View Poll Results: Some UFOs may be of alien origin

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 11.11%
  • No

    24 88.89%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 85

Thread: Do you believe potentially some UFO sightings are actually of alien origin?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134

    Do you believe potentially some UFO sightings are actually of alien origin?

    Do you believe potentially some UFO sightings are actually of alien origin?

    Why or why not?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    No evidence, nothing that would stand up in a court of law. I don't give a fig for internet opinion, so no.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    I'm not a believer of UFOs of alien origins precisely for the reason you have stated: No evidence.

    However, it's quite alarming how a large segment of the population actually believes this to be the case. Some of the arguments I've seen are:

    - We can't monitor everything (in response to we would see an alien space craft coming)
    - They are more technologically advanced than us (which is why we cannot see them except for those who encountered them by chance)
    - They possess a far better understanding of science than we do now (more reasons why they can sneak up on us undetected and study us like we're bacteria)
    - We don't know everything (catch all argument to explain whatever unknown phenomena they want to explain as potentially alien origin)

    It doesn't help stories in the mainstream media (NY Times) helps fan the flames for paranoia:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/u...vy-pilots.html

    Should be noted the pilots themselves, while acknowledging it is tech they have never seen, also acknowledge the likelihood of black projects being responsible.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,103
    UFOs are just that; unidentified. You could also claim it's faeries, ghosts, super-powered metahumans, or Santa Claus in the off season. There's not only no evidence, there's no logical reason for pasting "alien" into a completely empty pigeonhole.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    Should be noted the pilots themselves, while acknowledging it is tech they have never seen, also acknowledge the likelihood of black projects being responsible.
    This is a very common belief, was seen as far back as WW2 "foo fighters".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,989
    Define your level of "Evidence" which would be acceptable. I asked a similar question a few years ago in this thread below :

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...ighlight=proof

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Define your level of "Evidence" which would be acceptable.
    Evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial in nature and are vehicles controlled by intelligent alien beings?

    An actual spacecraft and an alien that are investigated by scientists, technicians, the military, etc. who offer multiple full reports with color photos and diagrams and documentaries on the internet, plus the alien's statement (if it is alive) as to what it was doing flying around and bothering people, with a detailed analysis of the spacecraft and how humanity plans to use it to find Elvis. Kidding about Elvis, no one cares anymore.

    In other words, I want everything that as of now does not exist.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Define your level of "Evidence" which would be acceptable. I asked a similar question a few years ago in this thread below :

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...ighlight=proof
    Something repeatable, clear and objectively verifiable.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    Ok playing devil's advocate here, what is wrong (or right) about this statement?

    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be extra terrestrial in origin.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    Ok playing devil's advocate here, what is wrong (or right) about this statement?

    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be extra terrestrial in origin.
    The statement is unsupported by evidence. Imagine we are in court. You are an attorney intending to prove this statement. You have not offered any evidence that will keep your client (the content of that statement) from being thrown onto the garbage heap with statements like, I am a pink Pegasus typing on the internet. If I said I was a pink Pegasus, how would you ask me to prove it? I could say that there is a possibility, even if extreme, that I am what I say I am. How do you prove me right or wrong?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    Ok playing devil's advocate here, what is wrong (or right) about this statement?

    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be extra terrestrial in origin.
    "These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be magical in origin."
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be swamp gas from a weather balloon that was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus.

    Yes, that's the idea. Exposed, this is the error in your statement.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be swamp gas from a weather balloon that was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus.

    Yes, that's the idea. Exposed, this is the error in your statement.
    Maybe you missed the "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology" part.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Maybe you missed the "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology" part.
    No, I caught it. No one has proven that the event "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology". I have right now seen absolutely zero evidence of this.

    The burden of proof is on the one who claims what happened "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology". If anyone has such evidence. take it out and drop it on the proverbial table and let everyone look at it, 'cause it ain't here.

    "There must be a possibility, even if extreme..." is a lot of cat poop. It is meaningless. It is not proof.

    Evidence.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    No, I caught it. No one has proven that the event "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology". I have right now seen absolutely zero evidence of this.

    The burden of proof is on the one who claims what happened "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology". If anyone has such evidence. take it out and drop it on the proverbial table and let everyone look at it, 'cause it ain't here.
    Yes, that's the first thing that bothered me about that statement. Exposed, is it a quote, and if so, where does it come from? If it is in reference to a particular incident, I'd like to see how they arrived at that conclusion.

    Sometimes events are caused by known physics, but in ways that may not be obvious to investigators. And sometimes known physics can manifest in unknown ways.

    Similarly, sometimes technology can cause unobvious effects. An IR image of a claimed "flying saucer" has recently been making a buzz. An explanation floating is that it is from the heat of a jet exhaust, and rotation of the camera and other motions makes the claimed flying saucer seem to move. This would be an interesting combination of effects of different technologies that result in an observation that could be easily misunderstood.

