They
claim to have seen them, and ask us to believe that what they are saying is not only true but also a correct description of what they saw,
i.e. their recall is accurate, they have good reason to believe that the photo is what they think it is (and they have the appropriate knowledge and, in this context, security clearance to make that conclusion about that photo), and the picture was not e.g. connected with the
"Yankee Blue" hazing practices.
I'd guess many of us have had the uncomfortable experience of finding out that something we believed to be true was incorrect, or being told/ taught something that we later find is inaccurate, or realising our recall/ interpretation of a particular scene or event was flawed.
We know there are lots of faked photos of "UFOs", and (increasingly) lots of short phone cam clips of UFOs/ mystery drones etc. that in many cases are clearly of everyday aircraft doing everyday aircraft things, displaying the expected (and mandated) lights
(see
"Drones over New Jersey" and "
Watching a mass hysteria thread in real time..." threads).
There is currently no testable, convincing evidence of Earth ever having been visited by ETI. There is currently no testable, convincing evidence of extraterrestrial life of any sort (although searches for biosignatures from exoplanet atmospheres might change this in the near future).
IIRC (can't give a ref., sorry) radar returns of UFOs became less common after digital filters were introduced even though radar coverage has increased around the world.
There are some reports of sightings of unambiguously structured anomalous craft, and some reports of interaction with these craft or their occupants. And there are many accounts of personal interaction with figures known from religious texts, often from people known for their honesty, sobriety and decency. I don't think either category of experience should be ridiculed (unless the claimant advocates dangerous, self-serving or sectarian behaviour as a result, in which case, fair game).
-Most "UFO" reports don't come into this category, being reports of unidentified lights/ objects in the sky, often resulting from misidentification of conventional aircraft, satellites etc. and a host of other mundane causes (albeit sometimes in unusual or unfamiliar viewing conditions).
Historically, some of the most detailed and unambiguous accounts of sightings/ interactions with UFOs have been shown to be hoaxes- to put it bluntly, the claimant was lying, sometimes over several years and to their close confidantes (think George Adamski, Billy Meier).
Many of the key players in the current UFO field (e.g. Elizondo, Coulthart, Grusch) show that they are willing to accept unsupported anecdotes with apparently great confidence, and with a complete lack of scientific- or even journalistic- rigour. Elizondo has been quick to present "evidence" even when it is, frankly, risible- see the
Elizondo's Romanian Non-Human Mothership Photo [Reflection of a Light Fixture] thread.
At no point did it seem to occur to him that a huge, brightly-lit UFO in clear view over a city in Romania, in daylight, would be witnessed (and presumably filmed) by many, many people, and it would not be possible to suppress the story. An absence, in this instance, of common sense.
Some other highly-detailed accounts are also of high strangeness. I suspect that they might (initially, at least) have started off as retellings of genuine- but highly subjective- experiences. Barney and Betty Hill's "encounter" might be one. Books by UFO enthusiasts are almost always highly selective about what parts of the Hill's narrative they use: No mention of the smiling redheaded Irishman and the German Nazi with a black coat and scarf looking out from the UFO (often much is made of Barney's recall, and distress at recalling, the Nazi's strange eyes- it's just never mentioned that they belong to a scarf-wearing Nazi). -No mention of how Barney knows the red-haired man is Irish (Barney explains why he's surprised that the man looks friendly, strongly indicating a strong subconscious influence on his recall). Rarely is it mentioned that Betty later stated that the "aliens"- often conflated with "Grays" by UFO enthusiasts- looked most like pictures she'd seen of a Mongolian woman, and/ or native people of Tierra Del Fuego (see evidence for the Hills
not describing "Grays"
in this post).
In passing, many popular accounts of Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting- often taken as the first modern UFO report- don't add
External Quote:
...that Mr. Arnold has reported seeing these same strange objects in the sky on three other occasions.
"Transcript of Ed Murrow-Kenneth Arnold Telephone Conversation", February-March 1984 CUFOS Associate Newsletter
https://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm; CUFOS = J. Allen Hynek's
Center for UFO studies (Wikipedia).
Those who advocate for the reality of the Hill's accounts, and the reliability of Arnold's, are often very reluctant to share- or even look into- what else those people have reported, if it stretches their credibility. The "UFOs are alien spacecraft" narrative must be preserved, even if that means deliberately ignoring inconvenient statements from the original sources of that narrative.
The
"incident" (
Thread here) is another high strangeness event; the experiencer appears to have (or have had) a sleep disorder, perhaps of the type long-associated with perceptions of mythological incubi / succubi (Wikipedia
Sleep paralysis, also
Succubus).
There is evidence that (rarely) some other high strangeness accounts, firmly believed by the experiencer, might have a neurological basis.
We have no evidence that ETI flying vehicles, if they exist, are disc shaped, and there is no reason (that we currently know of) why they should be.
Human attempts at disc-shaped crewed aircraft have largely foundered; they might look nice but they're aerodynamically inferior to conventional planforms.
