My opinion on UFOs as a research scientist: some are extraterrestrial

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Is there any need for them to? If they're not attacking and can completely out maneuver us there seems little point. Which also leads me to believe its the perfect cover for any new toys governments of the world may want to test out.

No need for a cloaking device, people will just assume its a flying saucer.

It might just be a side effect if not purposeful.

If there is no desire on their part and no suppression then all non radar confirmed sighting would have to be considered non ET and just illusion or natural phenomenon.

reply to post by Bilk22


Thanks for reading. I guess I would say that considering the phenomenon as a whole, I have read enough solid cases to convince me.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


Scientist to Scientist . . . I have a question . . .

Why is it that the skeptics lean sooooooooo far over backwards avoiding a TYPE I ERROR

that they make virtually CERTAIN that they will suffer a TYPE II ERROR

about the phenomena

and yet, I have not found ONE skeptic, that I can recall, who will even disucss that issue intelligently.

Sheesh!. Yet they want to be thought of as erudite, lotical, super rationalists etc.

Sigh.

reply to post by roadgravel


I agree. I would be surprised if they didn't have the ability to evade radar detection. In fact, lots of cases had visual but were not detected on radar whatsoever. This tells me that some, but not all craft they are capable of radar evasion, or they just don't care.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Vandelay Industries

 

Scientist to Scientist . . . I have a question . . .

Why is it that the skeptics lean sooooooooo far over backwards avoiding a TYPE I ERROR

that they make virtually CERTAIN that they will suffer a TYPE II ERROR

about the phenomena

and yet, I have not found ONE skeptic, that I can recall, who will even disucss that issue intelligently.

Sheesh!. Yet they want to be thought of as erudite, lotical, super rationalists etc.

Sigh.

This sounds a lot like herpies, which I avoid at all costs

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries
reply to post by roadgravel

 

I agree. I would be surprised if they didn't have the ability to evade radar detection. In fact, lots of cases had visual but were not detected on radar whatsoever. This tells me that some, but not all craft they are capable of radar evasion, or they just don't care.

]

Or . . . they are manipulating when, in what contexts, to what degree they are detectable by radar.

There's a substantial amount of evidence, BTW, that the craft that crashed near Aztec was brought down by unexpected and way more powerful than average, radar stations at that time--probably related to Los Alamos.

They reportedly learned to adjust things so that our radar fields were no longer a problem.

reply to post by IMSAM


It's funny, I had been wanting to write this opinion for a while now. When I came across that blog, I decided to comment. Before you know it, I realized I had just written the bulk of my opinion. So yes, of course I put that here. Anything inherently wrong with that? It's not like I'm going around putting this everywhere. I just wanted to share with some of my fellow ATS folks.

reply to post by jdub297


Wow. I guess this must be my welcome to ATS! It's nice to get feedback from folks like you that know their stuff. I had not planned on presenting specific cases here. I referred to a few books that contain quite a few unknown cases. My intention is to let people know that there are scientists who do consider the topic worthy of study. I certainly don't know everything about the phenomenon. Perhaps in another few years I will come to different conclusions.

'Tis a pity that you've never had a CE III experience. That would have saved you a lot of reading. I offer that your "scientific researched" views (beliefs) are as about as important as my views (beliefs) about my abduction experience. Both are mere noise in the medium as the myth edges as supporting data from several areas build the framework toward a general acceptance beyond what was once thought impossible.

I will only take one aspect of your thread to task and from these words of yours. You say:

."I would recommend reading through one of the UFO and the National Security State books by Dolan, The UFO Evidence (Richard Hall), the Condon Report, and the UFO Enigma (Sturrock)—as a start. "

In my personal view, Dolan is attempting an extremely clever revision of the UFO record. He supplies details on some of the warts--who feeds him this unknown stuff?--and he ignores other aspects. Richard Hall and officially MUFON had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting abduction cases. I know that as a fact from personal experience. MUFON has basically done the collection work of Blue Book and has never shown much interest in triangle cases--why would that be?. (Again, personal experience.) As for the so-called Condon report, absolutely everybody knows that it was a whitewash because that was revealed early on by the principals.

