What is your "red line" that would make you unambiguously and sincerely say with full belief, "Aliens are real and are or have been on Earth"?

[Z.W. Wolf]

The existence of life somewhere else in the universe and the proof of the ufo phenomenon are not necessarily connected in any way, apart from in our minds.

I've been making that argument for decades. I'll use my original analogy, which has since been made obsolete by the Grim Reaper... and a relative shift in the fame of Julia Roberts. But you get the idea.

A guy tells me that he saw Sean Connery and Julia Roberts in the K-Mart in Bakersfield. They talked with him. Does he have any proof? Well, he had a signed Polaroid with him between Sean and Julia, but he lost it. Did anyone else report seeing them there? No.

Guy: Hey what's the matter? Don't you believe Sean Connery and Julia Roberts exist? Huh? Do you think I'm lying. Huh? Do 'ya?


Another guy tells me he saw Sean Connery and Julia Roberts 200 hundred yards away on a sidewalk in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma. He has a very grainy photo. Did any one else see them? Yeah. His six year old daughter. Did anyone else see them, though? No other reports.

Guy: Hey what's the matter? Don't you believe Sean Connery and Julia Roberts exist? Huh?


Still another guy tells me that Sean Connery and Julia Roberts visit his house on a regular basis. They come in through the locked front door, sing a bar of Alice's Restaurant, and walk out.

Guy: Hey what's the matter? Don't you believe Sean Connery and Julia Roberts exist? Huh? Isn't it possible that Julia Roberts learned how to pick locks? Huh? Huh? Huh?

 

[DavidB66]

I would find the 'thousands of credible witnesses over many decades' argument persuasive, at least to dispose me favourably towards accepting that aliens have visited earth, except that the same argument would apply to ghosts, sympathetic magic, witches, precognition, and a bunch of other stuff that most 'rational' people now reject. Maybe we are wrong to do so, but I don't want to throw away the blessings of the Enlightenment without very strong reasons.

 

[Mendel]

I've been making that argument for decades. I'll use my original analogy, which has since been made obsolete by the Grim Reaper... and a relative shift in the fame of Julia Roberts. But you get the idea.

A guy tells me that he saw Sean Connery and Julia Roberts in the K-Mart in Bakersfield. They talked with him. Does he have any proof? Well, he had a signed Polaroid with him between Sean and Julia, but he lost it. Did anyone else report seeing them there? No.

Guy: Hey what's the matter? Don't you believe Sean Connery and Julia Roberts exist? Huh? Do you think I'm lying. Huh? Do 'ya?

[snip]

Well, these reports can only be true as told as long as Sean and Julia exist. That is the connection.

If A=Aliens exist, and B=Flying Saucers exist, then:
• (B implies A) is true
• (not A implies not B) is true
• (not B implies not A) is false
• (A implies B) is false

Unfortunately, it's a really common fallacy by people untrained in logic to think that (A implies B) and (B implies A) are equivalent.

If they see "Flying Saucers prove aliens exist", they think "aliens exist, so there must be Flying Saucers". But the latter is obviously false, because we are aliens to some other intergalactic species, and we haven't sent any flying saucers to them.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The next part of my spiel:
Those stories from those guys aren't evidence that they saw Sean Connery and Julia Roberts. Neither is their assertion that those people exist. The stories are weird, unlikely and ambiguous. People make things up and see things all the time.

What if Aliens exist and haven't visited? What if they are here and don't use flying saucers? What if they're here and use flying saucers but no one has ever seen one? Aliens and UFO lore are separate questions.

Yeah, I believe Sean Connery exists because I have all kinds of evidence. The Man Who Would Be King is one of my favorite movies. I've seen him on daytime TV interviews. And so on. I consider that evidence. Denying that this kind of thing is evidence is getting into weird stuff like solipsism or Truman Show.

The basic disagreement is over the definition of evidence. Some people accept UFO lore as evidence. "How much evidence do you need"?

"I haven't seen any evidence at all," is my response. "Show me some."

So my Red LIne is that. Show me some evidence. It can take many forms.

