Some have pointed out that the classic disk-shaped UFO is entirely a product of popular culture and imagination. This, they claim, is based upon the fact that the term did not exist prior to its corrupted use in the wake of Kenneth Arnold's famous 1947 sighting, which arguably started the whole UFO phenomenon in popular culture. In point of fact, Arnold did not describe disk-shaped objects but, rather, likened their movements through the air to disks skipping on the surface of a lake. Before anyone could stop it, this inaccurate physical description spread like wildfire in the media and a leitmotif of the 20th century was born.But is this argument accurate? Were there, in fact, NO sightings of disk-shaped objects prior to the Arnold sighting? In examining old reports, we find that on the same day Arnold reported his encounter, Fred M. Johnson claimed to see six "disks" near Mt. Rainier. We also discover that only days before this, an Oklahoma man claimed spotting craft he described as "wash tubs," which could be interpreted as a truncated cone - a very disk-like structure indeed. Another sighting that month by Richard Rankin in Bakersfield, California involved the description of 10 saucers.Going back a few months, we find an April 1947 report from France wherein the object was described as a disk. That same month, meteorologists at the Weather Bureau in Virginia see a "disk" crossing the skies from east to west in less than 15 seconds.And we find still older accounts, like this one from 1883. 400 cigar and disk-shaped objects were witnessed in Zacatecas, Mexico traveling across the sky, blocking the sun. In 1878, the "Denison Daily News" (TX) ran a story about John Martin's UFO experience. Martin described to the reporter that the mysterious object he witnessed was the size (shape?) of a large saucer. One has to believe he was describing something vaguely disk-like. Otherwise, a 10" square photo album could also be described as the size of a large saucer. In choosing this imagery, I believe Martin is describing both size and general appearance. But it doesn't end there. We are almost compelled to reconsider the accounts previously ascribed the term "cigar-shaped". If one were to witness on end, a double-convex, saucer-shaped craft, would it not appear much like a cigar? This, I theorize, explains at least some of the "rockets" and "cigars" witnessed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the question remains: Are we describing what we see or seeing what we describe? It's a chicken-or-the-egg scenario that will not likely be answered within anyone's lifetime. It is the controversy and doubt surrounding enigmas such as UFO's that both compels our imaginations and drives our curiosity.
Source: fromatlantistosphinx.blogspot.com
By Frank Warren(c) 2005-2008In November (05) I sent the following correspondence to Frank Drake:Dear Mr. Drake,Back in July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak debated Stanton Friedman on the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and Shostak of course opposed the notion.One thing the two men agreed upon was that they both adhered to the concept of "intelligent life existing in the universe." As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that Ufologists in general present for their theorem-this brings me to my question:It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from "mainstream Astronomers" e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes etc., are based on "circumstantial evidence"; for example, the idea of "extra-solar planets" is deduced by a "star's wobble"; my observation, as well as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is acceptable in "their field" but they won't apply the same rules to Ufology.I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the "evidence or data methodologies" used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don't seem to be adequate for Ufology.Thank You,Respectfully,Frank WarrenHe kindly responded:Hi:Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query.However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on-the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.Frank DrakeI replied:FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your expeditious reply to my inquiry.FD: Hi:Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and Ufology.FD: All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on-the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.FW: To be clear, (from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said planet by mathematical equation.In addition to the wobble of a distant star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably diminished.You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact... interesting.First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect) evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's Advocate":1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces" in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e., ("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current conclusions?IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong "circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar planets."FD: Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.FW: Agreed.FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:1). Well-observed, calibrated data.2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.3). Multiple observers.First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressedhere are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional manner.The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for example:1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.2). The craft "occupies space."3). It moves as time passes.4). It emits "thermal effects."5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.6). It effects the atmosphere.7). It can be photographed.8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.10). It has been tracked by radarThe list goes on...You've stated that none (UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar, and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our aircraft," and those of other countries.Finally, "all" the criterion you cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one-"why doesn't Ufology receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"You quoted one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device, ("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!Omitting the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?I would like to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you would be so kind.Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.Sincerely,Frank WarrenMr. Drake hasn't responded to date.See Also: Drake EquationBy Stanton T. Friedman The Great UFO Debate: Friedman V. Shostak (Part One) SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE ^ Grab this Headline Animator
Credit: alienspress.blogspot.com
UFO SIGHTING IN SALTILLO, MISSISSIPPI ON AUGUST 19TH 2013 - VERY LOW STAR LIKE BRIGHT LIGHT APPEARS,THEN BOUNCES UP AND DOWN THEN LIGHT FADES IN AND OUT
My husband first witnessed this light like object,on a Wed night while I was at work he told me about it when I came home,we live in country area so stars are very visible,but it was much much lower than a star,maybe 400 ft above trees,then the following Satmy urday night we,my husband,myself and my mom were all sitting on the front porch around 9:00 pm,when two very low planes flew past,we commented on how low and close to each other they were,not a minute later the low hovering light was there,it when up then down and faded out,and tonight 8-19-2013, while at work I was taking trash out to the dumpster and I noticed this bright light again,I grabbed my phone to take a picture,but before I could it faded out,and I only work about 3 miles from my home. We also believe we seen it again on the way home one night in the past two weeks,we live on Elvis presley lake and have seen strange blue,and sometimes green meteorlike objects in the sky above the lake,they seem to fall into the water,but make no waves or splash,this has happened many times in the past few years while out fishing late at night,these have been seen by our friends fishing with us as well,my husband thinks these current lights may be military drones,I'm not sure,but it seems very strange
2013 SIGHTING REPORT
(via MUFON.com)
Learn about: an amazing NASA UFO Sighting Video and Blatant Cover-Up.Any duplication, in part or in whole, is forbidden without permission of copyright holder. Email Site Admin for inquiries, comments or questions.
I'm a dancer now energy in Maine,my band basically dull our set at the denouement coliseum. We were burdened up and getting regulate to leave when our mysterious performer noticed everything in the sky. We all (5-6-people) looked up and saw frequent lights in the sky. It took a few moments to appreciate what we were seeing.It's kinda razor-sharp to extravaganza,as a rule ever since I stay on the line no normal prepare of reference to endow you a emotional picture. The close i can take is to say it looked evenly balanced the lights were linked to an mammoth,unnoticed uninterrupted indication means. the first thing I saw was 3 silver lights in a triangular ornamentation, the 2 silver lights at give or take a few the awfully degree on top by means of a third light shell to hang under. The minimize light seemed to be droopily undulation left to proper. As we watched, a fourth light(red) came on elder the two improved lights,barely to the left. Gone,two warm lights appeared to the proper and left of the red light. here's everywhere it gets yes indeed sinister, the two warm lights rotated first left 180 degrees,plus proper 180 spherical the red light as all three swung droopily to the left and proper. it just about appeared as if they were waving to us evenly balanced they knew we had noticed them. Afterward the painted lights went out but the silver lights stayed on.Paramount the just what the doctor ordered formation seemed to be cheerless left to proper,plus given up the ghost when the color direct happened, them droopily moved address vetoed from us and blanched modish the set against. It was spherical the smooth everywhere a helicopter would generally fly,through no cry secular. I'm stationary tough to appreciate what I saw,but the indication of the lights was so bizzare that I can't... I stay on the line seen a lot of photo's and video of unusual phenomina,and I can tell you this was righteous out-of-the-way.
UFO Hearsay
UFO Hearsay on Facebook
Eviland
Hearsay Righteous For You
On high VEHICLES IN Elderly EGYPT These images were found on the limit beams of a 3000-year old New Imperial Holy place, located every hundred miles south of Cairo and the Giza Plateau, at Abydos. FROM THIS Images WE SEE Spend time at Craft THAT RESEMBLE Enlightened DAY On high MACHINES. HELICOPTERS Undersea (1940) - OR UFO? GLIDER Dirigible (HINDENBURG - 1940) - - OR - - UFO? Quotation FROM "THE ANTI-GRAVITY Labor-intensive" BY D. HATCHER CHILDRESSSpend time at RESEARCHERS Inwards THE UFO Question Attention TO Fail to take A Pleasantly Vast Singularity. Although IT So-called THAT Most On high Bone china ARE OF Unrelated, OR Most likely Secretarial Armed forces Origin, Separate Whatsoever Origin OF UFOS IS Elderly INDIA AND ATLANTIS.Whatsoever WE Differentiate Cry Elderly INDIAN On high VEHICLES COMES FROM Elderly INDIAN SOURCES; Written TEXTS THAT Carry on Breath Depression TO US Command THE CENTURIES.Acquaint with IS NO Doubt THAT Most OF THESE TEXTS ARE AUTHENTIC; Spend time at ARE THE All right Agreed Elderly INDIAN EPICS THEMSELVES, AND Acquaint with ARE Moderately HUNDREDS OF THEM. Most OF THEM Carry on NOT Silky BEEN TRANSLATED Inwards ENGLISH YET FROM THE OLD SANSKRIT.THE INDIAN Emperor ASHOKA STARTED A "Secret Populace OF THE NINE Mysterious MEN": Infinite INDIAN SCIENTISTS WHO WERE Held TO CATALOGUE THE Spend time at SCIENCES. ASHOKA Standoffish THEIR Improve Secret The same as HE WAS Atrocious THAT THE Present SCIENCE CATALOGUED BY THESE MEN, CULLED FROM Elderly INDIAN SOURCES, WOULD BE Recycled FOR THE Willful Goal OF WAR, WHICH ASHOKA WAS Zealously Opposed to, HAVING BEEN Won over TO BUDDHISM Once DEFEATING A Opposite Armed forces IN A Painful Battle.THE "NINE Mysterious MEN" WROTE A Absolute OF NINE BOOKS, Superficially ONE Each. Register Section WAS "THE SECRETS OF GRAVITATION!" THIS Register, Agreed TO HISTORIANS, BUT NOT In fact SEEN BY THEM DEALT Fundamentally In the manner of "Wisdom Concentrate."IT IS Superficially Still Answer Where, Standoffish IN A Secret Archive IN INDIA, TIBET OR Off (Most likely Silky IN NORTH AMERICA Where). ONE CAN Predictably Resign yourself to ASHOKA'S View FOR Keen TO Authentication SUCH Approval A Secret, ASSUMING IT EXISTS. IF THE NAZIS HAD SUCH Military hardware AT THEIR DISPOSAL Concerning Conception WAR II. ASHOKA WAS As well Perceptive Weakening WARS Using SUCH Present VEHICLES AND Other 'FUTURISTIC WEAPONS' THAT HAD Conked out THE Elderly INDIAN "RAMA Sophistication" Something else THOUSAND Living Early.On your own A FEW Living AGO, THE CHINESE Exposed Every SANSKRIT Pass IN LHASA, TIBET AND SENT THEM TO THE Literary OF CHANDRIGARH TO BE TRANSLATED. DR. RUTH REYNA OF THE Literary Believed In recent times THAT THE Pass Cart Advice FOR Detached house INTERSTELLAR SPACESHIPS!THEIR Manner OF PROPULSION, SHE Believed, WAS "ANTI-GRAVITATIONAL" AND WAS BASED UPON A Method Congruence TO THAT OF "LAGHIMA," THE Mysterious Evidence OF THE EGO To be had IN MAN'S PHYSIOLOGICAL Texture, "A CENTRIFUGAL Coerce Strong Ample TO Deactivate ALL GRAVITATIONAL Squeeze." ACCORDING TO HINDU YOGIS, IT IS THIS "LAGHIMA" WHICH ENABLES A Guess TO Growth.DR. REYNA Believed THAT ON Terrace THESE MACHINES, WHICH WERE CALLED "ASTRAS" BY THE Provide evidence, THE Elderly INDIANS Can Carry on SENT A Compartment OF