But there are threads on this forum describing an old wildlife water guzzler and a crop irrigation circle eagerly seized on as possible alien spacecraft
(see
Claim: Crashed Disc - Sierra Ladrones, NM [Rainwater Catchment - Removed] and
Four Corners - Large Disk Seen From Private Plane at FL210 [Irrigation Circles] respectively) because they were
round, seen from the air and UFO enthusiasts didn't know what they were.
What on Earth (excuse the pun) is the logic behind
that? Humans have built round structures for thousands of years.
Yet amongst some UFO enthusiasts, "circular" + "I don't immediately know what it is" = "possible alien spacecraft".
Because, er, "Flying Saucers":
External Quote:
MURROW: Here's how the name "flying saucer" was born.
ARNOLD: These objects more or less fluttered like they were, oh, I'd say, boats on very rough water or very rough air of some type, and when I described how they flew, I said that they flew like they take a saucer and throw it across the water. Most of the newspapers misunderstood and misquoted that too. They said that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in a saucer-like fashion.
MURROW: That was an historic misquote. While Mr. Arnold's original explanation has been forgotten, the term "flying saucer" has become a household word.
Kenneth Arnold, the reporting of whose 1947 sighting gave rise to the term "flying saucer", quoted in the February-March 1984 CUFOS Associate Newsletter, link above, also "
The Man Who Introduced the World to Flying Saucers",
The Atlantic, Megan Garber, 15 June 2014
This is what Arnold claimed he saw, early sketch (L), later picture of Arnold with an artist's impression (R) (he claimed there were two types).
View attachment 83221View attachment 83222
However, long before the idea that UFOs were "a thing" and that they might be alien craft became widespread, the American public were familiar with space-faring flying discs. They had been visible on magazine stands across the nation for years.
View attachment 83224 View attachment 83225 View attachment 83226
View attachment 83227 View attachment 83228
Magazines (L-R) from November 1929; winter 1930; pre-1931 (Science Wonder Stories merged with Air Wonder Stories to produce Wonder Stories in 1930), pre-1937 (not clearly visible here but cover states editor is Hugo Gernsback who ceased being editor in Feb 1936), May 1940.
So Americans knew about flying saucers for at least 17 years before anyone suggested they were real.
What evidence of aliens would convince me?
If a broad range of major Western news outlets carried the story as the leading item, covered by identifiable, broadly respected broadcasters/ journalists and with opinion sought from a large number of senior, relevant scientists from different universities, government agencies etc. who concur "that this is for real".
An internally consistent narrative describing what has been found, by whom, and how; and why the evidence is understood to be persuasive.
Statements from heads of state/ heads of government in the following days.
In the case of some public service broadcasters, changes in schedule for programs about the message, discovery or whatever, again featuring respected scientists invited because of their expertise in their field, not their media savvy or telegenic qualities.
Not one radio signal
possibly , but not definitely, of ETI origin (which probably wouldn't trigger the above responses).
And in the absence of "red flags"- no signs of suppression of contrary academic opinion, no recent imposition of authoritarian government in the nations concerned, no suspicion of widespread hacking of, or other interference with, broadcast media signals. Not the first day of WW3.
Not internet only.
To paraphrase Gil Scott-Heron, the revelation will be televised.
If the (e.g. US) government had such photos/ footage/ radar findings, and
wanted to reveal the discovery of ETI, it could release copies of the images/ data in a manner that does not give clear indications of the performance of the technology used. Or show the evidence to a panel of security-cleared scientists (if they hadn't done so already) and perhaps other respected folk and ask them to draft a statement describing what had been found without compromising security.
The findings from photos taken by U2 flights over Cuba in 1962 were made public. I'd guess the capabilities of the systems used were not.
External Quote:
In France on 23 October, the crisis made the front page of all the daily newspapers. The next day, an editorial in
Le Monde expressed doubt about the authenticity of the CIA's photographic evidence. Two days later, after a visit by a high-ranking CIA agent, the newspaper accepted the validity of the photographs.
Wikipedia,
Cuban Missile Crisis.
A "they want to reveal but can't" theory is really just a softer version of the establishment cover-up conspiracy theory.
It has some of the same problems: It requires a cohort of personnel, presumably over many years, who know of this supposedly unambiguous evidence. At least some would understand its wider significance for humanity. But all remain loyal, excepting a handful feeling the need to tell some members of "the UFO community" (not appropriate academics or a respected press outlet). Despite this unprecedented level of secrecy and the evident success in maintaining it, where there are leaks, no-one is punished. There are no investigations, even though it is axiomatic to this theory that a reveal could compromise national security.
As the years passed, it would seem sensible to review the evidence using newer technologies, or perhaps involve different scientists/ engineers.
Just keeping the evidence totally under wraps after it was found in 1947, 1966, 1979 or whatever doesn't make much sense.
The technology used to obtain the photos would become obsolescent over time, and any dodgy circumstances in which the photos were obtained, less politically "hot".