    I would be suspicious of any claim that known physics and technology can be ruled out, and would want to see how they came to that conclusion.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,353
    I'm not really comfortable with the poll question. My response is that I don't rule out the possibility that a UFO claim could be associated with something of alien origin, but I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that any existing UFO claims actually are associated with something of alien origin.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Define your level of "Evidence" which would be acceptable. I asked a similar question a few years ago in this thread below :

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...ighlight=proof
    The sort of things I've mentioned before:

    (1)Artifacts widely tested and generally accepted to not be possible to make with existing technology, (2) aliens (a visit, radio transmission, etc.), (3) a landing that is very widely observed and studied and generally accepted to be of technological origin beyond what we could do today. (4) Some combination of widely observed evidence, such as seeing an object in space making large velocity changes, approaching Earth and landing, observed by many astronomers, tracked to its landing, which then would also be well observed. Or reversing that: Tracking a takeoff of an observed object that heads out to deep space rapidly.

    Keep in mind that amateurs regularly find spy satellites that some would like to be kept quiet. I am highly suspicious of claims of large, highly visible "alien spaceships" that apparently can visit Earth without anyone noticing.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I'm not really comfortable with the poll question. My response is that I don't rule out the possibility that a UFO claim could be associated with something of alien origin, but I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that any existing UFO claims actually are associated with something of alien origin.
    Exactly. All these phrasing of "is it possible?". Sure, it is possible, especially given an unlimited and increasingly unlikely set of circumstances. So what? It is possible that some random person will walk up to me tomorrow and give me $10,000,000; it would not violate any known laws of physics. But I'd be an idiot if I quit my job today based on that possibility.

    "Possible" doesn't get us anywhere. Except on a case-by-case basis, there is nothing to build on from "possible".
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,261
    "Potentially some" is a very low threshold; potentially all of the oxygen molecules in Florida could congregate in the upper left-hand corner of the VAB next Tuesday. I don't think any of the UFO sightings have anything to do with aliens; they probably have everything to do with fatigue, stress, hallucinogens, or pareidolia .
    Last edited by swampyankee; 2019-Jun-12 at 09:31 PM.
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,103
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Maybe you missed the "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology" part.
    And how did those making the claim reach that conclusion?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw could be extra terrestrial in origin.
    Unlike others, I don't have that much of a problem. The conclusion doesn't seem problematic at all. In fact, I think you could generalize it to say,

    Whenever you see an object in the air, there must be a possibility that they could be extraterrestrial in origin.
    Even what I think is a common bird could be a cleverly disguised alien craft.

    But I have an issue with the premise that

    cannot be explained by current known physics or technology.
    Since nobody is omniscient, nobody knows what can or cannot be explained by current technology. It could be secret military or industrial technology that they don't know about.

    But the conclusion seems sound nevertheless, for the reason I stated above.
    As above, so below

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I'm not really comfortable with the poll question. My response is that I don't rule out the possibility that a UFO claim could be associated with something of alien origin, but I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that any existing UFO claims actually are associated with something of alien origin.
    Would you agree with the statement that it's badly worded?

    I think a better question could be "Do you think there is a significant (say greater than 10-6) probability that at least one reported UFO encounter is alien?" vs "Do you believe potentially some UFO sightings are actually of alien origin?"

    Potentially, I could have a torrid affair with Tyra Banks.
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,849
    I think that a binary answer is too tight when you include the word "potentially".

    Potentially, of all of the unidentified objects so far, none of them haven been provably alien in nature, while a few might be extraterrestrial in nature such as a meteor, Venus, etc.

    The trouble with "potentially" in this case, is one of definition. If aliens land at the U.N., forked over some DNA analog, and brief history of their experiences and science, the situation or event is neither "potentially" or "unidentified". Wikipedia uses the phrase "weasel word", but this is worse than that because it clutters up even a positive situation.
    Solfe

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    The trouble with "potentially" in this case, is one of definition. If aliens land at the U.N., forked over some DNA analog, and brief history of their experiences and science, the situation or event is neither "potentially" or "unidentified". Wikipedia uses the phrase "weasel word", but this is worse than that because it clutters up even a positive situation.
    thank you.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    OK, I need to reword that statement to read as follows.

    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw is of alien extra terrestrial origin.


    Alien in this case refers to intelligent lifeforms not of earth. Also rules out natural extra terrestrial elements such as meteors and comet fragments.

    That statement is basically the argument I found alot of my fellow colleagues believe in. I'm trying to understand why well educated people would believe UFOs, at least some of them, would be alien lifeforms visiting earth. If I ask them directly the argument is almost always one of probability tied with one of the 4 listed reasons in the original post.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    OK, I need to reword that statement to read as follows.

    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw is of alien extra terrestrial origin.


    Alien in this case refers to intelligent lifeforms not of earth. Also rules out natural extra terrestrial elements such as meteors and comet fragments.