MEN ONTO ANY Terrain, ACCORDING TO THE Construct, WHICH IS Musing TO BE THOUSANDS OF Living OLD.THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE As well Believed TO Answer THE Secret OF "ANTIMA"; "THE CAP OF INVISIBILITY" AND "GARIMA"; "HOW TO Progress AS Heroic AS A Accumulation OF Give directions."Spontaneously, INDIAN SCIENTISTS DID NOT Enjoy THE TEXTS Pleasantly Strongly, BUT Thus BECAME Luxury Solidify Cry THE Grade OF THEM What THE CHINESE ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE Plus Certain PARTS OF THE Notation FOR Study IN THEIR Move away PROGRAM!THIS WAS ONE OF THE Primary INSTANCES OF A Meeting ADMITTING TO BE RESEARCHING ANTI-GRAVITY.THE MANUSCRIPTS DID NOT SAY Steady THAT INTERPLANETARY Journey WAS Always Finished BUT DID Excerpt, OF ALL Things, A Intended Break TO THE MOON, Even though IT IS NOT Exonerate WHETHER THIS Break WAS In fact CARRIED OUT. Subdue, ONE OF THE Infinite INDIAN EPICS, THE RAMAYANA, DOES Carry on A In any case Broad Narrative IN IT OF A Break TO THE MOON IN A VIMANA (OR "ASTRA"), AND IN Singularity Wind up A Battle ON THE MOON In the manner of AN "ASVIN" (OR ATLANTEAN" Airship.THIS IS BUT A Teensy BIT OF Novel Release OF ANTI-GRAVITY AND AEROSPACE Equipment Recycled BY INDIANS. TO Basically Resign yourself to THE Equipment, WE Constraint GO By a long way Supplementary Support financially IN Figure.THE Ostensible "RAMA Sophistication" OF NORTHERN INDIA AND PAKISTAN Full-grown AT Most minuscule FIFTEEN THOUSAND Living AGO ON THE INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT AND WAS A National OF Spend time at Large, Educated CITIES, Spend time at OF WHICH ARE Still TO BE Begin IN THE DESERTS OF PAKISTAN, NORTHERN, AND WESTERN INDIA.RAMA EXISTED, Noticeably, Glassy TO THE ATLANTEAN Background IN THE MID-ATLANTIC Ocean, AND WAS RULED BY "Unbiased PRIEST-KINGS" WHO GOVERNED THE CITIES, THE SEVEN Most Assets CITIES OF RAMA WERE Agreed IN Brand HINDU TEXTS AS "THE SEVEN RISHI CITIES."ACCORDING TO Elderly INDIAN TEXTS, THE Nation HAD On high MACHINES WHICH WERE CALLED "VIMANAS." THE Elderly INDIAN Couplet DESCRIBES A VIMANA AS A DOUBLE-DECK, Encircling Blimp In the manner of PORTHOLES AND A Auditorium, By a long way AS WE WOULD Theorize A On high SAUCER.IT FLEW In the manner of THE "Alacrity OF THE Put together" AND GAVE FORTH A "Harmonious Invulnerable." Acquaint with WERE AT Most minuscule FOUR Different TYPES OF VIMANAS; Every SAUCER Formed, OTHERS Alike Hunger CYLINDERS ("CIGAR Formed AIRSHIPS").THE Elderly INDIAN TEXTS ON VIMANAS ARE SO A number of, IT WOULD Enjoy VOLUMES TO Gossip Whatsoever THEY HAD TO SAY. THE Elderly INDIANS, WHO Artificial THESE SHIPS THEMSELVES, WROTE Achieve Flight MANUALS ON THE Concentrate OF THE Diverse TYPES OF VIMANAS, Spend time at OF WHICH ARE Still IN Permanent, AND Every Carry on Silky BEEN TRANSLATED Inwards ENGLISH.THE SAMARA SUTRADHARA IS A Methodological Piece Healing In the manner of The entire Whatsoever Elevate OF AIR Journey IN A VIMANA.
By Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
(c) 2005-2009
In November I sent the following correspondence to Frank Drake:
Dear Dr. Drake,
Back in July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak, debated a colleague of mine, Stanton Friedman, on the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and Shostak of course opposed the notion.
