What do skeptics say about cases with physical evidence?

A lot of people aren't convinced that there are UFO's/Aliens just because someone took a picture or even a video, since they can easily be faked. But what about sightings that left physical evidence?

Like in the 1971 Delphos, Kansas sighting that left a “glowing ring” on the ground where the UFO hovered over.

1971, in the small town of Delphos, Kansas, a well documented case of physical evidence relating to UFOs occurred. The case has not been debunked in any way, and stands on its own merits. The case involved sixteen-year-old Ron Johnson, and his dog Snowball. They were tending sheep on the family farm, when Ron was distracted by a mushroom-shaped UFO in the night. The metallic UFO was hovering about 75 feet from Ron amongst some nearby trees.

The family members felt the area around the glow, and described it as "strange-like a slick crust, as if the soil was crystallized." After touching the glowing ring, Ron's mother's fingers became numb.

They retired for the night. At dawn the next day, they immediately returned to the ring, and it was still as they had left it the night before. The inside and outside of the ring was damp from an overnight rain shower, but the exterior of the ring was amazingly dry.

There were three other witnesses to the glowing ring, including two sheriff’s and a newspaper reporter.

The circle was still very distinct and plain to see. The soil was dried and crusted. The circle or ring was approximately 8 feet across, the center of the ring and the outside area were still muddy from recent rains. The area of the ring that was dried was about a foot across and was very light in color. The object had crushed a dead tree to the ground either when it landed or took off, and had broken a limb of a live tree."

"... we observed a ring shaped somewhat like a doughnut with a hole in the middle. The ring was completely dry with a hole in the middle and outside of the ring mud. There were limbs broken from a tree and a dead tree broken off there."

ufos.about.com...

No natural cause was found to have caused the strange ring, so what else could have caused it?

Another case is the 1967 Falcon Lake sighting.

One of the best documented cases of physical trace evidence is known as the "Falcon Lake Encounter." Occurring on May 19, 1967, the lone participant was Stephen Michalak, who was a mechanic by trade, but his hobby was prospecting for silver. He was enjoying his favorite pastime when he encountered two UFOs, and actually touched one of the unknown flying objects that had landed in his vicinity.

After spotting the UFO’s and actually seeing inside of one of them he touched the outside of the craft and it burned his glove he was wearing.

He reached out his hand to touch the polished surface, and his glove was melted. Suddenly the object suddenly moved, and as it did, a vented opening was exposed, like a type of exhaust port. He estimated it's size as about nine inches high by six inches wide. Heat was vented through the opening, setting Michalak's shirt and undershirt on fire.

Once the UFO left Michalak started vomiting and getting sick. He went to Misericordia Hospital where he was treated for his headache, nausea, and the grid-like burns on his chest.

www.ufocasebook.com...

What else could have caused the grid like burns on his chest? Police reports say he wasn’t under the influence of anything.


I’d just like to know what non-believers say about those sightings and others were physical evidence was left behind

The skeptics would probably attribute the sighting to 'natural causes'. They might think that the burns were self-inflicted.

Either way, they would be false with their reasoning.

If they're in doubt, they can always blame ball lightning and Venus.

There was a documentary a few years ago where scientists were going to use equipment to look for trace evidence at supposed landing sites of UFOs. Never heard much on the outcome.

I do know, believe anyway, that the use of deterrents is widespread at possible sites. We had one in my area about 2 years ago where a light was seen by many descending from the atmosphere, then apparently landing. Next thing you know, you're hearing what sounds like a pack of wild dogs barking very loudly. Only thing is, I live in the area, and there were no dogs. The recording could often be heard skipping, and would even "screech" at times when someone who was moving within the area bumped into something, which would give off an audible thud.

BTW, the official explanation given by the local meteorologist was Mars. Even though Mars was in the other quadrant of the visible sky at the time, and last I checked, Mars doesn't move across the sky at what appeared to be about 2000 m/s.

Nice info enjoies05! Michalak was checked by the Mayo Clinic, they could not find the underlying reason(s) for his abdominal burns, except burns. The burns reoccurred as well, and went away and came back again.

There's a pretty big story on Mr Michalak including his deliberate deception in NOT showing the area where he was when the incident occurred - initially.

All in all there's a good chance what he said about the saucer may be true.
It's one of the bigger Cdn stories with some merritt.

Dallas

ufos.about.com...

/\ That is probably my favorite UFO case OF ALL TIME. Everyone who likes UFO's should read everything they can into that one. Great stuff.


There was a very interesting case that happened around the area that I live back in the year 1933.

To make a long story short multiple people witnessed a craft being repaired on the ground by around one dozen occupants.