 

[DavidB66]

I may have said this before, either here or somewhere else, but one thing (not necessarily the only thing) that would convince me that aliens had visited us would be finding a message, in some human language, in a prominent public place, saying

Dear earthlings, here is a simple proof that the Riemann Hypothesis is true [or false, if appropriate]. Yours sincerely, Theta from Zarg.

followed by a proof that satisfies mathematicians. Any other major unsolved problem in math or science would have much the same value.

[Edit: just occurred to me that Zeta from Tharg might be better. (Little math joke.)]

 

[NoParty]

0: "I'm Phillip Klass, and you're an idiot."

• 1-25: we're alone in all the totality of space/time. There's just us.
• 25-50: obviously we're not alone today or previously, or in the future, but they sure ain't here.
• 51-75: obviously we're not alone, and there sure is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence of Earth and human alien contact... I want to believe in it.
• 76-99: I think they're probably here and at least some of these persistent reports/leaks are 100% true, such as a Grusch or Ariel.
• 100: "By the end of 2027, you'll be seeing things like I do. It's all true. All of it."

I find the scale a bit clunky...as well as slightly off.

For my money, the odds that some intelligent life is out there in the massive universe, is high, if tough to calculate.

As to the very different proposition of Earth being visited by extraterrestrials, I'm reminded of something I heard as a teen:

"If absolutely no god exists or ever had...what would life on Earth look like?"

Well, if Earth had never been visited by aliens in space ships, what would things look like?

Surely the "evidence" of visitation would be total crap:
Anecdotes, tall tales & yarns that don't hold up to scrutiny;
photographic evidence that is laughably awful & unconvincing to any intelligent, objective person, etc.

In other words: Pretty much what we've got.

As I've said before, it's the weak "evidence" offered by the pro-UFO crowd, that I find to be the most compelling
argument that we have NOT been visited...yet. If this is the best we've got, there probably haven't been any visits.

p.s.: I don't think my "red line" would be as high as some here, though it absolutely could never be met with
someone's unsubstantiated claim:
I'm not taking Aristotle's, Stephen Hawking's, Walter Cronkite's or Manahel Thabet's word for it or anything else.
But I think that seeing something myself, or quality still photos or video could convince me.

 

[JMartJr]

I'd asked for original prints of the Lonnie Zamora/Socorro UFO site, you see.

I have a very firm recollection of somebody having made map/ground-plan of the "landing leg marks" from that case, and possibly pictures of the marks on the ground, i n a book or magazine on UFO stuff while I was in High Skule many a long year ago. Can no longer find them anywhere -- if anybody has a thought on where I could look, I'd be interested and grateful. Can drop it in a message if you're not wanting to clutter the thread...

Edit: Decided not to edit after all.

 

[Gary C]

...
I'm not taking Aristotle's, Stephen Hawking's, Walter Cronkite's or Manahel Thabet's word for it or anything else.
But I think that seeing something myself, or quality still photos or video could convince me.

Unfortunately the power of a computer graphics chip now means that any photo can be faked with only a little time and skill and less of those every year. A single unsupported photo regardless of quality can no longer suffice. You need the sort of evidence that proponents never have in order to tie it to a physical event. Independently verifiable evidence is what we should be asking for.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I have a very firm recollection of somebody having made map/ground-plan of the "landing leg marks" from that case, and possibly pictures of the marks on the ground, i n a book or magazine on UFO stuff while I was in High Skule many a long year ago. Can no longer find them anywhere -- if anybody has a thought on where I could look, I'd be interested and grateful. Can drop it in a message if you're not wanting to clutter the thread...

Edit: Decided not to edit after all.

Soccoro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry

https://www.amazon.com/Socorro-Saucer-Pentagon-Pantry-Stanford/dp/0917092007

I have a copy. It was a few bucks when I bought it.




I cleaned it up and added the compass points.




There's a Phil Klass book with a chapter about Socorro with photos he took himself plus others. I think this one is from that book. The distances between the pads are labeled incorrectly, btw.



