'Are UFOs Real?'

People seem to be very very quick to make fun and make lite but that does not really get us anywhere.

There is stuff going on in places like Hesdalen that we cannot explain. We need to unvestigate this untill we CAN explain it.

I have NO idea what is going in there, is it some form of atmospheric phenomenon, is it aliens or is it some form of manipulation of our enviroment by the human mind? Not only do I not know, no one does and make light of those who work in this field doesn't help us solve these mysteries, it in fact does the exact oposite and makes it harder for scoentists to get to the bottom of these mysteries.

To answer lionsdens answers to Dave's questions:

1, why haven't they landed? - too hard to find parking! - [JB] Plenty here, I'll paint a bullseye in my field.
2, why mutilate cows etc. - For fun,........ and burgers. [JB] Maybe it's an alien version of the cow tipping done here.
3, why abduct and probe hill-billy rednecks and not some respectible scientists or presidents. - who's going to miss a redneck or two? [JB] Errr. I would. I wouldn't have any neighbours left.
4, what is their plan? - To abduct hill-billy rednecks or course! [JB] Maybe spaceships don't run on dilithium crystals but on Massey diesels and they need a quick service.
5, why come here at all. - This is where you find hill-billy rednecks! [JB] There's a pattern here.

These aliens. They're green aren't they? They wouldn't happen to have Kerrygold written across the fronts of their chests, would they?

No wonder I never see them with my black and amber flag outside. And black and amber is nature's warning sign. Just look at bees and wasps!

well james they'd want to be a bit quicker and use a few more ships on this culchie kidnapping plot, for every one they kidnap 2 more appear out of the wood work. well at least they are starting at the bottom of the food chain , us dubs have nothing to worry about.
stephen.

I can see the humourous side of all this but seriously though,
if they're here, WHY DONT THEY LAND.

Its akin to going to Florida to visit Disneyland, but then decide to lurk around the gates!!

I'm sorry, without material proof, to me its all a load of cobblers.
again, no offence is meant to serious UFOlogists, this is just how I feel about it.

I'm sorry, without material proof, to me its all a load of cobblers.
again, no offence is meant to serious UFOlogists, this is just how I feel about it.

Depends on where you put the burden of proof though. Someone who believes in UFO's as being extra terrestrial could cite the images from Norway ( www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v18n2a2.php ), and images from Apollo 16 ( www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v17n3a2.php ), as evidence that there are very curious objects detected above the Earth that have to be extraterrestrial, and shift the onus of proof back to you to come up with other explanations.

I treat these studies with a lot more regard than the average frizbee on a camcorder / tv crew looking for ratings "evidence"

I better also point out that I put this argument in a very different category to the "we never landed on the moon - you prove that we did" argument. All the evicence shows that we did go to the Moon, those who think otherwise need to prove we didnt. In the UFO case, there is evidence for strange lights in the sky etc. so the burden of proof lies more with us who should do more to explain them.

In any case, the paper on the events in Norway above points out that they cannot explain all the observed phenomena, and call for more research. That of course doesnt mean that they are cold fjord loving aliens, but I'd agree with their ultimate conclusion that there is something happening that we dont understand, and that alone should make it worthy of better study. Worst case - we end up understanding atmospheric effects a bit better!

Okay, serious mode on...

To me its a matter of weight of evidence. The weight being the number of sightings, the quantity of sightings for a single event and frequency of sightings. Everyone believes in the sun because it rises everyday and we all see it. Irish weather permitting.

The number of people seeing UFOs is so small that it doesn't have any weight. It does however have as much weight as those deluded people who believe in seriously whacky stuff. [Insert own example here]

It's like watching one of those 50s sci-fi movies. The Day The Earth Stood Still, for example. Imagine the movie was real. We can believe in the saucer landing in Washington DC(?) because everyone goes to the park to see it. The army and police are there surrounding it. TV stations are covering it live. There is weight of evidence. If a saucer lands in Kerry and Billy-Joe-Mick O'Sullivan sees it on a stagger home from the pub then... well, you know.

In the case of this Norway example, a Google search shows very little, which lends credence to my weight of evidence rule.

It's all too fantastic anyway. I remember Carl Sagan discussing the Drake Equation and the possible number of extra-terrestrial civilisatons. I think the figure would have to be drastically decreased with new scientific evidence. Not only that but you would have to have another figure for civilisations with the ability to travel across the galaxy at a speed that is useful for intergalactic social contact and that is where my value is a firm ZERO. For a variety of reasons, including the need to break all laws of physics and my belief in that civilisations just don't last long enough. I would like humans to outperform statistical chance but like the dinosaurs, I don't think we can do it. No matter how much more of the physical world we will discover and utilise.

In the case of this Norway example, a Google search shows very little, which lends credence to my weight of evidence rule.

eh? "+Project +Hessdalen +UFO" returns over 8000 pages (granted about 30 of use and the rest pointing to them!). However "boltzmann-saha equation" retuns 365. So according too google there is more evidence for UFO's in norway than the explanation for weak Hydrogen lines in very hot stars adsabs even mentions serveral papers on the place.

For a variety of reasons, including the need to break all laws of physics and my belief in that civilisations just don't last long enough. I would like humans to outperform statistical chance but like the dinosaurs, I don't think we can do it. No matter how much more of the physical world we will discover and utilise.

But the laws of physics perfectly allow it. The main issue is the going faster than light problem, which was dented with the notion of wormholes being possible and superstring brane worlds rely on. Yes, getting though them is another matter, but the point is that we have, theroetically at least, found our warp drive workaround

I think that arguing whether "they" are here or not using logical argument grounded in physics is futile, ala the Drake equation. Sure the laws of physics cant be broken, but the can sure as hell be worked around. I've been convinced on occasions of both arguments; from thinking that we are completely alone, to arguments saying we are constantly watched! Currently I'm sitting happily on the "there probably is other intellignt life in the galaxy, but its not visiting" fence

Dinosaurs had a good long shot at it and were dam unlucky. Of course the also had egg sized brains which admitedly did stunt the growth of advanced dinosaur civilisation. There is nothing really stopping humans having a few million years here, apart from, well, humans...

We need Terry on here