomenon that, according to their cultural knowledge, could only have a metaphysical (based on speculative or abstract reasoning) explanation – but that is only because they did not have direct knowledge of the physical sciences that allow aeroplanes to exist in reality.

As soon as we begin metaphysical speculation on the transcendent we might as well be talking about “magic” – and I imagine everyone knows Arther C. Clarke’s famous “third law” statement in that regard “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws)

To me it seems that our knowledge of what is possible based on (for example) quantum physics is very limited indeed and we are only taking our first baby steps into what quantum technologies might be created utilising a more advanced knowledge of the field (see for example this thread illustrating the concept of quantum locking https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/9325-Quantum-Levitation-Jaw-dropping).

If ET is here, it is hard to imagine that they would not have a more advanced concept of quantum physics and the applied technologies that might spring from such knowledge. However, for us to speculate on what that might be would be akin to those native civilisations speculating on how an aeroplane might work. Don’t get me wrong, speculation is the only way we might formulate hypotheses that we can then test in the real world, but without advances in basic knowledge a hypothesis might be correct – (ufology’s “cloaking device” as a concept for example) but we would and could never know how it actually worked in practice for ET (if at all…).

So for me, it is legitimate and often useful to speculate, but we must always be mindful (as bbridges intimates) of the necessity to ultimately and firmly ground any such speculation on an evidential base.

For example in respect of ufology’s “cloaking device” – to support the concept he should gather together cases where such a device might be apparent and then note the manifest behavioural characteristics and then present those as evidence for such a device in a scholarly report and open it up for further discussion.

Research and evidence is the key…

 

[Randall]

Video Comment

My comment on cloaking technology is in response to suggestions ( particularly Vallee's ) who used the apparent instantaneous vanishing of UFOs ( alien craft ) to support the idea that such UFOs may be using some sort of trans-dimensional gate. So the cases are already out there for those ufologists who have read the classic works. My point is that when doing the research, we don't need to invoke exotic technology like trans-dimensional gates to explain the apparent vanishing of UFOs.

 

[trainedobserver]

Video Comment

On the subject of cloaking and vanishing: I am reading Greg Bishop's Project Beta. In it he describes something he refers to as "photographic camouflage" where by some means an object like a building can be seen by the naked eye but prevented from showing up in a photograph. Is that even remotely possible? He supplies a photograph taken by Bill Moore that allegedly shows a building "vanished" into the landscape. Any ideas about that business?

 

[Rramjet]

Here are some of references to “cloaking” technology:

(http://ufo.whipnet.org/xdocs/cloaking.device/index.html)

(http://www.universetoday.com/60452/new-cloaking-device-hides-objects-in-three-dimensions/)

Not sure that we are up to hiding whole buildings yet… and Gregg Bishop doesn’t really make clear what it is exactly that he is talking about…

(http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UugAST0XW9gC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=photographic camouflage Gregg Bishop&source=bl&ots=lvcSF6kDDB&sig=jQ7mSBkCQKkmxweki6k1kJyDqro&hl=en&ei=9ROsTvqzG8SsiAfSu-TCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Moving on and in keeping with the recent NASA theme:

Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/missions/skylab_manned.html)
Incident: Followed by mysterious red “satellite” (20 Sep 1973)
Discussion and analysis:
(http://www.nicap.org/skylabIIIdir.htm)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

Photos:
2138 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10/lunacognita/Skylab III anomaly/?action=view&current=SL3-118-2138-SkylabIII.jpg)
2139 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10/lunacognita/Skylab III anomaly/?action=view&current=SL3-118-2139-SkylabIII.jpg)
2141 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10/lunacognita/Skylab III anomaly/?action=view&current=SL3-118-2141-SkylabIII.jpg)

NASA photo listing (listed as “Satellite, unmanned” on p. 41 and as “Blank” on p. 245):
(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740007948_1974007948.pdf)

 

[Randall]

Interesting tidbit on the Skylab sighting. Nothing definitive though. I haven't found anything that describes the object doing any maneuvers, and the light coming off it was reflecting, so it was not self luminous. What was it? The most likely explanation is a satellite with some large solar panels. Solar panels are stored in a folded position until orbit has been acheived and don't weigh much. So the craft may have not really been as large as claimed ( at least in mass ), and if it was some classified satellite then there might never be any record or disclosure.

 

[Rramjet]

Interesting tidbit on the Skylab sighting. Nothing definitive though. I haven't found anything that describes the object doing any maneuvers, and the light coming off it was reflecting, so it was not self luminous. What was it? The most likely explanation is a satellite with some large solar panels. Solar panels are stored in a folded position until orbit has been acheived and don't weigh much. So the craft may have not really been as large as claimed ( at least in mass ), and if it was some classified satellite then there might never be any record or disclosure.

Let’s take your "covert satellite" satellite hypothesis then and match it against observation:

It was reflecting red light …That had nothing to do with the refraction of the sun’s light because the astronauts mentioned that it was well above the horizon …so does that mean that whose-ever satellite it was, they took the trouble to paint it red? It seems implausible – especially given that, under this hypothesis, it is supposed to be a “secret” satellite. Also if it was supposed to be secret, why place it in Skylab’s orbit (or so close that it would present a danger of collision and be likely to be discovered)?

Also noting that its orbit was close to that of Skylab’s own, why was it not seen on previous or later orbits… a matter of mere hours… (Skylab orbited with a period of about 1.5 hours)

Further as it was so (relatively) close to Skylab, then NASA and NORAD tracking radars should have spotted it. As Maccabee points out:

“ Russian space objects are carefully tracked by both US and Russian observers as well as others. NASA signed an agreement with NORAD for NORAD to provide NASA with continually updated computer projections warning of potentially dangerous close approaches of any and all space objects during a manned space mission.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

Finally, satellites themselves are rarely secret. Their specific function might be classified, but it is in the interests of all involved that they know exactly what satellites are up there and their positions – and in 1973 that was only the US and the USSR.

These factors seem to rule against the “covert satellite” hypothesis. Nevertheless, I am certainly open to any counterarguments you might put.

 

[Randall]

Let’s take your "covert satellite" satellite hypothesis then and match it against observation:

It was reflecting red light …That had nothing to do with the refraction of the sun’s light because the astronauts mentioned that it was well above the horizon …so does that mean that whose-ever satellite it was, they took the trouble to paint it red? It seems implausible – especially given that, under this hypothesis, it is supposed to be a “secret” satellite. Also if it was supposed to be secret, why place it in Skylab’s orbit (or so close that it would present a danger of collision and be likely to be discovered)?

In the other aticles I scanned about the object it was described not as solid red but "flashing red" about every 10 seconds. Things that are painted don't flash. However there are satellites that rotate, often with parts covered in thin metallic coated foils ( gold or copper ). Some solar cell material ( like the image below ) are very red when reflecting light.

​

Also noting that its orbit was close to that of Skylab’s own, why was it not seen on previous or later orbits… a matter of mere hours… (Skylab orbited with a period of about 1.5 hours)

Few objects orbit at the same altitude or direction or velocity. So this was likely a simple coincidence where the satellite was travelling in about the same direction for a while. By the time Skylab did an orbit and the satellite did an orbit, they could be thousands of miles apart and it might be years before they intersect like that again, especially when the light is at just the right angle.

Further as it was so (relatively) close to Skylab, then NASA and NORAD tracking radars should have spotted it. As Maccabee points out:

“ Russian space objects are carefully tracked by both US and Russian observers as well as others. NASA signed an agreement with NORAD for NORAD to provide NASA with continually updated computer projections warning of potentially dangerous close approaches of any and all space objects during a manned space mission.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

It's entirely possible that they did track it and just didn't say anything because they didn't want to talk about it on an open unsecured channel. Just because each superpower knows each other had satellites up there doesn't mean they talk about them on the radio. Back in those days a lot of people tuned into space communications, so they weren't going to be broadcasting news about their secret satellites to Skylab or anyone else.

satellites themselves are rarely secret. Their specific function might be classified, but it is in the interests of all involved that they know exactly what satellites are up there and their positions – and in 1973 that was only the US and the USSR.

These factors seem to rule against the “covert satellite” hypothesis. Nevertheless, I am certainly open to any counterarguments you might put.

The Russians also knew the USA had the U2 and the A-12 too, but there wasn't much news about them until one got shot down or the program was publicly disclosed. You can be sure there's a lot of stuff up there that civilians don't know about.

Without the benefit of a closer look at the object, or a clearer picture of the object, or the observation of some maneuver that was beyond any technology of the day, there is still no reason to think it wasn't some kind of technology of the day.

 

[Randall]

I don't know about goalposts. I am simply looking for significant facts around UFOs, not an argument ...

This is a more proper thread to discuss evidence and UFOs ( alien craft ). It may take a few posts to get some traction, so let's start off with the question of what you consider to be "facts". For example are you asking for verifiable material scientifically valid evidence? If you are; there isn't any that I'm aware of. However that doesn't mean there aren't any "facts" or that we can't make an analysis of other evidence and arrive at rational view of what the most reasonable situation is with respect to UFOs. More simply, what kind of facts about what facet of ufology are you looking for?

 

[Ancientsaturn]

This is a more proper thread to discuss evidence and UFOs ( alien craft ). It may take a few posts to get some traction, so let's start off with the question of what you consider to be "facts". For example are you asking for verifiable material scientifically valid evidence? If you are; there isn't any that I'm aware of. However that doesn't mean there aren't any "facts" or that we can't make an analysis of other evidence and arrive at rational view of what the most reasonable situation is with respect to UFOs. More simply, what kind of facts about what facet of ufology are you looking for?

I copied over part of the previous post that is relevant:
"What types of data would capture UFO phenomena? I previously listed: electromagnetic spectrum, imaging, thermal, radar (which is really just part of the electromagnetic spectrum). Are there any "insider" leaks that contain data in the category of the previous sentence? Now I don't mean civilian imaging, but DOD imaging? Even more interesting would be electromagnetic spectrum data. I have no idea how technical people are on this forum, but data related to PRF, PRI or doppler. For example, has anyone captured a pulse signal signature that is unknown by our electronics or demonstrates a rate of speed well beyond current aircraft capabilities?"

I suppose you probably already answered my question that I copied above, namely, "...verifiable material scientifically valid evidence? If you are; there isn't any that I'm aware of". To be honest, that is the only thing I'm really interested in. I am really not a UFO researcher or enthusiast. I am a scientist and engineer. I was excited by the fact that there may be interesting signals or phenomena. But I'm not interested in just weird or abnormal human sightings, but measurable events.

Otherwise, I like philosophy and religion...