The scans of the photos from the book came out crappy, which is why I was interested in the originals used for the plates in the book, which Klass said he still probably had.

I've been there. That's my '91 Lexus parked in the same place Zamora's '63 Valiant was parked the day they took Hynek out to look at the site.

 

[Mendel]

But I think that seeing something myself, or quality still photos or video could convince me.

How about these? (Click through to the thread.)

 

[Ann K]

I have a very firm recollection of somebody having made map/ground-plan of the "landing leg marks" from that case, and possibly pictures of the marks on the ground, i n a book or magazine on UFO stuff while I was in High Skule many a long year ago. Can no longer find them anywhere -- if anybody has a thought on where I could look, I'd be interested and grateful. Can drop it in a message if you're not wanting to clutter the thread...

Edit: Decided not to edit after all.

Found this photo, but the quality is poor. I can only see one distinct white area.

 

[Eburacum]

If they see "Flying Saucers prove aliens exist", they think "aliens exist, so there must be Flying Saucers".

Indeed. And in modern UFO culture, 'flying saucers' no longer imply 'aliens', since the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis has been joined by the Extradimensional Hypothesis' and the 'Future Humans Hypothesis'. Once Jacques Vallée noticed that there were aspects to the UFO phenomenon that were inexplicable using the ETH, he started developing alternatives that were even stranger and even less disprovable.

And he is far from alone. The Extradimensional Hypothesis seems to be favoured by a large fraction of the interested parties nowadays, despite being practically impossible to prove (or otherwise).

 

[Mendel]

And in modern UFO culture, 'flying saucers' no longer imply 'aliens', since the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis has been joined by the Extradimensional Hypothesis' and the 'Future Humans Hypothesis'.

"Aliens" is everyone not from here or not from now, so that includes dimension and time travellers.
ETs, now, they can't be from here.

 

[Slow Joe]

But I think that seeing something myself, or quality still photos or video could convince me.

I don’t think there is any type of visual evidence that would convince me short of landing in the Whitehouse’s garden.

I have seen things that were not there because of a high stress environment and low calorie intake. I know better than to trust my eyes. The human brain makes pattern associations with everything, and if you think aliens on Earth are a possibility, you will see aliens. The same for angels, demons, bigfoot, or anything else people believe in.

And then, there is photographic evidence that can be faked, and will be easier to fake in the future as technology advances. I don’t think any video or photo will be enough evidence. It is only a matter of time until someone comes up with a fake UFO video without any mistakes that we can point to by analyzing the video. Just because it matches with our current understanding of physics and looks real from the technical standpoint doesn’t make the video real.

It seems to me the UFO phenomena is here to stay, as credulous people will continue to believe without evidence.

 

[Hevach]

The rapid improvement in AI generation makes me suspicious of image proof of Wal Marts existing. The best models have solved the "mutant hands" problem most had a few years ago, and I've even seen examples of images generated of a store shelf that are consistently planogrammed and priced and the giveaway is one tiny box tucked down in the corner containing a USB cable (that legibly says it's a USB cable!) that's showing too many sides or impossible angles like it's out of an MC Escher painting.

When the Zebulons open an embassy in Paris I'll admit some cautious optimism.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

I don’t think any video or photo will be enough evidence.

To me, that seems too far. That's like the Moon Hoax guys that won't take any photograph at face value.

Suppose next week, there emerged two videos from a pair of F-22s (one video from each) engaging a vehicle that is:

1. Unambiguously a vehicle. None of this fuzzy tic tac or black blob business. A detailed, clear image of a 1950s hubcap flying saucer.
2. Reacting to the motions of the F-22s. Not apparent motions, but actively evading both aircraft and reacting to radar locks.
3. In such a position that the tracking data from the F-22s aligns. Both aircraft are clearly tracking the same object and their sensors are cross-reference-able with each other (extrapolations of the position of the vehicle relative to each F-22 put it in exactly the same spot, meaning that it is likely the same object).
4. The reactions of both F-22s are consistent with engaging an object that is clearly in front of both pilots and that they are reacting to a controlled vehicle.

