Sunday, April 22, 2012

UFOs: The Observational Reality Supporting Extraterrestrial Visitations

"UFOs: The Observational Reality Supporting Extraterrestrial Visitations"," To me, a bona-fide UFO is any UFO that remains a UFO after comprehensive investigation and analysis by qualified experts have failed to identify the object as any known natural or man-made phenomena.
 Observational evidence is suggestive that these bona fide UFOs could be extraterrestrial visitations - the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).
 It's vastly more probable a visitation would have happened in ancient times, prehistoric times, maybe millions if not billions of years ago.

There's more than one sci-fi story published that plots alien scientists charting our newly formed solar system, surveyed Earth of course, about four billions of years ago, left some rubbish behind, and thus spawned the origin of terrestrial life!

Fast forward several billions of years and our alien scientists or explorers (biologists this time) picked up a trilobite or two for their interstellar zoo or museum collection.
 All witnesses are extinct now!

But moving from millions of prehistoric years ago to more recent prehistoric eras, up through and including ancient history, say within the last 100,000 years, then we might start getting some more concrete pictorial evidence (cave art) or other archaeological, anthropological or mythological evidence - which of course brings us to the topic of 'ancient astronauts'.
 But I'm not going to be so rash as to go on record as saying all of it is.
 Specifically, when watching 'ancient astronaut' documentaries, or even reading the popular literature, I've never been impressed by the monuments argument that aliens either built them or helped humans to build them - monuments like Stonehenge or the pyramids (Egyptian or Mesoamerican) or the statutes on Easter Island.
 I'm also not impressed with so called ancient technologies - thousands of year old batteries for example that look about as alien as a Model T Ford.
 Also of interest is mythology and comparative mythology that might be suggestive of 'ancient astronauts'.

So, why the sudden surge in UFO activity in recent generations - 1947 to date? Well, maybe there hasn't been - a surge that is.
 Look at relevant factors like population levels and distribution; the sorts of terrestrial technology that could be misconstrued as alien spacecraft; the technology that can detect UFOs; communication factors; and social factors.
 The modern UFO era, unlike previous eras, has airships and aircraft and artificial satellites and flares and searchlights and all that jazz which can generate sightings.
 The modern UFO era, relative to 100 or 200 years prior, has way more communications - books, magazines, radio, TV, other mass media like newspapers, the Internet, films, and so on.
 Lastly, 100 years ago, even more so 200 years ago, there wasn't the sort of outdoor nightlife activity we have today.
 Yet UFOs are more readily detectable at night.

For all those reasons, it might be the case that UFO activity hasn't really changed over historical periods.

Now if it ultimately turns out that 100% of UFOs have zilch to do with extraterrestrial intelligence; that there never has been ancient astronauts; that no alien picnickers left behind their garbage billions of years ago; that we never were on the receiving end of a cosmic Johnny Appleseed - if Planet Earth is not in any cosmic database, then maybe we are the proverbial be-all-and-end-all.
 However, that assumption runs counter to the Copernican Principle or the Principle of Mediocrity that in the overall cosmic scheme of things, we are just the average run-of-the-mill.

Of course it is not sufficient enough for visiting aliens and their interstellar craft (UFOs if you will) to theoretically exist - there's got to be some kind of actual evidence - and it exists in spades.
 I've seen that in numerous books, and I understand it originates from the late and great Carl Sagan.
 Sagan alive today I'd take the comments to him, but seeing as how he's no longer available.
 That's not in dispute.
 What might be an extraordinary claim to you might not be an extraordinary claim to me, and vice versa.
 You don't need twice the amount of evidence in a murder trial vis-Ã -vis being convicted of jaywalking.

If I, one of the great unwashed, were to make a claim that the double slit experiment provides evidence for the existence of parallel universes, or that a positron was actually nothing more than an electron going backwards in time, that would be extraordinary.
 Yet it's the same set of claims.
 But did these claims really need extraordinary (like double the experimental) evidence vis-Ã -vis other claims that are now equally parts of the accepted science we find in the textbooks? For open-minded people, especially scientists, such claims probably did not require extraordinary evidence.
 Ball lightning hasn't been put under a laboratory microscope any more than UFOs have.
 Yet one has credibility, one doesn't.

