'Are UFOs Real?'

I missed that one Ronan, sounds like it was all good fun

Mike

Ronan,

Following from your posting on the other thread.

I agree with you that the AVI footage of the target is likely a balloon at high altitiude.

However, I disagree with you with your two statements that this “UFO talk is mad” and “there is nothing in the sky”. The last statement “Is this a UFO or astronomy site, these threads belong to .... not here” . Seeing that the IFAS moderator has not relegated these threads in the last two years to another non astronomy site must mean it is OK to discuss 'Are UFOs real? With near 50,000 hits there is huge interest by IFAS members.

Common sense is not enough to understand UFOs (or any other scientific anomaly). Those who argue that UFOs are obvious nonsense and should be dismissed, based purely on common sense, either do not understand the purpose of science or are being duplicitous. In order to make progress, science must examine scientific anomalies because they provide essential clues to the inadequacies of existing theories.

Beware of the false dichotomy between natural and supernatural. As Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “Any sufficient advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Or, to put it another way, what seems like magic today may become tomorrow’s high technology.

Different anomalies evoke very different responses from the scientific community. I suggest that there are at least three different categories of anomalies “OK Anomalies,” “Not OK Anomalies,” and “Sleeping Anomalies.”

An “OK Anomaly” is one that has been discovered by an established scientist, preferably using expensive equipment, and which appears to be an anomaly that scientists can cope with.

A “ Not OK Anomaly” is one that is not obviously resolvable and presents an unwelcome challenge to established scientists, possibly (but not neccessarily) because it has been discovered by a non scientist.

A “Sleeping Anomaly” is one that has not yet been recognised as an anomaly.

As examples of OK anomalies, I can cite two: Quazars are objects were anomalous in that they appeared to be star like but had redshifts similar to or larger than those of typical galaxies. Quasars have subsequently been determined to be distant galaxies containing a massive black hole.
Pulsars are radio sources that pulse with periods of seconds or less. When discovered they were an anomaly since all previouslly known radio sources were essentially constant or varied only erratically on much longer timescales. Pulsars have subsequently been determined to be rotating neutron stars with very strong magnetic fields.

A classical example of a Not OK Anomaly is that of meteorites. These objects fall from the sky and may be discovered by any citizen, educated or not. Moreover, no specialized equipment is neccessary. They are now known to enter the atmosphere from outer space, originating in a vast cloud of such objects in the solar system.

However, their nature was unknown until the 18th Century, when Chladni published a book on them. Twenty two years earlier, French academics had ruled out that these objects could not have fallen from the sky, since there are no stones in the sky to fall. According to Sears in 1978, “the scientific community...made merry over the credulity of people who imagined the stones to have fallen from the heavens,”

[What are the topics that are genuine, over which present day scientists make merry?] We also now know that the scientific community was in error in its response to the challenge of continental configurations. There are alot more topics at present that are generally dismissed as bogus by the scientific community.

Can we be sure that scientists of the 21st century are not making similar errors in their responses to some current phenomena? The present Not OK Anomaly of UFOs is a good example, like in past history examples, shows that the opportunity of discovery is there.

Eamonn A

Eamonn

Well, there has certainly been an interesting sub-culture within astronomy, but in fact it's been astronomers all along that have been the main scientific critics of belief in UFOs. Carl Sagan, obviously, was a prominent astronomer who took it on and wrote a very eloquent book about it..

But your so called evidence is always similar in that it is mainly anecdotal, eyewitness testimony. People either saw something that they couldn't identify. Starting in the late 60s with Betty and Barney Hill, and then taking off in the 70s and later, people believing they actually physically encountered aliens and were abducted by them… and occasionally there are claims that are based upon some physical evidence like a burnt circle in a field or an alleged artifact (some melted piece of metal or something).

The evidence is always scanty, blurry, ambiguous, unreliable… but in 100 years of the claims and beliefs in UFOs, not a single piece of anything really even remotely compelling. There's nothing demonstrably alien, there's nothing that is even a clear, unambiguous photograph. So, again sometimes if you focus too much on the minutia, you miss the forest for the trees. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. If we were being visited by an advanced technological race from outside our solar system, what would we expect there to be in terms of evidence. I think by now we would have something unambiguous, or at least a little bit more compelling...

Thats all I have to say..

Ronan

Ronan

There is lots of high-quality evidence that stands up to the closest scrutiny. Anyone who says otherwise is uninformed. Some excellent sources of information have been mentioned in this topic. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water . . . “

There are over 4000 landing trace cases where these UFOs have left physical evidence.
There are over 3500 military and civilian aircraft pilot cases from around the world, many with radar confirmation and multiple witnesses both on the ground and in the air.
There are hundreds of photographs and videos which have been authenticated by scientists experts in optical physics and related fields as real, and not hoaxes

As the astronomer Dr.Allen Hynek (an astrophysicist who studied UFOs for over 30 years) said, “it is really an embarrassment of riches.”

So let's please stop repeating the misinformation about there “not being any evidence.”

If you really want a further treatment of the evidence: Above Top Secret by Timothy Good; Unconventional Flying Objects, by Dr. Paul Hill, CE-5 by Dr. Richard Haines; Night Siege by Dr Allen Hynek and Philip Imbrogno to name a few.

You also would be extremely surprised as to the numerous amount of astronomers, scientists and astronauts that have confirmed the evidence for UFOs as ET space ships. I would be happy to offer those names if you so wish.

Eamonn A

OK, Whatever you say... astronomers, well how can they confirm the evidence if they dont know what they are looking at :roll: hence the name UFO

As i said there's nothing that is even a clear, unambiguous compelling or close up photograph. Moving lights, mustbe a UFO :roll: i dont wish to read any so called evidence.

Now your are telling us that ther are "UFO Highways" over Connacht where I live aswell, where?? have you photos? where is the evidence, as usual its in the back of most UFOlogists minds!

Just accept it ther is no real and compelling evidence


Dream on.... :lol:

Ronan

Ronan,

The French government's COMETA report may help you in your studies of the reality of UFOs.
High-level officials - including retired generals from the French Institute of Higher Studies for National Defense, a government-financed strategic planning agency - openly challenging skepticism about UFOs.

The report based on a three-year study, they concluded that ''numerous manifestations observed by reliable witnesses could be the work of craft of extraterrestrial origin'' and that, in fact, the best explanation is ''the extraterrestrial hypothesis.'' Although not categorically proven, ''strong presumptions exist in its favor and if it is correct, it is loaded with significant consequences.''

The French group reached that conclusion after examining nearly 500 international aeronautical sightings and radar/ visual cases, and previously undisclosed pilots' reports. They drew on data from official sources, government authorities, and the air forces of other countries. The findings are contained in a 90-page report titled ''UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?''

Regarding your statement “Now ye are telling us that ther are "UFO Highways" over Connacht as well, where??

I have referenced a scientific peer-reviewed paper that mentions T. Roy Dutton's Astronautical Theory. If you want to discuss his theory with him feel free to do so. www.coseti.org/4273-sch.htm

Earlier you raised questions about the quality of observers of some of these phenomena. Please see my comment above about COMETA. If you read the report you'll see that all the data comes from top military, government and aerospace officials. Frankly I don't see what higher caliber of observation you could ask for.

Eamonn A