That's too soon for "fakery" to have advanced that far. That's a lot of work for two fake videos and a lot of opportunities to make mistakes. Something like that seems too stable a piece of evidence to dismiss out of hand.

 

[Mendel]

Suppose next week, there emerged two videos from a pair of F-22s (one video from each) engaging a vehicle that is:

1. Unambiguously a vehicle. None of this fuzzy tic tac or black blob business. A detailed, clear image of a 1950s hubcap flying saucer.

I'll take that with clear provenance, i.e. official validation.

Photographic or video evidence in court requires provenance. It requires a witness on the stand to testify what took the pictures, and where and when.

If there's no credible provenance, I don't care how good the evidence seems to be.

 

[Slow Joe]

To me, that seems too far. That's like the Moon Hoax guys that won't take any photograph at face value.

Suppose next week, there emerged two videos from a pair of F-22s (one video from each) engaging a vehicle that is:

1. Unambiguously a vehicle. None of this fuzzy tic tac or black blob business. A detailed, clear image of a 1950s hubcap flying saucer

I think your scenario can be faked with current technology. If I see something like what you propose, it is still not evidence of extraterrestrial life, as it could be a human-made drone or other classified technology.

There is just too much money to be made exploiting the UFO phenomena. Too many people just want to believe there is something bigger and more meaningful than our current understanding of reality regardless of evidence. I suspect everything of being fake until proven otherwise.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

I'm honestly curious how some of you here would react to the oft-cited "what if" scenario of a mass sighting in clear day over a major city:

• Middle of a clear blue day in New York City.
• One or more clear, low-altitude UFOs, silent, made of metal, whatever shape, rapidly fly to Manhattan skyline.
• They "fly around" the city for a solid hour and clearly seem to react to human actions, like evading police, military or news helicopters.
• They "hover" immobile alongside the Statue of Liberty for a while.
• They fly away at absurd speeds, vanishing.
• All "five observables" met.
• The Federal government immediately declares "not aliens".
• Thousands of cell phone videos/photos, CCTV, police body cams, live TV (dozens?) feeds capture the event.

How do you handle this, as skeptics?

 

[JMartJr]

I'd find that persuasive that something I don't understand has occurred. I'd be curious to learn more, particularly to learn if anybody else claims to understand what happened, and to hear them make their case. The government immediately saying "not aliens" would be background noise, unless they explained how they knew that. IF they knew that, the implication is that they should know what it was other than aliens, so I'd be curious to hear what they claim it in fact was.

To me, "it was aliens" would be more likely than several options ("it was interdimensional beings from the multiverse") but less likely than others ("it was human tech, there have been advances we haven't been told about.") Depending in the specifics, "somebody is hoaxing us" might remain an option.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm honestly curious how some of you here would react to the oft-cited "what if" scenario of a mass sighting in clear day over a major city:

• Middle of a clear blue day in New York City.
• One or more clear, low-altitude UFOs, silent, made of metal, whatever shape, rapidly fly to Manhattan skyline.
• They "fly around" the city for a solid hour and clearly seem to react to human actions, like evading police, military or news helicopters.
• They "hover" immobile alongside the Statue of Liberty for a while.
• They fly away at absurd speeds, vanishing.
• All "five observables" met.
• The Federal government immediately declares "not aliens".
• Thousands of cell phone videos/photos, CCTV, police body cams, live TV (dozens?) feeds capture the event.

How do you handle this, as skeptics?

I don't. It's a purely hypothetical scenario. As such, it can be constructed in any way one wants to illicit a predetermined response.

IF I want skeptics to agree that there are aliens visiting earth, I can keep constructing hypothetical scenarios until I arrive at one that gets a skeptic to say, "Well yeah, in that case I'd agree we are being visited by aliens." But hypotheticals are not reality. I could just as easily construct a hypothetical scenario that would illicit, "Well yeah, in that case I'd agree the Easter Bunny hides eggs every springtime."

 

[Mendel]

The Federal government immediately declares "not aliens".