    That statement is basically the argument I found alot of my fellow colleagues believe in. I'm trying to understand why well educated people would believe UFOs, at least some of them, would be alien lifeforms visiting earth. If I ask them directly the argument is almost always one of probability tied with one of the 4 listed reasons in the original post.
    The main part I'm hung up on is "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology." Lots of wiggle/error room there. A lot of things we observe seem like they're inconsistent with known laws of nature, but turn out to be explicable by science. And that's things we can examine closely in the lab by expert physicists, not just catch a glimpse of out of the corner of our eyes.

    If, however, there's data captured on instruments like cameras, then by all means let's see them and analyze them! Unless that's done, these claims are just second hand anecdotes.

    But the logic leap to aliens also remains problematic to me. Even if it is determined that these UFOs are somehow "violating physics", that smacks of a supernatural explanation, not advanced technology. Either that or, our models of physics would need updating.

    If it is advanced (physics-defying) technology, the Earth is the most plausible source of technology users we know. Which seems more likely, that a group of humans with unknown aircraft capabilities are on Earth, or that alien beings are able to hide just as effectively AND come and go from our planet undetected? And yet, they are still sometimes seen, just enough to create rumors? Sloppy work, for advanced beings.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    OK, I need to reword that statement to read as follows.

    These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology. Thus, there must be a possibility, even if extreme, that what they saw is of alien extra terrestrial origin.


    Alien in this case refers to intelligent lifeforms not of earth. Also rules out natural extra terrestrial elements such as meteors and comet fragments.

    That statement is basically the argument I found alot of my fellow colleagues believe in. I'm trying to understand why well educated people would believe UFOs, at least some of them, would be alien lifeforms visiting earth. If I ask them directly the argument is almost always one of probability tied with one of the 4 listed reasons in the original post.
    I would think that the most basic counter-argument is there is a ton of well known physical phenomena that are undetectable by the human senses and the vast majority of avionics packages. You need to step out of the cockpit to even evaluate something, and probably remove that evaluation from the hands of pilot. The aviation industry as a whole has a massive amount of buy in from non-stake holders for protecting things that are not detectable from aircraft. Large antennas, power lines, bridges, skyscrapers, etc. have lights and visibility aids added to them just because they cannot be observed from airplanes in a reliable fashion under many conditions.

    A lot of pilots are not going to look at "understanding weirdness" as viable means of operating their aircraft safety. They are responsible for the lives of people in the air with them and those on the ground. Understanding something that is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with norms will force them to avoid rather than investigate. This goes double for pilots that have the means to loft a weapon at an unknown. Pilots are often termed as "aggressive", which is probably true, but there is a practical point where "aggression" encompasses safe operations and not "investigating" an unknown.

    This entirely avoids the situation where there are ghosts and goblins in the air with you, as much as it does a scenario where an alien craft operates entirely within known physics.
    Solfe

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I'm not really comfortable with the poll question. My response is that I don't rule out the possibility that a UFO claim could be associated with something of alien origin, but I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that any existing UFO claims actually are associated with something of alien origin.
    I don't find the poll question a problem. The question asked what your belief is not what you think is possible and you quoted (my bold) which is a belief I share also.

    Do I think its "possible" that they could be of alien origin? Well I find that a trickier question to answer because of the vastness of galaxy and the universe. By this my thoughts are two fold, firstly the galaxies and the universe is/are so vast filled with so many stars and potential life bearing worlds then it seems on the face of it implausible to suggest that we are alone. But due to the vastness of the distances between stars I find it (on the face of it) implausible that aliens have/or do visit us. This is without even considering all the other factors and implications which is being discussed on another thread.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,353
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I don't find the poll question a problem. The question asked what your belief is not what you think is possible and you quoted (my bold) which is a belief I share also.
    I think perhaps you're misunderstanding my statement. Perhaps I should have replaced "believe" with "conclude" or "accept" in my statement. It wasn't meant to be about a statement of belief but how I evaluate UFO claims based on the limited and poor quality of claimed evidence. So the statement you commented on could be rewritten as, "I don't see sufficient evidence to conclude that any existing UFO claims actually are associated with something of alien origin."

    In any event, I feel that both a "yes" or a "no" answer to the poll question could be misunderstood, hence my statement. I do not rule out the possibility, but evidence is lacking.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    That statement is basically the argument I found alot of my fellow colleagues believe in. I'm trying to understand why well educated people would believe UFOs, at least some of them, would be alien lifeforms visiting earth. If I ask them directly the argument is almost always one of probability tied with one of the 4 listed reasons in the original post.
    When I was much younger, I used to say something like "Even if 99% of the UFO claims aren't ET, that still leave 1%." Eventually I realized that there was no reason for that remaining 1% to be ET either. Mostly, I think I saw the idea of alien visitation as exciting, and it was easy to be swayed by credulous takes on UFO stories found in various books or on TV (this was well pre-internet). Part of my change in view happened as I read more skeptical arguments about certain famous cases and various common arguments made by the pro-ET visitation folks.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •