Debunked: Ancient Aliens

[lotek]

for fun ive done a hole in very hard stone with water, sand and a dowel+leather strap. was awful! pretty hole tho

 

[Cairenn]

It can be done. I once had a lady tell me that I needed an annealing kiln to anneal brass sheet so I could raise it. I did just fine with the burner on my gas stove.

 

[George B]

There are several ways it could have been done.

Today when we wish to carve a hard stone like jade or quartz, we reach for a diamond tip tool. However the same thing can be done and has been done with wood and sand. A laser can drill holes through hard stone, or a diamond drill can or a hollow straw with fine sand and saliva.

We often forget the older ways of doing things.

http://www.history.com/news/solving-the-riddle-of-stonehenges-construction

So old ways are forgotten . . . I will buy that . . and so are the details of many things . . . including contact with groups of people and possibly others . . .

 

[George B]

So old ways are forgotten . . . I will buy that . . and so are the details of many things . . . including contact with groups of people and possibly others . . .

This is an interesting video of a supposed death bed confession . . . we are all intrigued about whistleblowers . . . Hoax . . . fantasy . . . you decide . . . the point being this is the type of "evidence" that keeps the conspiracy groups and Ancient Aliens going . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GX0FaindPPo ​

 

[Mick West]

In all seriousness, you need to consider this:



(After: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation )

 

[Dan Wilson]

Seems the people of that day would be able to determine if something was normal, different or unexplainable. . . If it was not mass hysteria and inaccurate reporting I would suspect they saw something very, very unusual. . . the crosses, rods, and crescents were the only geometric things they could relate too. . . sounds like a 16th Century description of an air battle over WWII Germany. . . .

The crescents, rods, and crosses were common depictions of atmospheric events that were not well understood at the time. How would they be able to determine whether or not an atmospheric event was normal? Who is to say someone wouldn't depict it as fantastical? Based on other works of art, I don't think there is much reason to believe this is an alien space battle.

The big problem with interpreting fantastic stories and myths from the past as truth is that the logic, at best, is equivalent to a civilization 2,000 years from now finding the story of Star Wars and concluding that we were traversing galaxies interacting with Wookies and using the force. When the reality, of course, is very very different. You need something physical to go along with myths like this.

 

[George B]

In all seriousness, you need to consider this:



(After: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation )

I don't disagree with the math . . . but did you take the time to review the video . . ? He claims to be an eye witness and was in meetings with President Eisenhower and VP Nixon, etc. . . .

 

[George B]

The crescents, rods, and crosses were common depictions of atmospheric events that were not well understood at the time. How would they be able to determine whether or not an atmospheric event was normal? Who is to say someone wouldn't depict it as fantastical? Based on other works of art, I don't think there is much reason to believe this is an alien space battle.

The big problem with interpreting fantastic stories and myths from the past as truth is that the logic, at best, is equivalent to a civilization 2,000 years from now finding the story of Star Wars and concluding that we were traversing galaxies interacting with Wookies and using the force. When the reality, of course, is very very different. You need something physical to go along with myths like this.

Sorry, the best is the public written stories and the wood carving . . . do you really expect there to be anything else from over 500 years ago?

 

[Mick West]

I don't disagree with the math . . . but did you take the time to review the video . . ? He claims to be an eye witness and was in meetings with President Eisenhower and VP Nixon, etc. . . .

So what? People claim to have ascended to heaven, chatted with Jesus and their dead relatives, and then come back. That does not mean those things are real.

Without corroborating evidence it's just an old man telling a story, and as the equation points out, we should expect old men to tell such stories.

 

[George B]

So what? People claim to have ascended to heaven, chatted with Jesus and their dead relatives, and then come back. That does not mean those things are real.

Without corroborating evidence it's just an old man telling a story, and as the equation points out, we should expect old men to tell such stories.

OK . . . when does personal testimony mean anything? I have talked to several IMO reliable people in my life who have sighted UFOs . . . which may or may not be anything but I put it in the "ole what if database" . . . I lived in O'Fallon, Il for three years and was very knowledgeable of the area around Scott AFB where in 2000 several sightings were observed by policemen and civilians as well . . . I had a very good friend now deceased that verified the stories . . . she had seen in her neighborhood during that incident (close meaning in hours and days of the official report) along with neighbors multicolored ball shaped UFOs about the size of a VW bug . . .they seemed to play and zoom around like kids playing she stated . . .

Southern Illinois incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)
The "St.Clair Triangle", "UFO Over Illinois", "Southern IllinoisUFO", or "Highland, Illinois UFO" sighting occurred on January5, 2000 over the towns of Highland, Dupo, Lebanon, Summerfield, Millstadt, and O'Fallon, Illinois, beginning shortly after 4:00 am. Five on-duty Illinois police officers in separate locales, along with various other witnesses, sighted and reported a massive, silent, triangular aircraft operating at an unusual range of near-hover to incredible high speedat treetop altitudes. The incident was examined in an ABCSpecial "Seeing is Believing" by Peter Jennings, an hour-long special "UFOsOver Illinois", produced by Discovery Channel, a Sci Fi Channelspecial entitled "Proof Positive" as well as a 28 minute independent documentary titled "The Edge of Reality: Illinois UFO, January 5,2000" by Darryl Barker Productions, St. Louis, Missouri.

Content from External Source

 

[Dan Wilson]

I am not really sure where I stand on this issue . . . how to interpret what a 500 year old news article really saw without pictures or video . . . Hmmmm. . . when does symbolism override the representation of reality . . . art, spiritualism vs depiction of reality from a long distant past? We are conditioned to perceive reality based on societal norms and those norms evolve over time . . .bottom-line. . . Me thinks the possibility that advanced civilizations exist or existed on the earth is possible and have always felt interference with our ancestry even likely if ETs are real . . .

Could religion be a remnant of those encounters . . . one need only look at the Cargo Cults of Polynesia to surmise it is possible . . .

Pacific cults of World War II

The most widely known period of cargo cult activity occurred among the Melanesian islanders in the years during and after World War II. A small population of indigenous peoples observed, often right in front of their dwellings, the largest war ever fought by technologically advanced nations. First, the Japanese arrived with a great deal of supplies and later the Allied forces did likewise.
The vast amounts of materiel that both sides airdropped (or airlifted to airstrips) to troops on these islands meant drastic changes to the lifestyle of the islanders, many of whom had never seen outsiders before. Manufactured clothing, medicine, canned food, tents, weapons and other goods arrived in vast quantities for the soldiers, who often shared some of it with the islanders who were their guides and hosts. This was true of the Japanese Army as well, at least initially before relations deteriorated in most regions.
The John Frum cult, one of the most widely reported and longest-lived, formed on the island of Tanna, Vanuatu. This cult started before the war, and only became a cargo cult afterwards. Cult members worship certain Americans (such as John Frum and Tom Navy), who had brought cargo to their island during World War II, as the spiritual entity who would provide the cargo to them in the future.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult​

Content from External Source

These are interesting cases.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4199

On the other hand, this kind of scenario is not necessary for the birth of religion, spiritual practices, and mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Origins_of_myth

I know that many Ancient Astronaut theorists will talk about this kind of scenario and then quote from ancient texts as evidence that a civilization did visit Earth in the past. But their quotes, as the video explains, are often inaccurate, taken out of context, or just completely made up. However, I'm no historian and haven't read too much ancient mythology or folklore, so if there is a direct relevant quote that isn't discussed in the video, that could be helpful to the discussion here.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Sorry, the best is the public written stories and the wood carving . . . do you really expect there to be anything else from over 500 years ago?

No. But that's not the point. I don't see what you mean by that.

OK . . . when does personal testimony mean anything? I have talked to several IMO reliable people in my life who have sighted UFOs . . . which may or may not be anything but I put it in the "ole what if database" . . . I lived in O'Fallon, Il for three years and was very knowledgeable of the area around Scott AFB where in 2000 several sightings were observed by policemen and civilians as well . . . I had a very good friend now deceased that verified the stories . . . she had seen in her neighborhood during that incident along with neighbors multicolored ball shaped UFOs about the size of a VW bug vehicle . . .they seemed to play and zoom around like kids playing she stated . . .