I see no reason for that to happen unless they know what it is, provided this is official (POTUS, White House or DoD spokesperson).
If it is "an unnamed XYZ official", that's not enough.

They fly away at absurd speeds, vanishing.

The established parlance is "ludicrous speed".

Spoiler: source

Spaceballs

 

[Ann K]

They fly away at absurd speeds, vanishing.

You had me up until then, if by "absurd speeds" you mean "outside of the known parameters of the laws of physics". If you just mean "extra fast", we know new advances might have been made in aircraft. But no amount of hand waving can make a physical object do something like, for example, travel through our atmosphere at speeds far in excess of known speeds and not leave a sonic boom or a heat signature.

As for that ridiculous comment (paraphrasing) "the feds deny it so it must be true", that's just your inner paranoia showing. Ignore it.

 

[John J.]

1. Unambiguously a vehicle. None of this fuzzy tic tac or black blob business. A detailed, clear image of a 1950s hubcap flying saucer.
2. Reacting to the motions of the F-22s. Not apparent motions, but actively evading both aircraft and reacting to radar locks.
3. In such a position that the tracking data from the F-22s aligns. Both aircraft are clearly tracking the same object and their sensors are cross-reference-able with each other (extrapolations of the position of the vehicle relative to each F-22 put it in exactly the same spot, meaning that it is likely the same object).
4. The reactions of both F-22s are consistent with engaging an object that is clearly in front of both pilots and that they are reacting to a controlled vehicle.

That's too soon for "fakery" to have advanced that far.

Not really that much different to the F/A-18's and alien craft in "Independence Day" (1996)!
-Which of course was designed as popular entertainment, not a deliberate hoax.
I don't think it would be impossibly difficult to fake tracking data and realistic (and mutually consistent) footage of / records from cockpit MFDs, HUDs etc., if you had sufficient resources.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm honestly curious how some of you here would react to the oft-cited "what if" scenario of a mass sighting in clear day over a major city:

• Middle of a clear blue day in New York City.
• One or more clear, low-altitude UFOs, silent, made of metal, whatever shape, rapidly fly to Manhattan skyline.
• They "fly around" the city for a solid hour and clearly seem to react to human actions, like evading police, military or news helicopters.
• They "hover" immobile alongside the Statue of Liberty for a while.
• They fly away at absurd speeds, vanishing.
• All "five observables" met.
• The Federal government immediately declares "not aliens".
• Thousands of cell phone videos/photos, CCTV, police body cams, live TV (dozens?) feeds capture the event.

How do you handle this, as skeptics?

I'll just wait for them to catch a cold.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I realize in my limited posting here I may come off as a "believer", but if on a 0-100 scale, that a hard zero (I will say unapologetically) is a clown like Phillip Klass who even left it in his last will and testament that no one should ever have confirmation of aliens out of his virulent spite, and a 100 is the sort of person who will literally believe anything that implies "alien", no matter how wildly crazy or improbably... I'm somewhere in the 50-75 range.

Sort of like:

• 0: "I'm Phillip Klass, and you're an idiot."
• 1-25: we're alone in all the totality of space/time. There's just us.
• 25-50: obviously we're not alone today or previously, or in the future, but they sure ain't here.
• 51-75: obviously we're not alone, and there sure is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence of Earth and human alien contact... I want to believe in it.
• 76-99: I think they're probably here and at least some of these persistent reports/leaks are 100% true, such as a Grusch or Ariel.
• 100: "By the end of 2027, you'll be seeing things like I do. It's all true. All of it."

I think it's absurd statistically to assume "Earth" is some magical place in all the infinite number of galaxies in space that we are the only intelligent life to ever appear some 16 billion years after the Big Bang. I certainly can't prove they've been to Earth, but something is out there somewhere. I believe the evidence is fairly overwhelming that the US government at minimum aggressively classifies anything that overtly could prove or disprove any such topic to totally obtuse ends, and has for generations. I don't believe the hundreds upon hundreds of leakers and whistleblowers, and multiple witnesses of notable mass sightings like Stephenville are wrong or crazy: we can't today prove they saw a space ship, or NHI controlled space ships, but it seems fairly inane to deluded to say thousands upon thousands or more people over the past century all are wrong, from regular people to various otherwise trustworthy people in their government roles.