It is said, and there is truth in this, that science and scientists do not have the time and resources to investigate every claim ever made about the natural world.

 While I don't have an easy answer to that - though I'll give one immediately below - I'll just initially observe that there's been a lot of seemingly reasonable claims that are now only footnotes in the history of science, and a fair few unreasonable claims that are now part of the bedrock on which our sciences, technology and civilization rests.
 extraordinary distinctions, I'd suggest important vs.
 Lots of claims, whether proven or unproven, aren't going to set the world on fire.
 The equation UFOs = evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence is such an example.

So, we desire evidence for the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs, not extraordinary evidence.
 And that's true.
 Skeptics need to look at what evidence is presented and not have a mind-in-a-closet attitude.
 You have a global phenomena, where countries from Australia, the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, France, Russia, Mexico, etc.
 That makes little logical sense - the 'giggle' factor, not the official investigations.
 It's all evidence, and grist for the mill.
 So take the bona-fide UFO residue.
 I think Occam's Razor would err on the side of the ETH.
 The idea or association didn't just pop out of the ether for no reason

The trouble with UFOs is that they won't stand still! You can't put them under a microscope, poke and prod them, or study and measure them at your leisure like you can most phenomena.

Anyone who poo-poos the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs, ""it can't be therefore it isn't"", clearly hasn't actually studied the subject, read the literature, studied official government investigations and reports, done personal field investigations and interviewed witnesses.
 Is there anyone out there who can say for 100% certainty that at least one case isn't the real deal?

Now I don't want anyone to tell me that the University of Colorado UFO investigation on behalf of the USAF, the Condon Report, closed the book on the subject - not unless you have real the entire report and not just the introductory / summary first chapter.
 Few people have taken the time to separate the wheat from the chaff in the Condon Report.
 So, read the entire report - do so, and then talk to me!

Every major country has had, or does have, either an official UFO investigations programme, or at least investigates reports of UFOs - six decades after the 'fad' began! Australia, Canada, France, England, Belgium, the USA, etc.
 all have or have had UFO investigation programs.
 FOI requests have shown serious interest in the UFO area by not only the USAF, but by the FBI and CIA as well, continuing even after the USAF supposedly got out of the UFO investigations area, as a result of the above cited Condon (University of Colorado) study.

In contrast, have you ever heard of, or are you aware of, government bodies investigating Bigfoot sightings, or ghosts, or spoon bending, or the Bermuda Triangle (in general - specific incidents are of course investigated by relevant safety maritime and/or aviation and/or military authorities), or the Ouija board or astrology? You probably have not, because these concepts aren't taken seriously, and the public would be outraged if their tax dollars were so used.
 To this day SETI is mainly funded by private individuals and institutions.
 That's interesting.
 Are you aware of any? What's also interesting is that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have revealed that both the FBI and the CIA have had an intense interest in the subject, despite pre-FOI denials of any interest.
 Read into it what you will.
 That is not in dispute.
 That is not is dispute.

There are professional scientists, senior military officials*, senior government officials, and a host of other people in responsible positions who have witnessed UFOs (airline and military pilots; astronauts, police officers, etc.
 That is not in dispute - it is on the public record.
 Not quite THE smoking gun, but one of many, may highly unexplained UFO cases, is the events surrounding Frederick Valentich on 21 October 1978.

In a nutshell, on the evening of that date, Mr.
 He took off only to shortly thereafter radio in that there was this UFO hovering over him.
 While radioing his observations, all contact ceased; all communications abruptly ended.
 Valentich, plane and all, vanished without trace.
 Valentich, or his plane.
 No trace has ever been found of pilot or plane - not then, not since, not ever.

One obvious explanation was that Mr.
 Of course many people voluntarily disappear themselves for various reasons; many eventually are found, are caught or reappear voluntarily.
 Valentich who disappeared.
 Surely if Mr.
 If he had deliberately gone walkabout, in these decades since of security cameras and computer facial software recognition technology, it would be hard to remain an unknown walkabout in any populated area.

