Has anyone ever seen a UFO?

[Gorgon]

The usual explanation for something being where it logically shouldn't on a non digital camera is double exposure. I think that's supposed to be clear sky, and the log an alien ship.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Gorgon

[Slowtrain]

Actually the black shape does kind of look like the Millenium Falcon in a straight on pov.

 

Hmm.

[Gfted1]

Picture 6 was pretty interesting with the search floods and AA fire all around.

[Walsingham]

Could be THIS.

 

Basically, deteriorating vision makes the brain try to make sense of a diminished signal. You see all kinds of weird and wonderful stuff.

[Slowtrain]

Doesn't mention anything about UFO's though. Still an interesting take.

 

Really though, I think the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings are the result of misidentificaton of known objects. Human perception is pretty unreliable to begin with and some people tend to be extremely quick to consider something paranormal or extraterrestrial or whatever without a whole lot of evidence other than their own conviction.

 

Many of the remaining sightings can be out down to fraud, either through fabrication or hoaxing. Why people seem to feel the need to lie and fake stuff is beyond me, but they do.

 

However, there does seem to be a small number of sightings that really appear to not fall into either of the above 2 categories. WHich doesn't mean they are alien space ships of course, but nonetheless remains an interesting mystery.

 

What is unfortunate is that while there are many people who simply believe in UFO's regardless of a lack of evidence or even a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, there are also people who simply dismiss the possibility outright. Both approaches seem to me equally close-minded and not very commendable.

 

Probably I just watched too much In Search Of when I was a kid, but I find the potential for mystery intriguing.

[taks]

pareidolia

 

taks

[Slowtrain]

pareidolia

 

taks

 

 

Very much so. Or the newly coined term for it "matrixing". lol. Thanks, Jay and Grant!

 

Again for me that falls into the realm of the unreliablity of human perceptions. We want to see something that we understnd, to bring order out of chaos, so we work very hard to impose structure and meaning where there really isn't any. And then we only end up deceiving ourselves.

 

I always find it interesting that so many people who report paranormal experiences are always so quick to assume they have in fact experienced something beyond the normal rather than that they have just experienced a failure or limitation of their own preceptions.

[Walsingham]

I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with wanting the limelight, and sexing up a story, in regular life. It's only wrong when you start trying to make people take action/sell their house and move to Nevada.

[Slowtrain]

I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with wanting the limelight, and sexing up a story, in regular life. It's only wrong when you start trying to make people take action/sell their house and move to Nevada.

 

 

So often though hoaxes, fakery, mummery and assorted fabrications do in fact cause damage. EVen if only in the fact that they make it all that much more difficult to take any sort of paranormal inquiry seriously.

[Walsingham]

IMO the problem for paranormal studies is the failure of the investigators to establish any sensible set of experimental procedures.

[Amentep]

Well there are groups that have tried.

 

The problem is kind of two fold, one is that until we know more about the phenomena (if it exists) its nearly impossible to determine how to test it and if what we have to test is really testing what we think its testing, or if its testing something that happens to be coincidental to the phenomena (the "do ghosts make cold spots, or do ghosts tend to be associated with old drafty houses that naturally have cold spots" problem).

 

Then the other is that there a large number of skeptics who don't believe the scientific principle works with Fortean phenomena, insisting instead that fantastic claims require fantastic proof (the "I don't care if you have a rare piece of metal alloy unheard of on Earth as of yet and photos of a UFO, you need to bring me an alien to talk to before I believe you were abducted" problem)

 

I've seen a fair number of skeptical scientists shoot down attempts at following scientific procedures because they feel that they're using equipment in ways it wasn't originally intended - which is typically true, but until you can quantify what you're looking for its a bit hard to come up with specialist equipment.

[Slowtrain]

IMO the problem for paranormal studies is the failure of the investigators to establish any sensible set of experimental procedures.

 

 

What? DO you mean to say that bumbling around in a dark house with infrared cameras, emf detectors, and digitial thermoters, all they while shrieking about shadows and orbs and evps isn't a sensible set of scientific procedures?

 

lol.

 

Yeah, I agree, its a total joke. But it can be amusing. Someday paranormal investigators will realize that they need to create a rigorous methodology that anyone can follow and end up with the same results.

[Amentep]

Yeah, I agree, its a total joke. But it can be amusing. Someday paranormal investigators will realize that they need to create a rigorous methodology that anyone can follow and end up with the same results.

 

Inherent problem with that is that we don't know the motivation for ghosts to appear in the first place (if they exit) which makes it difficult to determine how to repeat the phenomena. I suppose a ghost hunting crew could try and work on finding a way to make a ghost appear as opposed to trying to find some proof the ghost exists, but you'd need know a ghost is really there to know you could find a way to make it appear. Egads, I think my brain just broke.

 

 

Also there is the fact that you're trying to do science experiments in the wild as opposed to a controlled situation anyhow, so until there's a haunted multi-million dollar science laboratory...

