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

[eburacum45]

This is your current version;

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.

Here is my preferred version:

These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that, as far as they could tell, could not 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.

The fact of the matter is that pilots are not infallible when they attempt to interpret the information they receive through their instruments. Over and over again, pilots have interpreted ambiguous sensor data in a way that suggests craft capable of feats "that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology." And over and over again they have been wrong.

Take, for instance, the three videos released by the To The Stars Academy, which appear to show craft executing manoeuvres which "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology." These three videos are the 'Tic Tac' video associated with the Nimitz sighting of 2004, the 'Gimbal' video which does not have a detailed provenance or date, and the 'Go Fast' video which does not have a detailed provenance or date. The guys over at Metabunk have examined these clips very closely, and have concluded that the 'Tic Tac' video and the 'Gimbal' video both show relatively distant conventional aircraft, and not nearby aircraft executing impossible manoeuvres. The 'Go Fast' clip, on the other hand, shows a bird flying at an intermediate altitude. In all three clips the effects of parallax seems to have been badly interpreted by either the pilots, or by the so-called experts that are supposed to have already examined these clips.

In short, it seems to be very easy to make mistakes when observing objects with unexpected characteristics, and very easy indeed to misinterpret the results of electronic sensors of various kinds. It is very difficult to be sure that, when a pilot says that he or she has seen something "that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology", they haven't made an observation error of some kind.

[Jens]

Actually, going back to the poll question, I would have to answer “yes” because of that pesky word “potentially.” If it had been “do you think it is likely” then the answer would be “no”, but as long as there is a word like “it is possible”, then I can’t see how I could answer “no”. I am not omniscient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noclevername]

I'm not going to let that word stop me. No, I don't think any UFOs are aliens. It's just barely physically possible that some are*, but I can say no with enough confidence to be "close enough" to certainty.

* Not the "physics defying" ones. Even advanced aliens can't defy Moms Nature.

[Jens]

* Not the "physics defying" ones. Even advanced aliens can't defy Moms Nature.

It's true that nobody can defy nature, but the problem is that we can't really know for sure if they are defying physics. After all, our understanding of Nature itself could be wrong.

[Jens]

I'm not going to let that word stop me. No, I don't think any UFOs are aliens. It's just barely physically possible that some are*, but I can say no with enough confidence to be "close enough" to certainty.

So yes, it's a question of how you interpret the question and how certain you feel that you need to be in order to answer one way or another. That's sort of the problem with the question, is that it contains terms that are hard to define. This "potentially" is, as I said, tricky, because your answer depends on how you define it.

[Noclevername]

It's true that nobody can defy nature, but the problem is that we can't really know for sure if they are defying physics. After all, our understanding of Nature itself could be wrong.

We can't ever be completely sure, but I'm sure enough to call it. At some point, you have to draw the line and say, "This is sufficient".

[DaveC426913]

Even what I think is a common bird could be a cleverly disguised alien craft.

Jens' Law: Any sufficiently disguised alien craft is indistinguishable from a mundane terrestrial object.

[Jens]

Jens' Law: Any sufficiently disguised alien craft is indistinguishable from a mundane terrestrial object.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chuck]

The aliens needn't bother disguising their craft. It would be just one more report among many.

[swampyankee]

We can't ever be completely sure, but I'm sure enough to call it. At some point, you have to draw the line and say, "This is sufficient".

Well, it's sufficient for me to conclude that the probability any UFO is actually of extraterrestrial origin is negligible.

[Colin Robinson]

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

Why or why not?

It's conceivable, but I'm not optimistic about the likelihood of it.

That is, I'm not optimistic enough to spend much time looking at UFO reports, even though I'm very interested in the topic of life beyond Earth.

I have occasionally spent a bit of time looking at a few of the most-discussed reports, but I found other explanations (e.g. hot-air balloons, flocks of birds reflecting sunlight in an unusual way) more plausible than aliens.