I'd say that I've seen at least one genuine UFO in my life. I don't have any reason to believe it was an alien spacecraft though. I'd also say that eyewitnesses are very weak evidence. When it comes to an idea as big as aliens visiting Earth, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for stronger evidence than stories and eyewitnesses.

 

[George B]

So what? People claim to have ascended to heaven, chatted with Jesus and their dead relatives, and then come back. That does not mean those things are real.

Without corroborating evidence it's just an old man telling a story, and as the equation points out, we should expect old men to tell such stories.

Hearsay exceptions rules in testimony . . .

Exceptions where the declarant must be unavailable

• dying declarations and other statements under belief of impending death: often depicted in movies; the police officer asks the person on his deathbed, "Who attacked you?" and the victim replies, "The butler did it." In reality, case law has ruled out this exception in criminal law, because the witness should always be cross examined in court; however, there is an exception to this exception for criminal cases: even though generally inadmissible to matters relating to criminal law, the exception has been carved out for actions relating to homicide cases[Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2)]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

No. But that's not the point. I don't see what you mean by that.



I'd say that I've seen at least one genuine UFO in my life. I don't have any reason to believe it was an alien spacecraft though. I'd also say that eyewitnesses are very weak evidence. When it comes to an idea as big as aliens visiting Earth, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for stronger evidence than stories and eyewitnesses.

Who says we are not asking and looking for better evidence . . . the point being I don't know any evidence that cannot be questioned or debunked in some manner unless the Government makes a public declaration the ETs exist and this is repeated for days, weeks, and months on the Main Stream News Programs . . . ETs are interviewed on Good Morning America, etc., etc.

 

[Mick West]

Hearsay exceptions rules in testimony . . .

Exceptions where the declarant must be unavailable

• dying declarations and other statements under belief of impending death: often depicted in movies; the police officer asks the person on his deathbed, "Who attacked you?" and the victim replies, "The butler did it." In reality, case law has ruled out this exception in criminal law, because the witness should always be cross examined in court; however, there is an exception to this exception for criminal cases: even though generally inadmissible to matters relating to criminal law, the exception has been carved out for actions relating to homicide cases[Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2)]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Content from External Source

In some actions relating to homicide cases - hardly relevant.

It means something when it's backed up by something. Like multiple independent concurring accounts, or accounts that match some independent physical evidence.

If an old man has spent thirty years reading about UFOs and aliens (and you know some of them do), then it's surprising that they might be able to tell a tale that matched the mythology? And given the billions of people in the world, is it surprising that some might tell tall tales, either from a desire to fool others, or after fooling themselves?

 

[Mick West]

Who says we are not asking and looking for better evidence . . . the point being I don't know any evidence that cannot be questioned or debunked in some manner unless the Government makes a public declaration the ETs exist and this is repeated for days, weeks, and months on the Main Stream News Programs . . . ETs are interviewed on Good Morning America, etc., etc.

A few independent reasonable quality photos of the same things would be a very good start. And hardly seems impossible.

 

[George B]

In some actions relating to homicide cases - hardly relevant.

It means something when it's backed up by something. Like multiple independent concurring accounts, or accounts that match some independent physical evidence.

If an old man has spent thirty years reading about UFOs and aliens (and you know some of them do), then it's surprising that they might be able to tell a tale that matched the mythology? And given the billions of people in the world, is it surprising that some might tell tall tales, either from a desire to fool others, or after fooling themselves?

That is most difficult when the subject of your testimony is surrounded by such a history of speculation and distrust . . .maybe the best way to keep a secret is to release it in bits and pieces and disqualify the witnesses as loco unstable fringe personalities . . . that is why most people won't report such events . . . anyone who does is torn apart little by little . . . and of course there is always the real nut cases which just help the process along . . . so if you saw something Mick and was trying to validate it in a way people would believe you what would you do?

 

[George B]

A few independent reasonable quality photos of the same things would be a very good start. And hardly seems impossible.

Sounds nice Mick . . . but they are not like aircraft taking off and landing on known flight paths and airports . . .

 

[Mick West]

That is most difficult when the subject of your testimony is surrounded by such a history of speculation and distrust . . .maybe the best way to keep a secret is to release it in bits and pieces and disqualify the witnesses as loco unstable fringe personalities . . . that is why most people won't report such events . . . anyone who does is torn apart little by little . . . and of course there is always the real nut cases which just help the process along . . . so if you saw something Mick and was trying to validate it in a way people would believe you what would you do?

Take lots of photos from multiple angles, and try to get other people to take them too.

There are billions of cameras in the world. Lots of permanent surveillance, web, weather, and dashboard cams now too. Why is it so impossible to get more than one camera on a UFO at once?

I'm not calling the guy crazy. I've no idea. There's just no compelling reason to believe his story.

 

[George B]

Given enough time any story can be destroyed either through lack of evidence or time and speculation . . . alternative explanations are really quite easy to create and propose . . . and really no way to effectively counter . . .

[h=1]Rendlesham Incident: US commander speaks for the first time about the 'Suffolk UFO'[/h][h=2]The senior US military official who led the investigation into the supposed landing of a UFO in a Suffolk forest has spoken of the incident for the first time in three decades. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...for-the-first-time-about-the-Suffolk-UFO.html[/h]Dr Clarke, who is a sceptic on UFO issues, believes Lt Col Halt saw some form of optical illusion and that his and Sgt Penniston's claims have become increasingly extreme over the years, as speculation over the sightings has increased.
"I don't think anyone, least of all Conrad, doubts that Halt and his men saw "something" in the woods. They had an extraordinary experience. And that experience would remain extraordinary regardless of whether ultimately it was a lighthouse or poacher's lanterns – which has also been suggested.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Take lots of photos from multiple angles, and try to get other people to take them too.

There are billions of cameras in the world. Lots of permanent surveillance, web, weather, and dashboard cams now too. Why is it so impossible to get more than one camera on a UFO at once?

I'm not calling the guy crazy. I've no idea. There's just no compelling reason to believe his story.

Why would you doubt the info on this incident? What are the alternative explanations?

Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident Japan Air Lines flight 1628 was a UFO incident that occurred on November 17, 1986 involving a Japanese cargo jumbo freighter aircraft. The aircraft was en route from Paris to Narita, Tokyo[1]​ with a cargo of Beaujolais wine.[2]​ On the Reykjavík to Anchorage section of the flight, at 5:11 PM over eastern Alaska, the crew first witnessed two unidentified objects to their left. These abruptly rose from below and closed in to escort their aircraft. Each had two rectangular arrays of what appeared to be glowing nozzles or thrusters, though their bodies remained obscured by darkness. When closest, the aircraft's cabin was lit up and the captain could feel their heat in his face. These two craft departed before a third, much larger disk-shaped object started trailing them, causing the pilots to request a change of course.[3]​ Anchorage Air Traffic Control obliged and requested an oncoming United Airlines flight to confirm the unidentified traffic, but when it and a military craft sighted JAL 1628 at about 5:51 PM, no other craft could be distinguished.[3]​ The sighting of 50 minutes[4]​ ended in the vicinity of Mt. McKinley.[5]​[6]​

Content from External Source

 

[Dan Wilson]

Who says we are not asking and looking for better evidence . . . the point being I don't know any evidence that cannot be questioned or debunked in some manner unless the Government makes a public declaration the ETs exist and this is repeated for days, weeks, and months on the Main Stream News Programs . . . ETs are interviewed on Good Morning America, etc., etc.

People certainly are looking evidence but haven't found any yet. It doesn't have to be a government declaration, all it takes is one discovery or one genuine contact.