[Slowtrain]

Then the other is that there a large number of skeptics who don't believe the scientific principle works with Fortean phenomena, insisting instead that fantastic claims require fantastic proof (the "I don't care if you have a rare piece of metal alloy unheard of on Earth as of yet and photos of a UFO, you need to bring me an alien to talk to before I believe you were abducted" problem)

 

 

The way I see it, no single piece of evidence, no matter how convincing, isn't going to prove anything. What's going to prove something is when a procedure is estblished that anyone can follow and duplicate the same results.

 

Even if you bring in a bigfoot body, if you only let one person see it and test it, and only one person can say OMG Bigfoot DNA!!!, then nothing has been proved. If you've got a bigfoot body you need to let everyone test it. If everyone tests it and ends up with the same results then you've got proof.

 

 

Proof of something is never a one-off event.

[Amentep]

Then the other is that there a large number of skeptics who don't believe the scientific principle works with Fortean phenomena, insisting instead that fantastic claims require fantastic proof (the "I don't care if you have a rare piece of metal alloy unheard of on Earth as of yet and photos of a UFO, you need to bring me an alien to talk to before I believe you were abducted" problem)

 

The way I see it, no single piece of evidence, no matter how convincing, isn't going to prove anything. What's going to prove something is when a procedure is estblished that anyone can follow and duplicate the same results.

 

Even if you bring in a bigfoot body, if you only let one person see it and test it, and only one person can say OMG Bigfoot DNA!!!, then nothing has been proved. If you've got a bigfoot body you need to let everyone test it. If everyone tests it and ends up with the same results then you've got proof.

 

Proof of something is never a one-off event.

 

I agree in terms of Bigfoot.

 

But lets say you have a piece of metal that you claim is part of an alien craft. You can give it to as many scientists as you want and even if its an unusual or new alloy using rare metals, it doesn't prove its of extraterrestrial origins as opposed to a prototype Earth vehicle.

 

Short of being able to bring a ghost, alien or bigfoot to people, I don't think there is going to be proof that will satisfy everyone.

[Slowtrain]

Inherent problem with that is that we don't know the motivation for ghosts to appear in the first place (if they exit) which makes it difficult to determine how to repeat the phenomena.

 

 

To me this is where paranormal investigtaion needs to start. FIrst you need to begin to test if there are actual correlations between paranormal phenomena and reported "hauntedness" or is it all just anecdotal. DO non-haunted locations display the same phenomena as non-haunted locations. Yes? No? Absolutely the test environements need to be controlled and experiments have to be repeated over and over again, adjusting hypotheses and methodolgy as you go along. I can imagine it would be a relatively tedious and unrewarding task, which is probably why most paranomormal groups don't even bother. MUch more fun to just wave your gear around in the dark and make things up.

[Slowtrain]

[but lets say you have a piece of metal that you claim is part of an alien craft. You can give it to as many scientists as you want and even if its an unusual or new alloy using rare metals, it doesn't prove its of extraterrestrial origins as opposed to a prototype Earth vehicle.

 

But what would that be proof of? It would only be proof that I possess a piece of metal that no one has ever seen before. And that is pretty interesting in and of itself. But there is no proof to support a logic jump of: that piece of metal came from a UFO. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, there is no evidence to support such a claim.

 

Its like the Patterson-Gilman film. SOme people think its fake, some people think its real. The battle lines have been drawn for years. But it doesn't really matter whether it is genuine or not. Since such an experience has never been duplicated, its more of a curiosity rather than proof.

[Amentep]

Inherent problem with that is that we don't know the motivation for ghosts to appear in the first place (if they exit) which makes it difficult to determine how to repeat the phenomena.

 

 

To me this is where paranormal investigtaion needs to start. FIrst you need to begin to test if there are actual correlations between paranormal phenomena and reported "hauntedness" or is it all just anecdotal. DO non-haunted locations display the same phenomena as non-haunted locations. Yes? No? Absolutely the test environements need to be controlled and experiments have to be repeated over and over again, adjusting hypotheses and methodolgy as you go along. I can imagine it would be a relatively tedious and unrewarding task, which is probably why most paranomormal groups don't even bother. MUch more fun to just wave your gear around in the dark and make things up.

 

Well that raises an immediate question to my mind; since we go from testing for the ghost to testing the house, how similar should the experiment/control houses be? Since ghostly phenomena tend to factor into older building based on the anecdotal evidence, if you're investigating the ghost in a 1920s mansion, do you have to find another 1920s mansion with the exact same square footage (I'll assume that we can leave off having to have similar floor plans, or else we'll have to wait 100 years or so for the haunting of the prefab houses to know for sure). Should location matter? If one is in the NE, could the other be in the SW and it'd be okay?

[Amentep]

But what would that be proof of? It would only be proof that I possess a piece of metal that no one has ever seen before. And that is pretty interesting in and of itself. But there is no proof to support a logic jump of: that piece of metal came from a UFO. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, there is no evidence to support such a claim.

 

But that's my point, the claimer claims to have got it FROM the UFO. The person hearing the claim only see a weird metal; the claimer's experience though is something that can't be passed on, which is the problem with proving most of the unusual phenomena claimed to exist in the world.