I'm honestly curious how some of you here would react to the oft-cited "what if" scenario of a mass sighting in clear day over a major city:

• Middle of a clear blue day in New York City.
• One or more clear, low-altitude UFOs, silent, made of metal, whatever shape, rapidly fly to Manhattan skyline.
• They "fly around" the city for a solid hour and clearly seem to react to human actions, like evading police, military or news helicopters.
• They "hover" immobile alongside the Statue of Liberty for a while.
• They fly away at absurd speeds, vanishing.
• All "five observables" met.
• The Federal government immediately declares "not aliens".
• Thousands of cell phone videos/photos, CCTV, police body cams, live TV (dozens?) feeds capture the event.

How do you handle this, as skeptics?

The unstated attitude here is that Skeptics are in the class of doctors in the 19th century who resisted the germ theory of disease despite accruing evidence. Stuffed shirt conservatives who had no reasonable arguments. Skepticism is a psychological quirk. Once proven wrong, Skeptics would have to "deal with" the reality of the situation and readjust our world view. "Gentlemen, we've been wrong. This fellow Pasteur has shown us the truth."

Klass had a prickly personality. But to say that he had no argument other than narcissism and reactive conservatism is not credible. The Skeptic argument is that UFO lore is not accruing evidence, but is directionless folk belief that makes no advancement over the decades. It looks the same now as it did in 1955.* There is simply an endless churning of new believers who have no historical perspective on the subject. And no understanding of the nature of evidence in the light of psychology, and experimental design and analytical statistics

The Skeptical position is: It's not necessary that something extraordinary must be going on out there. There's no hard core of cases, only the expected flaw in data collection. Quirks of human and machine perception and human psychology is an entirely adequate explanation. The question of Alien visitation is open. No evidence has been presented.

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bl...s-ufo-disclosure-enterprise.9155/#post-213742

And: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nasa-holds-first-public-meeting-on-ufo-study.12973/#post-290982

And: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nasa-holds-first-public-meeting-on-ufo-study.12973/#post-290946


* The Flying Saucer Conspiracy Paperback – December 15, 1955
by Mjr. Donald E. Keyhoe

Presenting "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy" by Donald Keyhoe, perhaps the best - certainly the most underrated - of his four UFO books. Here Keyhoe pulls together many of the thoughts from his earlier writings and paints a very engrossing picture of what may was happening - and is still happening - not only in our skies, but also on the surface and beneath the ground.

https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucer-Conspiracy-Donald-Keyhoe/dp/1523928662/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1X1KRPFHTW1P7&keywords=The+Flying+Saucer+Conspiracy+by+Donald+E.+Keyhoe&qid=1701785447&sprefix=the+flying+saucer+conspiracy+by+donald+e.+keyhoe,aps,147&sr=8-1





.

 

[Mendel]

I'm honestly curious how some of you here would react to the oft-cited "what if" scenario of a mass sighting in clear day over a major city:

What's the evidence that these are not camouflaged drones with rocket boosters?

 

[Mendel]

• All "five observables" met.
• Thousands of cell phone videos/photos, CCTV, police body cams, live TV (dozens?) feeds capture the event.

TTSA¹ defines these observables as

• Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
• Hypersonic velocities without signatures
• Low observability (includes "inability to gain a clear target picture")
• Trans-medium travel:
• Positive lift:

These have a problem built in, because "low observability" precludes that good data on the system can be gathered by anyone. This "observable" requires UFOs to be in the LIZ! And that prevents gathering good evidence on the other 4 "observables", which thereby mutate to "unobservables".

Why on Earth would "there was something flying around Manhattan for an hour, but no clear pictures of it exist" make me think, "yep, that must be a flying saucer"?

¹ https://tothestars.media/de-de/blogs/press-and-news/five-characteristics-unique-to-uaps

 

[Ann K]

What's the evidence that these are not camouflaged drones with rocket boosters?