The witnesses came back the next day and brought along a camera and photographed the scene in which they found 6 indents from legs of the craft, a mark from a stairwell and a 12 foot diameter burn on the ground.

The story was submitted to major newspapers and magazines in Canada but to my knowledge it was never printed.

I have a side project where I try to locate the images. I believe if found they would be amazingly early "UFO" related material.

This case doesn't actually have physical evidence, it only has people saying they *witnessed* physical evidence.

Real evidence would be like finding some super advanced electronics in the fossil record (if aliens were here early on) or if someone can bring something back from an abduction or produce unquestionable wreckage debris.

Remember, science requires a ton of evidence to back up a theory, the nature of UFO sightings and related phenomena, and the "evidence" so far produced, are quite unscientific.

Some people have asked why science doesn't take this stuff seriously, it's because there's nothing to study aside from photos (which can be faked, show human-made craft, or show natural phenomena), videos (same caveats as photos), and stories (otherwise known as hearsay, which can't even get a conviction in court, let alone support a scientific theory).

So hearsay about physical evidence is still hearsay, it doesn't work in science and it doesn't work in court and it shouldn't be so convincing to a rational human being.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by Densha82]

I believe all three of the previously mentioned incidents were chronicled in an episode of "UFO Files" now being aired weekly on the History Channel. They provided a decent accounting of the events, if not tainted by professional actor reinactment and special effects embellishments.

Originally posted by Densha82
So hearsay about physical evidence is still hearsay, it doesn't work in science and it doesn't work in court and it shouldn't be so convincing to a rational human being.

Human beings that see UFOs on the ground, take off into the air and leave scorch marks, as well as landing traces, ARE rational.

Only an irrational person would try to deny the fact that the UFO left evidence of its presence, when its effects on the environment can be clearly measured, photgraphed and sampled.

In a similar way, many UFOs also leave scientific evidence when they are tracked by radar flying at incredible speeds along impossible velocity vectors.

Originally posted by Densha82
This case doesn't actually have physical evidence, it only has people saying they *witnessed* physical evidence.

Real evidence would be like finding some super advanced electronics in the fossil record (if aliens were here early on) or if someone can bring something back from an abduction or produce unquestionable wreckage debris.
[edit on 11-3-2007 by Densha82]

See - this is where the skeptical mind whirls around and around beyond the boundaries of science to fit their needs.
Physical Evidence: The tangible evidence of a component, including everything which can be seen, touched, smelt and heard.

If everyone followed the Scientific Method as skeptics do - there would be no progression in science... I guess that is why many scientists are not 'skeptics' but explorers - pushing the boundaries of science to new levels by opening their minds to new ideas.

Even Stanford Scientists think UFOs should be investigated (1998):
www.stanford.edu...

If everyone followed the Scientific Method as skeptics do - there would be no progression in science...

I'm sorry, but this is quite absurd. Scientists - credible ones - are not going to *not* use the SM, it's not quite science without it, and I would love for you to give some examples of scientists or scientific theories that do not or did not follow the SM.

New knowledge comes from observation, etc., and new theories are born, but the most important thing to know about the philosophy of science is that ALL scientific theories are born refuted. This means that each new theory is automatically cast into doubt and must be able to stand up to rigorous testing and evidence. If, after some time, it doesn't quite work out, theories that are wrong fade away, theories that are correct, or mostly correct, stick around and improve.

Do you really want to put UFOs and aliens up to that standard of testing with the "evidence" that exists now?

Originally posted by Densha82
I'm sorry, but this is quite absurd.

Do you really want to put UFOs and aliens up to that standard of testing with the "evidence" that exists now?

You don't have to apologise for being absurd, that's ok. We all forgive you.

It's absurd to think why scientists wouldn't want to study burn marks, ground scorch marks, etc.

They would learn a lot more about the UFOs that cause the evidence!

[edit on 12-3-2007 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by Densha82

If everyone followed the Scientific Method as skeptics do - there would be no progression in science...

I'm sorry, but this is quite absurd. Scientists - credible ones - are not going to *not* use the SM, it's not quite science without it, and I would love for you to give some examples of scientists or scientific theories that do not or did not follow the SM.

Scientists use science - skeptics us 'feelings'- just as any 'believer' of any religion or topic. What skeptics like to do is twist what science is - and what it is not. Sad really.

The scientific method can be used in determining what evidence exists and what does not. It can also be used in conjunction with the evidence left behind - I don't think you know what your talking about. The scientific method is put into effect in every instance that it can be scientifically applied to... just because you think it shouldn't - doesn't mean anything to the scientific community... just ask them

I never said that scientists would never use the scientific method - I said SKEPTICS are kind of like their own religion - they twist ideas and make their own facts - Skeptics twist the SM for their own purposes.