 

[George B]

People certainly are looking evidence but haven't found any yet. It doesn't have to be a government declaration, all it takes is one discovery or one genuine contact.

And how would you determine it is genuine?

 

[Dan Wilson]

Why would you doubt the info on this incident what are the alternative explanations?

Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident Japan Air Lines flight 1628 was a UFO incident that occurred on November 17, 1986 involving a Japanese cargo jumbo freighter aircraft. The aircraft was en route from Paris to Narita, Tokyo[1]​ with a cargo of Beaujolais wine.[2]​ On the Reykjavík to Anchorage section of the flight, at 5:11 PM over eastern Alaska, the crew first witnessed two unidentified objects to their left. These abruptly rose from below and closed in to escort their aircraft. Each had two rectangular arrays of what appeared to be glowing nozzles or thrusters, though their bodies remained obscured by darkness. When closest, the aircraft's cabin was lit up and the captain could feel their heat in his face. These two craft departed before a third, much larger disk-shaped object started trailing them, causing the pilots to request a change of course.[3]​ Anchorage Air Traffic Control obliged and requested an oncoming United Airlines flight to confirm the unidentified traffic, but when it and a military craft sighted JAL 1628 at about 5:51 PM, no other craft could be distinguished.[3]​ The sighting of 50 minutes[4]​ ended in the vicinity of Mt. McKinley.[5]​[6]​

Content from External Source

Well there is no obvious reason to doubt what they saw. That's all we have, though. We can't conclude from that story that it was an alien spacecraft. Again, there is no reason to doubt that they saw something, but eyewitnesses aren't strong evidence.

​

 

[Mick West]

Why would you doubt the info on this incident? What are the alternative explanations?

Some military aircraft messing around. The commercial pilots seeing something they did not have a lot of experience interpreting, and kind of freaked out a little. They did initially note that the craft seemed to have navigation lights - which would indicate a terrestrial aircraft.

 

[Dan Wilson]

And how would you determine it is genuine?

Physical evidence would do. Anything to verify the presence of foreign life. It's broad, but there are plenty of hypothetical scenarios in which the contact could happen. Personally, I don't think it would be subtle or something a government could hide. An intelligent civilization finding Earth, whatever its intentions may be, probably wouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[George B]

Well there is no obvious reason to doubt what they saw. That's all we have, though. We can't conclude from that story that it was an alien spacecraft. Again, there is no reason to doubt that they saw something, but eyewitnesses aren't strong evidence.

​

In my opinion this is not a case of eyewitness not seeing what was there . . . what were they seeing a stealth bomber? What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incidentA day later at FAA headquarters they briefed Vice Admiral Donald D. Engen, who watched the whole video of over half an hour, and asked them not to talk to anybody until they were given the OK, and to prepare an encompassing presentation of the data for a group of government officials the next day.[15]​ The meeting was attended by representatives of the FBI, CIA and President Reagan’s Scientific Study Team, among others. Upon completion of the presentation, all present were told that the incident was secret and that their meeting "never took place". According to Callahan, the officials considered the data to represent the first instance of recorded radar data on a UFO, and they took possession of all the presented data.[14]​ John Callahan however managed to retain the original video, the pilot's report and the FAA's first report in his office.[15]​ The forgotten target print-outs of the computer data were also rediscovered, from which all targets can be reproduced that were in the sky at the time.[14]​
After a three-month investigation, the FAA formally released their results at a press conference held on March 5, 1987. Here Paul Steucke retracted earlier FAA suggestions that their controllers confirmed a UFO,[12]​ and ascribed it to a "split radar image" which appeared with unfortunate timing. He clarified that "the FAA [did] not have enough material to confirm that something was there", and though they were "accepting the descriptions by the crew" they were "unable to support what they saw".[11]​ The McGrath incident was revealed here amongst the ample set of documents supplied to the journalists.
The sighting received special attention from the media,[16]​ as a supposed instance of the tracking of UFOs on both ground[12]​ and airborne radar, while being observed by experienced airline pilots, with subsequent confirmation by an FAA Division Chief.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Some military aircraft messing around. The commercial pilots seeing something they did not have a lot of experience interpreting, and kind of freaked out a little. They did initially note that the craft seemed to have navigation lights - which would indicate a terrestrial aircraft.

Why would a UFO not have navigation lights?

 

[George B]

Physical evidence would do. Anything to verify the presence of foreign life. It's broad, but there are plenty of hypothetical scenarios in which the contact could happen. Personally, I don't think it would be subtle or something a government could hide. An intelligent civilization finding Earth, whatever its intentions may be, probably wouldn't go unnoticed.

Seems logical to me that if the aliens were advanced and basically friendly they would have strict rules of contact and disclosure . . . wanting to remove the possibility of hysteria and unintended collateral damage . . . leaving it up to the human authorities to announce their presence . . . keeping any one-on-one contact in a state of deniability . . .

 

[Mick West]

Why would a UFO not have navigation lights?

Because navigation lights are for other aircraft to identify you.

 

[Dan Wilson]

In my opinion this is not a case of eyewitness not seeing what was there . . . what were they seeing a stealth bomber? What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incidentA day later at FAA headquarters they briefed Vice Admiral Donald D. Engen, who watched the whole video of over half an hour, and asked them not to talk to anybody until they were given the OK, and to prepare an encompassing presentation of the data for a group of government officials the next day.[15]​ The meeting was attended by representatives of the FBI, CIA and President Reagan’s Scientific Study Team, among others. Upon completion of the presentation, all present were told that the incident was secret and that their meeting "never took place". According to Callahan, the officials considered the data to represent the first instance of recorded radar data on a UFO, and they took possession of all the presented data.[14]​ John Callahan however managed to retain the original video, the pilot's report and the FAA's first report in his office.[15]​ The forgotten target print-outs of the computer data were also rediscovered, from which all targets can be reproduced that were in the sky at the time.[14]​
After a three-month investigation, the FAA formally released their results at a press conference held on March 5, 1987. Here Paul Steucke retracted earlier FAA suggestions that their controllers confirmed a UFO,[12]​ and ascribed it to a "split radar image" which appeared with unfortunate timing. He clarified that "the FAA [did] not have enough material to confirm that something was there", and though they were "accepting the descriptions by the crew" they were "unable to support what they saw".[11]​ The McGrath incident was revealed here amongst the ample set of documents supplied to the journalists.
The sighting received special attention from the media,[16]​ as a supposed instance of the tracking of UFOs on both ground[12]​ and airborne radar, while being observed by experienced airline pilots, with subsequent confirmation by an FAA Division Chief.

Content from External Source

It could be the case, but that's not the point. The TedTalk just demonstrates a reason why eyewitnesses alone do not make a strong case. Here, I don't know what they saw. Do you? Can we say it was an alien spacecraft? Absolutely not. The military is shady about missions and testing new aircraft. Stealth bomber were indeed witnessed and described as UFOs before they became known to the public. Is that what this Japanese flight saw? I dont know, but why should we think it was aliens?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/missouri-ufos-light-up-th_n_1022472.html

 

[Mick West]

Seems logical to me that if the aliens were advanced and basically friendly they would have strict rules of contact and disclosure . . .

Like randomly buzzing cargo jets?

 

[George B]

Because navigation lights are for other aircraft to identify you.

So . . . ? Why wouldn't you want local traffic to avoid collision with you whether you are a UFO or a Cessna 172?

 

[Mick West]

So . . . ? Why wouldn't you want local traffic to avoid collision with you whether you are a UFO or a Cessna 172?

Come on George. First they want to be all stealthy, and then they put big flashing lights on them?

 

[George B]

Like randomly buzzing cargo jets?

Why would a stealth bomber . . .? We know something likely did buzz the cargo jet . . . ? Is this incident not deniable . . . you obviously think it is?

 

[George B]

Come on George. First they want to be all stealthy, and then they put big flashing lights on them?

I think segmented, intentional but deniable disclosure is a rational strategy . . . allowing those who can accept the possibility accept their existence and allow others to reject such evidence and go on with their lives without dissonance . . .

