Do you believe in UFOs & flying saucers ?

steddyeddy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This could be a pretty decent thread if it wasn't for constant idiotic posts like this.

The thread seems to go like this:

Poster 1: A navy pilot states that he and 5 colleagues observed an object moving beyond the capabilities of current aviation technology.

Poster 2: Go ahead and believe in aliens ect, loch ness, bigfoot ect.

Poster 1: Here's an interview with the pilot and radar operator. How would you explain the witness testimony?

Poster 2: I don't believe in aliens anyone who must believe (insert trope here). There's never any videos.

Poster 1: Here's a video recorded by 6 pilots who observed an object displaying acceleration and manavourability in excess of anything we have on earth. Here's another interview with the radar operator stating that this object moved approximately 20,000 miles an hour.

Poster 2 : I'm watching the football. I'm not interested in these discussions. No one takes it seriously.

Poster 1: Here's an article from the renowned Scientific American in which they state

Why should astronomers, meteorologists, or planetary scientists care about these events? Shouldn’t we just let image analysts, or radar observation experts, handle the problem? All good questions, and rightly so. Why should we care? Because we are scientists. Curiosity is the reason we became scientists. In the current interdisciplinary collaborative environment, if someone (especially a fellow scientist) approaches us with an unsolved problem beyond our area of expertise, we usually do our best to actually contact other experts within our professional network to try and get some outside perspective. The best-case outcome is that we work on a paper or a proposal with our colleague from another discipline; the worst case is that we learn something new from a colleague in another discipline. Either way, curiosity helps us to learn more and become scientists with broader perspectives.

Poster 2: You can keep believing UFOs along with the childish people in that video and who wrote that article ect.


Let's be honest it's not a debate amongst equals is it? The sceptics on this thread are being remarkably reductive and emotional on this issue. These recent events, captured on camera have changed the debate to the point where prominent scientists, military experts are stating there's a mystery to be solved.

The sceptics seem to be stating that anyone who even considers this a mystery should be shouted down. This is the antithesis to science. It is them who are dismissing evidence, dismissing the scientific method and dribbling nonsensically about football and attacking anyone who states there's a mystery to be solved.

maccored

steddyeddy wrote: »

The sceptics seem to be stating that

the cynics you mean. sceptics are open to new information and generally are in between believing and dismissing.

Cynics think they know it all already - and usually in these cases think they have superior intelligence to those who aren't cynical alongside them. (prob think they are more intelligent than the other cynics if the truth were told)

steddyeddy

COVID wrote: »

As was mentioned by another poster, the problem is the thread title.

If it were (although a bit unwieldy): The Lock Ness Monster: Reported sightings, out of focus grainy photos, and blurred footage of same...fill your boots here.

Then I wouldn't bother posting.

If however, it read: Do you believe in The Lock Ness Monster?

Then I'd probably chip in for the craic.

And there you have it!

Ah c'mon you're joking aren't you. Let me get this straight you have people posting articles from major news outlets and scientific journals here and in contrast you have you failing to understand them, dribbling out a few words like football, aliens and the rest and being generally being unable to comment on the details of claims.

But despite all this you think the thread title is the problem? You expect us to believe that a thread title change would up your ability to analyse scientific journals?

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

the cynics you mean. sceptics are open to new information and generally are in between believing and dismissing.

Cynics think they know it all already - and usually in these cases think they have superior intelligence to those who aren't cynical alongside them. (prob think they are more intelligent than the other cynics if the truth were told)

That's interesting that you say that. You know that scepticism isn't a thing in science in the way many amateurs think it is. Sceptics are generally closed minded.

Scientific investigation uses the scientific method. It starts from a position of agnosticism. Sceptics generally start from a position of it's not this. Scepticism has a very bad name amongst the scientific community as it creates a taboo around studying the unknown.

As another publication on the scientific study of unidentified aerial phenomenon states:

We, as scientists, cannot hastily dismiss any phenomenon without in-depth examination and then conclude the event itself is unscientific.

Such an approach would certainly not pass the “smell test” in our day-to-day science duties, so these kinds of arguments similarly should not suffice to explain UAP. We must insist on strict agnosticism.

silliussoddius

Well you can't really start with the idea that UFOs are alien and use grainy photos and eye witness accounts as proof. We don't have any current conclusive proof of what an alien craft should look like to compare what is presented as evidence against, so I don't think the "regular" scientific method can be applied.
Given that proof of life else wehere in the universe would be the biggest breakthrough in modern science, let alone that what we are calling UFOs are the proof then I think the approach should be to try see if these reports can be explained via earthly reasons.
Also who gets to decide what is alien and not, when you have bat sh!ttery like To the stars, MUFON, etc. out there.

igCorcaigh

COVID wrote: »

As was mentioned by another poster, the problem is the thread title.