I think it is much more likely that we will find extraterrestrial life by sending further missions to Saturn's moon Titan. But any life we find there is most likely to be single-celled or sessile (i.e. something that resembles a plant or fungus, in that it stays in one place instead of moving about). It is highly unlikely to be a little grey humanoid.

[cosmocrazy]

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.

I Did (my bold) to be fair Jens pointed out the fact that the question can be interpreted in indifferent ways. I totally ignored the "potentially" part and just focused on the "believe" bit.

"In any event, I feel that both a "yes" or a "no" answer to the poll question could be misunderstood"

So in this respect I totally agree with you.

[Chuck]

Voting NO might be taken as belief that it's impossible, but voting YES might be interpreted as taking the proposition seriously. I voted NO as being less misleading.

[alromario]

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

Why or why not?

Yes!

Bound to happen somewhere in the universe sometime.

[Noclevername]

Yes!

Bound to happen somewhere in the universe sometime.

Sure. There's probably other life out there, I agree. But life does not necessarily mean starship-building life (we aren't, yet).

And could they come here from there? The distances are far vaster than we can imagine, and incredibly difficult to cross. "Somewhere in the Universe" could mean "all the way on the other side".

[Swift]

This is your current version;

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.

Here is my preferred version:

These pilots experienced a phenomenon captured visually and through their instruments that, as far as they could tell, could not 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.

The fact of the matter is that pilots are not infallible when they attempt to interpret the information they receive through their instruments. Over and over again, pilots have interpreted ambiguous sensor data in a way that suggests craft capable of feats "that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology." And over and over again they have been wrong.

Take, for instance, the three videos released by the To The Stars Academy, which appear to show craft executing manoeuvres which "cannot be explained by current known physics or technology." These three videos are the 'Tic Tac' video associated with the Nimitz sighting of 2004, the 'Gimbal' video which does not have a detailed provenance or date, and the 'Go Fast' video which does not have a detailed provenance or date. The guys over at Metabunk have examined these clips very closely, and have concluded that the 'Tic Tac' video and the 'Gimbal' video both show relatively distant conventional aircraft, and not nearby aircraft executing impossible manoeuvres. The 'Go Fast' clip, on the other hand, shows a bird flying at an intermediate altitude. In all three clips the effects of parallax seems to have been badly interpreted by either the pilots, or by the so-called experts that are supposed to have already examined these clips.

In short, it seems to be very easy to make mistakes when observing objects with unexpected characteristics, and very easy indeed to misinterpret the results of electronic sensors of various kinds. It is very difficult to be sure that, when a pilot says that he or she has seen something "that cannot be explained by current known physics or technology", they haven't made an observation error of some kind.

I too have a problem with the implication that if science cannot definitely explain it, it must be either ETIs or new physics (and eburacum45's wording is an improvement). Let me give a real world example.

I am currently troubleshooting a problem with the production of one of our products. So far I have not determined a cause. I have no belief that somehow the plant has come up with new laws of physics, nor do I think aliens are involved. In the real world, whether a factory or air space, things are complex, with many uncontrolled variables and a lot of information that doesn't get recorded in any way. And our models to describe these things (whether products or apparent UFOs) are necessarily incomplete. It is much more likely than an unexplained UFO is explained by incomplete information or a misinterpretation of either visual or electronic data, than by alien visitation.

[cosmocrazy]

Sure. There's probably other life out there, I agree. But life does not necessarily mean starship-building life (we aren't, yet).

And could they come here from there? The distances are far vaster than we can imagine, and incredibly difficult to cross. "Somewhere in the Universe" could mean "all the way on the other side".

And this is my main objection to us having ever been visited (my bold). Unless some advanced technological species has somehow figured out how to cover large distances extremely fast, or have extremely long life cycles then I don't see how they/it could ever reach us. even if they are from a very local other solar system the distance to cover is immense. The universe could be teeming with advanced life, but are completely (practically) cut off from each other due to the vastness of space-time.

[Swift]

And this is my main objection to us having ever been visited (my bold). Unless some advanced technological species has somehow figured out how to cover large distances extremely fast, or have extremely long life cycles then I don't see how they/it could ever reach us. even if they are from a very local other solar system the distance to cover is immense. The universe could be teeming with advanced life, but are completely (practically) cut off from each other due to the vastness of space-time.