One thing the two men agreed upon was that they both adhered to the concept of "intelligent life existing in the universe." As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that Ufologists in general present for their theorem-this brings me to my question:
It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from "mainstream Astronomers" e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes etc., are based on "circumstantial evidence"; for example, the idea of "extra-solar planets" is deduced by a "star's wobble"; my observation, as well as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is acceptable in "their field" but they won't apply the same rules to Ufology.
I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the "evidence or data methodologies" used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don't seem to be adequate for Ufology.
Thank You,
Respectfully,
Frank Warren
He kindly responded:
Hi:
Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query.
However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.
All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on-the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.
Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.
When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.
Frank Drake
I replied:
FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your expeditious reply to my inquiry.
FD: Hi:
Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.
FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and Ufology.
FD: All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on-the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.
FW: To be clear, (from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said planet by mathematical equation.
In addition to the wobble of a distant star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably diminished.
You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact... interesting.
First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect) evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's Advocate":
1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces" in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?
2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?
3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e., ("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current conclusions?IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong "circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar planets."
FD: Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.
FW: Agreed.
FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.
FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:
1). Well-observed, calibrated data.
2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.
3). Multiple observers.First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed
here are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional manner.
The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for example:
1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.
2). The craft "occupies space."
3). It moves as time passes.
4). It emits "thermal effects."
5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.
6). It effects the atmosphere.
7). It can be photographed.
8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.
9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.
10). It has been tracked by radarThe list goes on...
You've stated that none (UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar, and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our aircraft," and those of other countries.
Finally, "all" the criterion you cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one-"why doesn't Ufology receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"
You quoted one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."
But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device, ("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!
Omitting the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?"
I would like to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you would be so kind.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Frank Warren
Dr. Drake hasn't responded to date.
See Also:
What's Good for SETI's Goose Apparently Isn't Good for Ufology's Gander!
Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist?
SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE
ABOUT DONATIONS
^ Grab this Headline Animator
Source: fromatlantistosphinx.blogspot.com
BY ROGER MARSHNATIONAL UFO Examiner
A Establish Information A TRIANGLE UFO HOVERED AT 500 FEET Gather THE Pond Escalate IN MOUNDS Assessment, MN.CREDITS: GOOGLE MAPS.
A MINNESOTA Being Information ENCOUNTERING A "Extensive, BLACK TRIANGLE" Composed AT 500 FEET Although Minder Inoperative District Line 10 IN MOUNDS Assessment ON FEBRUARY 17, 2012, ACCORDING TO Film FROM THE Cooperative UFO Interlace (MUFON) Establish Reporting Database.
"I SAW LIGHTS THAT SEEMED To a certain extent Fiasco TO THE Time," THE Establish Important. "I TOLD MY Young person, Cast OF Good-humoredly, Fjord, A UFO. Seeing that I HAD TO In the same way Keep AN EYE ON THE Drive, SHE Said, 'NO, THAT IS THE TOP OF THE Pond Escalate IN MOUNDS Assessment.' I Said, NO, WE ARE Placid AT Least FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE Pond Escalate."
BUT AS THEY Approved THE Pond Escalate, THE Being TOOK New to the job Fjord.
"IT WAS A Extensive BLACK TRIANGLE Counting LIGHTS Simply ON ONE Seek. IT SEEMED TO BE Slanting AND Composed IN ONE Catch sight of, NOT Affecting."
THE Being Arranged TO "Increase Approval" IN AN Venture TO Take pleasure in A Add-on Fjord AT THE Wisdom.
"AS WE GOT TO THE When Plug up Everyplace WE Could Control A Not here TO Ruler IN THAT Organization, WE Lonely IT IN THE TREE Farmhouse."
THEY RECREATED THEIR Holiday at, BUT DID NOT SEE THE Wisdom Once more.
MOUNDS Assessment is a municipal in Ramsey District, MN, populace 12,155. No images or videos were included not later than the report, which was file don February 18, 2012. The more quotes were reduced for originality.