Or massed drones in formation: (edit to add - Note at about 50 seconds, how synchronized lighting can make "it" seem to zoom away rapidly, while it is just the lights being switched off and on for different drones.)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaUa-8wjYZY

 

[JMartJr]

Klass had a prickly personality. But to say that he had no argument other than narcissism and reactive conservatism is not credible. The Skeptic argument is that UFO lore is not accruing evidence, but is directionless folk belief that makes no advancement over the decades. It looks the same now as it did in 1955.* There is simply an endless churning of new believers who have no historical perspective on the subject. And no understanding of the nature of evidence in the light of psychology, and experimental design and analytical statistics

That is a key observation. There is a long, though not rich, history of "UFO Research," which includes work by governments, academics, serious amateurs and amateur organizations, and as you point out this effort has gotten exactly nowhere in decades. People whose interest in the topic doesn't go back across decades may not be aware of this, being made aware of the latest "hot cases" which look mysterious on the Internet but not being exposed to the history. The "sexy" new cases hint at something amazing and new being discovered "real soon now," the history hints that this is not going to be the case.

On that point, Klass's "prickliness" is unfortunate, as his books would be a good exposure to the history of the subject from a skeptical point of view if his manner of telling the tale was less off-putting to a reader coming to his books from the believer point of view.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Or massed drones in formation:

In the shape of a giant Alien:

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Considering what people seem capable of denying, I could be sat next to an alien but still troll people online that aliens don't exist and probably make a good living out of it.

 

[Ann K]

On that point, Klass's "prickliness" is unfortunate, as his books would be a good exposure to the history of the subject from a skeptical point of view if his manner of telling the tail was less off-putting to a reader coming to his books from the believer point of view.

I'm not sure there would be any significant audience of believers that would read his book anyway. His "prickliness", as you call it, I read as sheer exasperation with dealing with believers, or worse yet, reporters who ask inane questions in order to make a living out of keeping the mythology alive, and who don't really want a serious or scientific answer.

 

[JMartJr]

His "prickliness", as you call it

In fairness, his being prickly was not originally my observation in this thread... I'd have said "snarky." I have enjoyed his books for the content, I found the tone off-putting.

I'm not sure there would be any significant audience of believers that would read his book anyway.

Possibly, but then I am not sure there are not some who would. Heck, I used to believe a lot of this stuff, though did not come across Klass's books during that time in my life, that I recall.

 

[Ann K]

Heck, I used to believe a lot of this stuff, though did not come across Klass's books during that time in my life, that I recall.

I used to believe it too. Then I hit puberty...

 

[JMartJr]

Then I hit puberty...

Not sure I understand the relevance?

 

[deirdre]

Not sure I understand the relevance?

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a [wo]man, I put away childish things" (I Corinthians 13:11).

 

[Scaramanga]

So I'm a firm "I want to believe" but want proof, and those are my broad red lines.

What are your red lines, and where are you on the 0-100 scale?

Utterly, absolutely, zero.

I find it incredible that I once used to 'believe' in UFOs. But I can see how I was taken in by so many 'best ever' cases......every single one of which has since fallen by the wayside.

So now I have stopped lying to myself ( which is in my view what UFO believers do ) I look objectively and see that the actual evidence for aliens in UFOs is zero. There is not a single genuinely convincing case. Not one.

 

[Ann K]

Not sure I understand the relevance?

About the age of puberty I got smart enough to question the wild gee-whiz stories that entertained me in my younger days. I was sorry to bid farewell to Nessie, my national monster, but it had to go, along with UFOs, pirate treasure on Oak Island, Bigfoot, and miscellaneous Fortean phenomena. There is enough genuine wonder in reality to make up for their loss.

 

[deirdre]

There is enough genuine wonder in reality to make up for their loss.

actually the River Monster guy came up with good research that indicates some of the early stories of a 'monster in the loch' could scientifically be true. (obviously 'she' wasn't a plesiosaur, but still pretty cool).