UFOs: What is Evidence?

The Problems

Any photograph, video, incident of UFOs, is going to be bombarded with alternative views, and accusations of being fraudulent. Since if they are not the norm, we have no normal (define normal!) frame of reference (which helps us makes sense of the world), thus all sorts of explanations have to be sort out. Some may even contradict the evidence, even if we see it ourselves!

Also there is a problem, even bigger than the ones above. Personalities have a major impact on seeking the truth behind any photo taken, incident filmed, or an event witnessed. Some have very pro views others are very anti views, towards the UFO, very rarely do we get a balanced view.

If your neighbour said to you he/she saw someone entering into your yard with a gun, would you take it at face value or ignore it and accuse them of being a liar? Would it depend on your experience on how you react to this information? There would be a numerous factors involved would they not? If a person took a picture of the guy entering your yard with the gun visible, would you accuse the witness of faking the picture? This is a more down to earth view of how we interpret data and information we obtain. Is this the problem, the nature of our society?

I am a alien junkie for a multitude of reasons, and proof is a moving target for the masses, but I want a guided tour of the milky way before I give a rat's rear of someone else's opinion. Some would not buy it if the alien bitchslapped them in front of live CNN cameras with their mom looking on...

reply to post by Frankinpillow

The problem with 99% of UFO photo "evidence" is that they are quickly debunked because they are labeled 'farmer in the field' photos! The debunkers then concentrate their attacks on the person who has taken the picture, thus it is no longer considered "evidence"!

I was personally able to skip this step with the deniers because all my evidence was from NASA's own cameras, in the vacuum of space...downloaded live during years of space shuttle missions. I put them all together & released them as "the Secret NASA Transmissions: the smoking gun".

I wanted them to be seen as a body of evidence & not just a single event...such as my "tether Incident". Now I have created a you tube channel..(user Martyn Stubbs), which has over 200 bits of Evidence! The skeptics are still debating the NASA material on this very site every day!

So that is my way of getting the 'evidence' football moved a little. My next move is to add a new batch of NASA UFOs to my channel & participate in a new 2014 documentary from TBLN FILMS called "UFOs from Outer Space" . This is my way to increase this "body of Evidence".

But there will never be a single event that cracks open this greatest mystery in the world.

reply to post by Frankinpillow


You really cant compare possible everyday events that could happen with a ufo claim, I don't live in the USA but there is a really good chance of someone walking into your property with a gun than here in the UK.

Why do so many ufo sites post digital images with NO exif data, this information can help prove or disprove claims about what was photographed it gives information about focal length aperture shutter speed all which can help so why remove it!

reply to post by buzzEmiller


I wonder if some of these objects in space caught on camera, are not apart of some clandestine space mission, some advanced devices used by the military, after all are all of space launches that occur under the spot light of the media? Is there not alternative methods of launching objects into orbit rather than ground based rockets, which have been on going since the 1950s? What makes us think they employ the same method of deployment 60 years later?

reply to post by buzzEmiller


Why don't you post what think is the best example you have from your video collection.

here are just a few things I consider to be ufo evidence: in addition to pictures or videos of ufo: landing indentations on the ground or grass, burning or some kind of possible chemical changes/reactions to the soil or grass. Also higher than normal radiation readings in areas of ufo if close to vegetation, trees, grasses or soils, and radiation burnings to people who have had close contact. ( There have been many over the years. The Cash/Landrum encounter in Texas many years ago, comes to mind as one example, and also radar confirmation of sightings, though it seems they are not always picked up on radar. But just a few examples IMO.

reply to post by Frankinpillow

UFOs: What is Evidence?

Evidence of UFOs is easy to find as UFO is such a broad term , anything in the sky (or space) that you can't identify is by definition a UFO,the prosaic made interesting by lack of information.
What I want to see is something that can be shown to be not of this Earth , be it an object , craft or body that shows that Extraterrestrial visitors have been or are visiting this planet , I'm bored with UFOs and want banged to rights Aliens nothing else will do any more

reply to post by Frankinpillow

If your neighbour said to you he/she saw someone entering into your yard with a gun, would you take it at face value or ignore it and accuse them of being a liar? Would it depend on your experience on how you react to this information? There would be a numerous factors involved would they not? If a person took a picture of the guy entering your yard with the gun visible, would you accuse the witness of faking the picture? This is a more down to earth view of how we interpret data and information we obtain. Is this the problem, the nature of our society

Well, people do actually enter into people's yards with guns. Alien beings are not known to exist. We know what people look like and We know what guns look like. We don't know what aliens look like and we don't know what their space vehicles look like. Once we can determine that aliens actually exist and actually fly around in space ships, then we can gauge the likelihood of aliens in any given encounter. We have zero.