 

[Dan Wilson]

Seems logical to me that if the aliens were advanced and basically friendly they would have strict rules of contact and disclosure . . . wanting to remove the possibility of hysteria and unintended collateral damage . . . leaving it up to the human authorities to announce their presence . . . keeping any one-on-one contact in a state of deniability . . .

You would have to assume that were indeed friendly, knew how to communicate with us, with whom to communicate in order to keep it secret, wanted to keep their presence secret, and could cover their tracks so that ONLY the government knew and not groups like SETI. I find a scenario where it would be known to the general public much more likely but then again this is all just speculation. I'd like if we could stick to what evidence is out there.

 

[George B]

You would have to assume that were indeed friendly, knew how to communicate with us, with whom to communicate in order to keep it secret, wanted to keep their presence secret, and could cover their tracks so that ONLY the government knew and not groups like SETI. I find a scenario where it would be known to the general public much more likely but then again this is all just speculation. I'd like if we could stick to what evidence is out there.

I think I am presenting known incidents with the evidence available . . .speculation is unavoidable when talking about the politics of disclosure . . . would some research regarding the public impact of such issues be helpful? I am told there is such . . . as in the Rand Corp etc . . . I don't know if it exist for public review but a good search may identify it . . . http://www.nicap.org/docs/rand/randdoc681127.pdf

J. E. MacDonald suggests that the UFO phenomena lie somewhere in the following categories of explanation:

• 1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. Report files contain examples of these; investigators believe about 5 percent of all reports made are in this category. Detailed study, however, usually uncovers such reports.
  2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena. Present understanding of psychology does not admit many of the significant reports to be explained in this way.
  3. Misinterpretations of well known physical phenomena (meteorolo- gical, astronomical, optical, etc.). By far the largest percentage of reports fall in this category. Study by an experienced investigator can usually identify these.
  4. Poorly understood physical phenomena (rare electrical or moteorological effects, plasmas). Certainly a distinct possibility in a number of cases, it is a category worthy of careful study. Some of the most interesting cases, however have sufficient observational datail to eliminate this possibility (I am referring to reports of unambiguously machine-like objects).

-30-

• 5. Advanced technologies (test vehicles, satellites, reentry effects). Again, some reports can be attributed to this cause, but most cannot.
  6. Poorly understood psychic phenomena (psychic projections, archetypal images, parapsychological phenomena, etc). It is difficult to comment on this possibility because the current lack of knowledge of parapsychology. While a (small) number of UFO reports do exhibit aspects of parapsychological phenomenology (25) general relationships have yet to be convincingly demonstrated. Reference 6 deals with this explanation.
  7. Extraterrestrial probes. A possibility commonly held by the public and commonly rejected by scientists. Prof. McDonald believes a number of sightings are best explained by this hypothesis.
  8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. This explanation is listed because of the nature of certain reports (particularly "contact" reports -- reports involving communication of UFO occupants and the witnesses) and because of the historical aspects of the phenomenology. See reference 5 for elaboration.
  Perhaps, to play it safe, an additional category should be listed:
  9. Other http://www.nicap.org/papers/randdoc.htm

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

I think segmented, intentional but deniable disclosure is a rational strategy . . . allowing those who can accept the possibility accept their existence and allow others to reject such evidence and go on with their lives without dissonance . . .

And the navigation lights? How do they fit in?

 

[Dan Wilson]

I think I am presenting known incidents with the evidence available . . .speculation is unavoidable when talking about the politics of disclosure . . . would some research regarding the public impact of such issues be helpful? I am told there is such . . . as in the Rand Corp etc . . . I don't know if it exist for public review but a good search may identify it . . .

The incidents you are presenting contain zero evidence of alien contact. The speculation is rather useless. There are millions of people actively or inadvertently looking for the presence of alien life. Hiding such a huge discovery all of this time would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. You can post that if you want but I'm asking if there are any claims of alien contact that have not been thoroughly debunked.