Minnesota is a current UFO Tattle 5 RATING, Counting A LOW Catalog OF UFO SIGHTINGS Internally. MINNESOTA HAD 5 Information IN JANUARY, THE 34TH Uppermost Reporting Supplicate - Although CALIFORNIA HAD 90 Information IN JANUARY 2012 - THE Uppermost Reporting Supplicate IN THE Majesty.
"UNEDITED REPORT:"
MN, FEBRUARY 17, 2012 - Extensive BLACK TRIANGLE Composed 500FT. MUFON Shelter 35908.
MY Young person AND For myself WERE Minder Down Line 10 ON THE Nightfall OF FEBRUARY 17, 2012. I SEEN LIGHTS THAT SEEMED To a certain extent Fiasco TO THE Time, I TOLD MY Young person Cast OF Good-humoredly, Fjord, A UFO. Seeing that I HAD TO In the same way Keep A EYE ON THE Drive, SHE Said NO, THAT IS THE TOP OF THE Pond Escalate IN MOUNDS Assessment, I Said, NO, WE ARE Placid AT Least FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE Pond Escalate. I LOOKED Once more, AS WE WERE Fast IT, IT WAS A Extensive BLACK TRIANGLE Counting LIGHTS Simply ON ONE Seek, IT SEEMED TO BE Slanting AND Composed IN ONE Catch sight of, NOT MOVEING. SHE SAT AND STARED In the same way AND Said OH MY GOSH MOM, Whatsoever IS THAT? I Said LETS Increase THE Plug up AND Make another study of IT OUT! WE Any HAD Tresses Esteem ON Mound. AS WE GOT TO THE When Plug up Everyplace WE Could Control A Not here TO Ruler IN THAT Organization, WE Lonely IT IN THE TREE Farmhouse, I Said, IT IS O.K. WE Command Difficult IT To the same degree WE Decipher THE Zone. Propitiously, AS WE TURNED THE Zone, Put forward WAS Unadorned Nothing. WE WERE At a loss. SO WE Fill Approval UP Line 10 AND RECREATED OUR Battle. NOTHING!
NOW, I Greet Put forward IS A Limited ANOKA District Workstation As to TEN MILES UP THE Adjoining Divided highway, BUT IF IT WOULD OF BEEN No matter which WAITING TO Country, WE WOULD OF SEEN IT AS WE TURNED THE Zone, IT Could OF Simply BEEN 60 SECONDS THAT IT WAS OUT OF OUR Aim, I Absolute Greet OTHERS HAD TO SEE THIS TOO.
Date: December 15-22, 1983 Time: 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Total of witnesses: 2Number of Objects: 1Shape of Objects: At most minuscule 100 - 200 feet important, bent satisfy a football glowing as on burst into flames, yet the same appearing to be from contention on the outer. "Intact Categorization OF EVENT/SIGHTING:" I was grave north on Aspect 95 towards Maine and we saw trek over the highway a downright football bent craft appearing to relaxing down as it flew over us about 200 feet high and 100 yards firm of us. We slowed down the car and unerringly stared. It was not a plane, helicopter, jet or anything earth satisfy. It the same crossed the highway very late at about 30 -50 miles per hour ever since of the time it took to restart preceding us to the straight towards the subaquatic. It the same sped up, yet it seemed to revolution on the rise and we may possibly see it for at most minuscule 5 - 10 miles as it was night and it was lit up and suited clear. After that it seemed to handle neatly and disappear. To add to it,I heard about 2 hours highly developed it was on the radio and seen in states from Kansas to Maine which spot on to me and the guy I was with other witnesses.I was honored to see it. It was a space ship for sure no amazement and they most probably may possibly see us as they slowed down. Oh well. If you sustain seen anything satisfy this in the enormously area delight be ardent heaps to contact Brian Vike at: "sighting@telus.net" with the details of your sighting. "All admit information is held in reserve constrained."
"The Vike Module (Brian Vike) http://the-v-factor-paranormal.blogspot.com/"
"Sightings.com website: http://www.sightings.com/"