I was also thinking about posting a topic on this question.

My issue is what do any person regard as evidence. I see a lot of people reading books on authors who are trustworthy or reliable. But I fail to see how they became so. Whats makes an author, alien investigator and authority, and one to be believed? Could these people simply be spreading complete BS simply to make themselves seem important to the UFO community? could it be the most simple form of disinformation, and how can you call one a disinformation writer and one reliable.

My point here is really at evidence people take as solid from written reports, authors etc...surly this is the worst kind of evidence?

If you gathered all of the evidence on UFO sightings you could make a stack a mile high.

Now, sort that 'evidence' into three groups - hoax/misidentification, unknown, or alien.

What you'd get is a massive pile of hoaxes/misidentifications, a few genuinely unknowns, and zero aliens. Therefore, your average UFO buff concludes that the overwhelming evidence proves that the ET hypothesis is the only explanation.

And that's the problem. What I consider to be evidence is different to that of ufologists - I seemingly have higher standards. For that, people like me get called sceptics, shills or disinfo agents - which I take as a complement, because it's better than being called gullible.

In a post above this, someone mentioned the STS tether 'incident' as evidence. And it is evidence. Of people not having a clue as to what they're talking about. Nothing more. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of, or experience with, optics will dismiss that as perfectly explainable. And yet it's still put forward as 'evidence'.

If ufology wants to continue, it has to be prepared to dig itself out of the pile of horse crap that it's many zealots have buried it under.

If I sound overly critical, then it's deserved. That's because there are some really interesting cases out there that really do defy explanation (and I'm not talking about Rendlesham, Phoenix, JAL 1628, or the most tedious of them all, Roswell). But some ufologists seem to think that they can add credence to the subject by making up any ol' nonsense to 'pad it out a bit'. So, instead of calling people like me disinfo agents, ufologists (at least the zealots) should accept that they themselves have spread the subject so thin it becomes untenable to research it seriously - indeed they have become the very agents of disinformation that they get so upset about. Irony indeed!

wmd_2008
reply to post by buzzEmiller

 

Why don't you post what think is the best example you have from your video collection.

So very cruel! I like it.

reply to post by wmd_2008


The problem with "Image data" is that it can be manufactured, quite easily.

The problem with the "exif" data is that it is only a collection of bytes at the end of a file and all bytes in any file can be manipulated at will.

tanka418
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The problem with "Image data" is that it can be manufactured, quite easily.

The problem with the "exif" data is that it is only a collection of bytes at the end of a file and all bytes in any file can be manipulated at will.

True but why do sites that push the existence of ufo's as possible et's NEVER have exif data attached?

If someone posts a picture giving info on time date camera model etc etc and it matches the exif data at least that is a starting point.

wmd_2008

tanka418
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The problem with "Image data" is that it can be manufactured, quite easily.

The problem with the "exif" data is that it is only a collection of bytes at the end of a file and all bytes in any file can be manipulated at will.

True but why do sites that push the existence of ufo's as possible et's NEVER have exif data attached?

If someone posts a picture giving info on time date camera model etc etc and it matches the exif data at least that is a starting point.

Would you like me to manufacture an image, complete with exif data that says it was taken with my old Fugi? Seriously...it is very easy. Point is...we can make any image be what ever we want it to be...All an image is, is digital data

Actually...its not all that easy...I'd have to write some software to do it...prolly take a couple of days.

reply to post by Frankinpillow


Would you consider this vid as a possible example of evidence.

www.liveleak.com...

I know there is a helicopter carrying it but i can't help but wonder what it really is.

gortex
I'm bored with UFOs and want banged to rights Aliens nothing else will do any more