Debunking and denial at half speed is still debunking and denial. Sagan used that tactic. His first popular work stated that he believed that Earth has been visited during the early civilizations, as you have opinioned to us, yet, you like he, deny what is in the skies today.

reply to post by Aliensun


I much agree with your assessment of MUFON et al.

Such things need to be said from time to time.

MUFON like many individuals and orgs . . . may well be . . . playing their role for the puppet masters.

My view on aliens is ultimately it is more logical that they would exist than they wouldn't. There are trillions+ stars out there, many which would have planets similar to ours that could support a carbon based life (not saying that other forms of life couldn't exist).

Also I think it is highly likely that there are civilizations out there far more advanced than ours, simply cos they would have evolved a high level of intelligence sooner than we have.

I do believe though that any civilization capable of crossing millions of light years in order to travel to Earth would not imho need anything we have to offer. I cannot imagine any civilization that would completely master the physics and engineering technology necessary to get here but somehow completely leave the study of genetics and biology by the wayside making it necessary to probe the rectums of poor unsuspecting humans.

I would also hazard a guess that any alien visitors would essentially be benign and probably live in a society that would seem almost utopian to us. Why? Because otherwise they would have destroyed themselves with their own technology (kinda like what we humans are doing to ourselves now) long before they ever had the capability to cross immense distances of spacetime to reach us.

Lastly I have serious doubts about most (not all) ufo sightings because I would also assume that if they can reach us, they would also have the means to mask themselves and are probably quite unlikely to be caught on shaky smartphone footage by a couple of drunken college grads.

As for the whole 'Ancient Alien'/aliens are gods theory, I actualy think that it is probably quite likely. If I were an advanced extra terrestial being I would definitely make my physical appearence when the apex beings of a particular planet still existed at a fairly primitive animalistic level, definitely not when their society resembles anything as screwed up as ours is now...[

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries
reply to post by roadgravel

 

I agree. I would be surprised if they didn't have the ability to evade radar detection. In fact, lots of cases had visual but were not detected on radar whatsoever. This tells me that some, but not all craft they are capable of radar evasion, or they just don't care.

They? OMFG you've turned? Like you've got a clue???

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries
As a PhD research scientist who has extensively investigated the UFO phenomenon for the past 4 years,

As someone with an MSEE (sience, not just an 'arts' degree) and 25 years of work with multiple patents.. you're phenoomenon = fantasy at bests unless you've got proof. You've got opinion? Welcome to humanity. Oh something happened in your dream? Well I got that in 1994. Got better Info than that? Well that's why I watch ATS. Got perspectives? Those are interesting too. But if all you got is ooooooo then IMHO noooo.

Share your heart/experiences or... tist or gtfo... oh did I say that wrong... sorry I'm just trying to annoy you enough to get you into speaking the truth instead of inuendo. No courage for that? Well then its more like a typical shill.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


I'll reiterate/summarize what a few other posts said, as they mirror my responses to the OP, and then I'll add one additional semantic quibble.

You haven't said anything that hasn't been said before, nor have you bothered to provide some of the cases that you classify as compelling. Why not? And please do, particularly if they aren't discussed here at ATS and you haven't found anything about them on the web either. Moreover, where did you then gather your information from?

On the face of it, radar sightings in conjunction with visual sightings seem to make for the better cases of possible ET UFO, BUT might not an advanced race have developed some sophisticated stealth technology to make radar observation difficult, if not impossible? This is just speculation, of course, but making radar contacts a necessary criterion for a legitimate ET UFO sighting may be throwing out some of the ET babies with the bathwater. And even some of the radar sighting cases may involve pedestrian explanations of radar artifacts. But I acknowledge that cases involving multiple visual and radar sightings, as well as inexplicable light performance of objects are generally the best candidates for legit ET UFO sightings.

I've done a cursory reading of Dolan and haven't been impressed -- hence haven't bothered to pursue his writings further. Agree with the poster who said he just had some minor details to already addressed cases, but does not further the knowledge base much. One of his big tibits of info was some dinner party conversation between Lord Montbatten and some society woman, in which he intimated that there were ET UFOs. Not very compelling. Talk about hearsay evidence. And citing the Condon report as a source of good cases suggests you haven't done your research, Dr. Phud. For the record, I'm one too (research scientist by trade), so there -- for whatever that's worth.