Yes

[geonuc]

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?

As a licensed lawyer, I'd say no, please don't imagine you're in court. The rules of evidence in court are quite different from those required to support scientific hypotheses.

[Roger E. Moore]

As a licensed lawyer, I'd say no, please don't imagine you're in court. The rules of evidence in court are quite different from those required to support scientific hypotheses.

My apologies, I was not speaking literally but figuratively.

[geonuc]

My apologies, I was not speaking literally but figuratively.

You were making an analogy. I think the analogy is inapt.

[swampyankee]

It's true that nobody can defy nature, but the problem is that we can't really know for sure if they are defying physics. After all, our understanding of Nature itself could be wrong.

In addition, we can't be sure the observations are giving accurate distance, size, or rate data.

[alromario]

Sure. There's probably other life out there, I agree. But life does not necessarily mean starship-building life (we aren't, yet).

And could they come here from there? The distances are far vaster than we can imagine, and incredibly difficult to cross. "Somewhere in the Universe" could mean "all the way on the other side".

Sorry, I meant it as an answer to the same question but in regard to the universe as a whole. Incorrectly to the intended question. There’s probably a few beings out there seeing things.

(Somewhere in the universe) there will “bound to be”? UFO’s (that are actual ET for them) for some lifeform (out there). Sometime.

[Chuck]

In a sufficiently large universe, there will be some rare galaxies with a technological civilization in every star system. A few of them will probably visit nearby neighbors.

[Noclevername]

In a sufficiently large universe, there will be some rare galaxies with a technological civilization in every star system. A few of them will probably visit nearby neighbors.

But unless we are in that exceedingly rare neighborhood, which is incalculable, we'd never know it.

[Barabino]

on the contrary, for me it's surprising watching those afternoon tv programs

youtube video

moderator turned embedded video into link
although there are video tags, please do not embed youtube videos in messages


that suggest aliens are visiting desert southwest usa (tsk tsk) on a regular basis...

I mean: If I were obsessed with Bangkok, i'd just rent an apartment there and live there three months in a row instead of travelling 10,000 km every time I want to have some fun...

in my opinion, if UFO sightings really happen frequently, UFOs must have an earthly (not extra-terrestrial) origin... the famous flying saucers are simply round-shaped cyclonic black clouds, and so on...

the obsession of far-travelling aliens vising earth frequently and planning to invade us across light years, it's just the american guilt for invading the west...

[Noclevername]

the obsession of far-travelling aliens vising earth frequently and planning to invade us across light years, it's just the american guilt for invading the west...

The original alien invasion story was War Of The Worlds. British, not American. Of course they have their own Colonial history...

[Jens]

The original alien invasion story was War Of The Worlds. British, not American. Of course they have their own Colonial history...

I think he’s talking about an obsession today rather than in the early 20th century. Back in the 1920s there probably was not so much guilty feeling about colonialism and stuff like that. I don’t know, do Americans today have more of an obsession with alien invasions than elsewhere?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noclevername]

I think he’s talking about an obsession today rather than in the early 20th century. Back in the 1920s there probably was not so much guilty feeling about colonialism and stuff like that.

That was why Wells wrote it at that time. A broad analogy. ADDED: A guilt trip, at least intended to be.

I don’t know, do Americans today have more of an obsession with alien invasions than elsewhere?

There's a thriving multimillion dollar industry based on the conspiracy theories: TV shows, movies, Netflix "documentaries", Roswell's whole tourist draw. I don't know much about UFO/invasion subcultures in other places to compare it to, though. I know Russia has its equivalents in the Tunguska CTers.

[alromario]

In a sufficiently large universe, there will be some rare galaxies with a technological civilization in every star system. A few of them will probably visit nearby neighbors.

That’s a nice thought 😄

Just 2 close enough, or a couple of earth-like planets in the same solar system would potentially suffice.
Maybe we nearly had it, but mars messed up.