I can see both sides of the argument here. You can't be too strict and scientific on UFO proof because it might be something that's outside of the box of our understanding so we have to give it some leeway.

But I can kind of see where Densha82 is coming from as well. You can't put all of your faith into people claiming they have 'physical evidence' unless you've seen it as well.

If the evidence is very public and investigations are put into it then yeah, it's worth putting some faith into. But if it's just some old farmer telling a story about how he was abducted but no one else happened to be around at the time, wwweeellll....

Originally posted by malganis
But if it's just some old farmer telling a story about how he was abducted but no one else happened to be around at the time, wwweeellll....

Oh I totally agree wholeheartedly - but we are talking about when lets say a UFO supposedly lands and leaves marks/burns in the soil - or some kind of physical evidence that could be applied to scientific objectivity and study

I would be the first person to say that that farmer is out to make a buck. People claim to see UFOs all the time, sometimes it is backed up with pictures/video (which scientifically does not render proof beyond a reasonable doubt), sometimes just a story, and sometimes by physical proof such as vegetation or soil that was burned - or even manipulated in a way that is 'unexplainable' by our current scientific understanding.

These are the cases that offer proof / evidence... and sometimes there are pictures and video that correspond to the 'unexplainable' evidence.

Originally posted by kroms33
People claim to see UFOs all the time, sometimes it is backed up with pictures/video (which scientifically does not render proof beyond a reasonable doubt), sometimes just a story, and sometimes by physical proof such as vegetation or soil that was burned - or even manipulated in a way that is 'unexplainable' by our current scientific understanding.

Yeah it would be good if we could have a really good clear case of something like this happening then it was to be picked up by the media and put on TV. Then a load of people would be asking "wtf!?" instead of us few on ATS lol

It would help confirm it as 'proof' as well because the more attention there is to it, the more scientists, etc are going to analyse it. Then if the findings are put into an official report, that's when we can definitely call it proper proof.

Originally posted by kroms33
See - this is where the skeptical mind whirls around and around beyond the boundaries of science to fit their needs.
Physical Evidence: The tangible evidence of a component, including everything which can be seen, touched, smelt and heard.

See there is a difference though, they think it should be investigated as there are some unexplainable things witnessed by rational people. Thats fine and make sense. But This is NOT physical evidence Here would be Phy Evd. The people took samples of the soil and dirt to be examined, They have doumented and photographed the circle. See this is what those stanford scientists would need before they said yes aliens are here. They might be open to the fact, as I think we all are. But with out real evidence we cant. I personaly like the Shag Harbor story as far as eye witness accounts go, but until we have physical evidence..

Like in Court No Murder Weapon, No Body, Not Guilty. And putting down SMART people who tell you what is MOST likely the truth, makes it so people do not take any UFO people serious. As in alot of these thread, if every bag in the wind and light in the sky is a UFO and anyone telling them different is "Denying Ignorance" BTW if you say that to someone you should be banned lol We all want this to be true.. But REAL we all believe something is going on, but with out the skeptics to give yo the ying to your yang, we will never EVER get anywhere.....

My 2 cents

I know the skeptics here at ATS are objective. They read, take notes, study the information, and come to conclusions.

But out of ATS. They think that we are NUTS, FREAKS, MORRONS, STUPID, AND NOT WORTHY.

I say this because I tried talking some UFO topic at the Myspace forum the other day, and those guys did not even want to hear it. Some UFO believers have good arguments. They brought up good points, and those despicable scientists would just trash them and called them stupid for believing in UFOs. They even trash ATS. Calling everyone that visits here, stupid, nuts, and that we are an alternative to the Cartoon Network.

If you don't believe me, then take a look at the space forum.

Myspace Science and space forum


Animals I tell you. But then again, maybe not all skeptics are like this. Just that dirty bunch in the Myspace forums.

What do skeptics say about cases with physical evidence?

Show me just *one* piece of physical evidence, and I'll reconsider. One feather turns into five chickens, so witness accounts really doesnt do much for me. Me and my family can make up a cool story too.

Something to consider, before the official disclosure of the Stealth mode aircraft; Many reports of a triangular craft were obscured by gov't officials as a hoax by locals to sell goods.

It's now known as the f-117 fighter, believed to actually exist. Whereas, before it was said to be a mass-hysteria phenomenon obtained by those who would rather believe in things which couldn't possibly exist.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

What do skeptics say about cases with physical evidence?

Show me just *one* piece of physical evidence, and I'll reconsider. One feather turns into five chickens, so witness accounts really doesnt do much for me. Me and my family can make up a cool story too.

Can you fake burn rings on the ground that have unusual radiation properties?

You refuse to accept that there has been verifiable physical evidence of where UFOs have come into contact with the ground.