I also wonder how you are so confident that the government has no certain knowledge of ET UFOs or even contact and/or possession of ET craft. FTR, I'm a Roswell agnostic (and don't think it will ever be possible to determine that one, one way or the other), but I would not be surprised if the US and possibly other governments know more and perhaps possess more than they are willing to say. How did you determine this is not the case? Seems like pure speculation on your part.

Your discussion of true believers is on the mark, but I have a problem with your using the term skeptic for those who question the ET UFO hypothesis. You admit that as a scientist, you, too, are a skeptic. I consider myself a ET UFO skeptic, in that I need compelling evidence to decide that a given case is likely of ET origin. That said, there are a few of the better known cases that do appear to be the real deal. But I am skeptical of most UFO claims, particularly after seeing what is presented as "evidence" of them. What you and the ATS UFO true believers call skeptics are what I refer to as deniers.

Now you may say I am quibbling with nomenclature, but it is far more than that. Reasonable folk who take a skeptical view of most (but not all) ET UFO "documentation" presented here at ATS and elsewhere are roundly criticized by the true believer party, and even the ATS establishment (moderators and such) seems to come down more harshly on UFO skeptics than on uncivil UFO true believers. Someone raise very reasonable suspicions regarding the facts of a case, and a large portion of the ATS UFO community starts piling on ad hominem attacks and criticisms -- with the mind set that, of course most of these are actual ET UFO sightings, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a government disinformation agent or incredibly pig-headed.

Hence I make the modest proposal that we all differentiate between UFO skeptics and deniers.

And I'll reiterate: please furnish us with some of the cases you deem to be legitimate ET UFO sightings.

Nope, nothing new and nothing anyone with a lot of time on their hands couldn't have composed as eloquently. No hard evidence and as for only accepting witness statements from "reliable sources", well, I beg to differ that they all ARE! Many non-scientific people have realistic representations of what they see and are able to recount it without too much mythology. It's a bit like saying all blind people can't see; in fact 97.3% can!

To defend the Razor, William de Ockham is attributed with:

"plurality should not be posited without necessity"

Isaac Newton was reportedly a great admirer of Ockham and extends the Razor thus:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances"

But I think Ptolemy phrased the maxim much more effectively nearly two thousand years ago:

"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible"

Not to split hairs, but Ptolemy focusses not on the simplest explanation but instead the simplest hypothesis

I believe nowadays physicists derive a more imperative rendition:

"the correct solution is that which requires the fewest independent postulates"

Personally I think of this in terms of probability; each such independent postulate can be attributed with a probability

Multiply up the probabilities for competing theories and then test those theories in sequence, in descending order of probability, to reach the truth most efficiently

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


What evidence do you have to exclude the possibility that the entities are extradimensional? What scintific method assures you that what you call extraterrestrial are not a spirit entity attempting to deceive mankind?

I've been researching the UFO phenomenon for most of my adult life. I have no PhD or any other piece of paper to my name just years of no social life and lots of reading and watching documentaries and UFO videos.

I will say that my opinion on the entire subject has changed a lot since i first started. I do believe that the majority of what people see are military craft being tested. I know many will say "but why would they test in public," and I say "why not" nobody will believe it anyway and it will be dismissed as a weather balloon, swamp gas, lanterns and so on. I do think there are a small amount of UFOs that are extra terrestrial or inter dimensional, that term or theory is something that is new to me over the last couple years esp since joining ATS.

I do feel that beings may have visited Earth in the past but whether they were from another planet or dimension is something i can't conclude on 100% just yet.

If you look at the pics of UFOs since the 60s or before they tend to "fit" with the time period, now why would advanced beings make their craft to look like it came from each time period it was seen in? I dont think they would which is why I believe they are military craft.

Nice post!

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


Have you looked into Dr. Harley Rutledge's work? He did extensive studies on just the ufos themselves, he died believing that indeed they are real and presented the evidence at a seminar. He was NOT laughed at by the other scientists.

I must add that the psychedelic experience and the notion of UFO's or extraterrestrials are inextricably linked.
Within the psyche lies the alien, we are it, but we cannot recognize.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


Can you give an example of the kind of incident which has led you to this conclusion?