And what of the plane since no wreckage was ever found floating on the surface of Bass Strait; washed up on beaches, or found on the ocean bottom - Bass Strait isn't that deep.
 Valentich and plane, there's not that much wriggle room.

Interestingly, despite my asking for a copy of the Valentich 'accident' case report in an official capacity related to my employment at the time, the Department of Transport (Air Safety Investigations Branch) refused.

Those who have investigated UFOs with maximum time, energy and resources are of course those from government agencies, representing the government.
 No government is ever going to admit - assuming an extraterrestrial intelligence behind UFOs - that is doesn't have full control over its airspace.
 Any government that has insights into the artificial (extraterrestrial) nature of UFOs technology is certainly not going to share that information with other governments, however allied, far less their great unwashed Joe Doe public.
 There are two possible reasons for that, assuming everything is on the up and up.
 The quite less obvious one is that we now know what we needed to know and therefore there's no point in carrying on.
 In fact, if you example the reasons governments (American and British immediately come to mind) have given for getting out of the UFO business is that phrase - 'no threat' - UFOs, whatever they are, or aren't, pose 'no threat' Note that there's never a definitive statement that absolutely no UFO has represent extraterrestrial intelligence technology, that aliens aren't here, it's always that UFOs pose 'no threat' and therefore we've got better things to do - like dealing with things that are threatening! That 'no threat' phrase might represent a possibility that the powers-that-be know more than they're telling - 'no threat' means different things to those in the know vis-Ã -vis the great unwashed who might not be quite as convinced if they knew what the powers-that-be knew.
 That's the real justification for bailing out.
 Specifically, it's difficult to draw the conclusion that no UFO sightings can be attributed to extraterrestrial activity with all investigations leave behind a statistically significant residue of unknowns; unsolved UFO sightings.
 It's a case of your guess is as good as mine.
 However, the unknowns usually account for about 7% or thereabouts of officially investigated cases; cases investigated by government officials, usually the military, aided with civilian scientific expertise as required.

The unknown cases residue provides an interesting challenge to science and scientists - those with an open mind anyway.
 There's nothing less than the possible proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life at stake.
 I don't wish to say too much about the Roswell, N.
 case (July 1947), other than to point out that the then US Army Air Force admitted publicly, in the media, in newspapers, on radio, that they had captured one of those mysterious (and only recently sighted - the modern UFO era was just weeks old) flying discs.
 It's on the record.
 Ordinarily I'd say the earlier the better in that contamination is limited or reduced.
 Alas, that means going back to say the first five to ten years of the modern era - 1947-1957.
 Latter eras are better, but recent cases have a greater chance of having been influenced by what has come before.

Do I have the smoking gun? No, otherwise I'd be booking my flight to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Prize! Does the smoking gun exist in the raw unknowns' data? I don't know, but it doesn't hurt for it to be combed through again.
 I mean there's probably a Nobel Prize at stake, just waiting for that scientist, or team of scientists, to boldly go and prove the ETH.
 Thus, the field has achieved a high 'giggle' or 'silly season' reputation.

 And so, in public at least, you tend to get attitudes along the lines of 'everybody knows that it's nonsense', 'it can't be, therefore it isn't' or 'don't confuse me with facts, my superior's mind is made up therefore my mind is made up'.
 Only serious scientific study will remove the 'silly season', 'giggle' factor; but the 'silly season', 'giggle factor' prevents serious scientific study.
 So, why doesn't said extraterrestrials so land with a 'take me to your leader'?

Firstly, there is obvious danger in interpreting / comprehending / understanding an alien mind-set or psychology or behaviour.
 If what makes us tick is problematical, what hope do we have understanding, even up to an equal degree, intelligent aliens?

All of which brings me to possible motives for an alien race(s) to come calling and stick around.
 Perhaps one or more of the following makes sense.
 That's quite comprehensible to us.

 They want our resources, even if not our women!

There's the possible motive central to diplomatic and foreign relations.

Fifthly, maybe it's something we haven't yet thought of - or can't think of, alien psychology being totally outside our realm of comprehension.

And, I think we're property!

*For example, USAF Major-General John A.

 It's on the public record.

catch it here