[Slowtrain]

Well that raises an immediate question to my mind; since we go from testing for the ghost to testing the house, how similar should the experiment/control houses be? Since ghostly phenomena tend to factor into older building based on the anecdotal evidence, if you're investigating the ghost in a 1920s mansion, do you have to find another 1920s mansion with the exact same square footage (I'll assume that we can leave off having to have similar floor plans, or else we'll have to wait 100 years or so for the haunting of the prefab houses to know for sure). Should location matter? If one is in the NE, could the other be in the SW and it'd be okay?

 

To me, it doesn't even need to be that specific at first. The first step would be to establish if there is any correlation between the commonly accepted phenomena that indicate paranormal acitivity and a haunted location. If you can find these phenomena anywhere, then that either means that all locations are haunted or that the phenomena are not in fact neccssarily indicative of paranormal activity. Paranormal investigators need to spend less time investigating "haunted" locations and more time investigating non-haunted locations as well as more time in a controlled laboratory environment, so control baselines for phenomena can be established.

 

From what I understand most phenomena that are allegedly indictors of paranormal are also capable of being produced by a variety of non-paranormal events. For mr, they don't work even remotely as proof since most paranormal investigators don't rigorously control the test environment.

 

I mean, if you really want to validate EVPs as potential proof, you would need to completely seal the test area from any sort of radio waves or exterior sound. You would also need to perform the same tests in a labaortory environment as in a haunted enviroment so you have a control. Youwould also have to set a criteris for what consitutes an EVP. Would a sudden loud burst of static be enough? Or would it actually need to be a voice speaking in very discernible words?

 

EVPS are of course for the most part a total joke. lol.

[Slowtrain]

But what would that be proof of? It would only be proof that I possess a piece of metal that no one has ever seen before. And that is pretty interesting in and of itself. But there is no proof to support a logic jump of: that piece of metal came from a UFO. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, there is no evidence to support such a claim.

 

But that's my point, the claimer claims to have got it FROM the UFO. The person hearing the claim only see a weird metal; the claimer's experience though is something that can't be passed on, which is the problem with proving most of the unusual phenomena claimed to exist in the world.

 

 

I agree. WHich is why I think "proof" can only happen when anyone who wants to can duplicate the experience by following a known methodolgy.

 

edit: Which is why the onus is on paranormal investigators to establish a methodology rather than post photos of "orbs" on their webesites.

Edited November 14, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Amentep]

To me, it doesn't even need to be that specific at first. The first step would be to establish if there is any correlation between the commonly accepted phenomena that indicate paranormal acitivity and a haunted location. If you can find these phenomena anywhere, then that either means that all locations are haunted or that the phenomena are not in fact neccssarily indicative of paranormal activity. Paranormal investigators need to spend less time investigating "haunted" locations and more time investigating non-haunted locations as well as more time in a controlled laboratory environment, so control baselines for phenomena can be established.

 

From what I understand most phenomena that are allegedly indictors of paranormal are also capable of being produced by a variety of non-paranormal events. For mr, they don't work even remotely as proof since most paranormal investigators don't rigorously control the test environment.

 

That's a very good point and very interesting approach to it. Almost makes me want to try and set something up!

 

I mean, if you really want to validate EVPs as potential proof, you would need to completely seal the test area from any sort of radio waves or exterior sound. You would also need to perform the same tests in a labaortory environment as in a haunted enviroment so you have a control. Youwould also have to set a criteris for what consitutes an EVP. Would a sudden loud burst of static be enough? Or would it actually need to be a voice speaking in very discernible words?

 

EVPS are of course for the most part a total joke. lol.

 

On the plus side they are uber-creepy. Or maybe its because whenever the play them they keep repeating them over and over.

[Slowtrain]

There's no doubt that paranormal investigation is "fringe" science. I mean, it is out there in a space where no one really knows anything. It is going to be a lot of hard work in creating hypotheses, testing them, then discarding or refining them and testing again. Over and over and over. And ultimately there might very well not even be anything there to find.

 

But all science was once "fringe" so there is not really an excuse for not doing it right to begin with.

 

Paranormal investigators don't appear to lack interesting ideas and concepts; many of them do appear to lack the rigor and/or resources to actually test those ideas and concepts properly, however.

 

Remember "From Beyond" by HPL? Awesome stuff.

Edited November 14, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Morgoth]

What actually if hundreds or thousands of people see the same phenomena at the same time? Like that Belgian UFO case in the late 80s? (huge triangle shaped UFOs with bright lights). Was that some sort of an optical illusion, or have just all Belgians become crazy? Link

Edited November 14, 2008 by Morgoth

[Slowtrain]

What actually if hundreds or thousands of people see the same phenomena at the same time? Like that Belgian UFO case in the late 80s? (huge triangle shaped UFOs with bright lights). Was that some sort of an optical illusion, or have just all Belgians become crazy? Link

 

 

One of the theories on that (and other Triangle sightings) is that is was the Aurora project.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)