If it were (although a bit unwieldy): The Lock Ness Monster: Reported sightings, out of focus grainy photos, and blurred footage of same...fill your boots here.

Then I wouldn't bother posting.

If however, it read: Do you believe in The Lock Ness Monster?

Then I'd probably chip in for the craic.

And there you have it!

And I did bring up the thread title.
Because the word "believe" not only does it conjure up ideas of X Files and such, but I think the concept of belief is not one that is relevant to any point of enquiry.

I think COVID, I don't really understand your contribution to the thread. Your mentioning of Martians and stuff maybe a form of criticising the whole idea of UFO evidence? I don't know, I am a slow learner.

igCorcaigh

silliussoddius wrote: »

Well you can't really start with the idea that UFOs are alien and use grainy photos and eye witness accounts as proof. We don't have any current conclusive proof of what an alien craft should look like to compare what is presented as evidence against, so I don't think the "regular" scientific method can be applied.
Given that proof of life else wehere in the universe would be the biggest breakthrough in modern science, let alone that what we are calling UFOs are the proof then I think the approach should be to try see if these reports can be explained via earthly reasons.
Also who gets to decide what is alien and not, when you have bat sh!ttery like To the stars, MUFON, etc. out there.

Yeah, exactly.
With limited evidence, we rule out certain more likely explanations, which can easily be done with the vast amount of UFO material.

We never impose a theory such as alien life on the findings.
We filter through, until we are left with interesting findings.
And then we have an honest discussion.

steddyeddy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yeah, exactly.
With limited evidence, we rule out certain more likely explanations, which can easily be done with the vast amount of UFO material.

We never impose a theory such as alien life on the findings.
We filter through, until we are left with interesting findings.
And then we have an honest discussion.

Exactly that. We can rule out other explanations. We also have footage taken by pilots using infrared cameras. The real data would be the actual radar data that is being described by radar operators.

The operator in the Nimitz encounter stated that the went from 0 to 20,000 mph in a second. We need scientists to analyse this data to account for glitches, human error ect.

We don't need conclusions yet. We need a detailed investigation.

igCorcaigh

steddyeddy wrote: »

Exactly that. We can rule out other explanations. We also have footage taken by pilots using infrared cameras. The real data would be the actual radar data that is being described by radar operators.

The operator in the Nimitz encounter stated that the went from 0 to 20,000 mph in a second. We need scientists to analyse this data to account for glitches, human error ect.

We don't need conclusions yet. We need a detailed investigation.

What I would love to see is a paper, peer reviewed etc, collating all of this data, and concluding that no technology that we know of, or artefacts in data, can account for the findings. If such a thing can be done with any confidence. Would it be feasible, scientifically or politically?

(of course, part of the barriers to decent investigation is that the topic is a kiss of death to many a scientific career).

COVID

igCorcaigh wrote: »

What I would love to see is a paper, peer reviewed etc, collating all of this data, and concluding that no technology that we know of, or artefacts in data, can account for the findings. If such a thing can be done with any confidence. Would it be feasible, scientifically or politically?

(of course, part of the barriers to decent investigation is that the topic is a kiss of death to many a scientific career).

I do wonder why?

igCorcaigh

COVID wrote: »

I do wonder why?

Ha ha! Sure.

Yet I think that when there exists data that calls out for explanation, there should be enquiry.

I'd imagine it would be hard to get funding too, for scientific research into the problem of consciousness, for example.

maccored

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's interesting that you say that. You know that scepticism isn't a thing in science in the way many amateurs think it is. Sceptics are generally closed minded.

Scientific investigation uses the scientific method. It starts from a position of agnosticism. Sceptics generally start from a position of it's not this. Scepticism has a very bad name amongst the scientific community as it creates a taboo around studying the unknown.

As another publication on the scientific study of unidentified aerial phenomenon states:

proper scepticism isn't closed minded, to me anyway. basically you have three categories - believers, complete non believers (those who are cynical) and sceptics (those who are open to convincing)

Psychologists like Ciaran O'Keeffe think along the same lines, and though he is quite grounded in relation to UFOs and Freudian events, he's still open to percussion. 'Question' and 'test' are the two important words. Not dismissing out of hand:

I’m a sceptic. I shouldn’t need to say that, because I’m a scientist and that’s what scientists are. They question; they test claims. .... I’m a sceptic not a cynic, though people in the media often assume I’m cynical.’

igCorcaigh

maccored wrote: »

proper scepticism isn't closed minded, to me anyway. basically you have three categories - believers, complete non believers (those who are cynical) and sceptics (those who are open to convincing)

Psychologists like Ciaran O'Keeffe think along the same lines, and though he is quite grounded in relation to UFOs and Freudian events, he's still open to percussion. 'Question' and 'test' are the two important words. Not dismissing out of hand:

Aren't you both saying the same thing though.

maccored

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Aren't you both saying the same thing though.

aye. I was kinda backing up what steadyeddy was saying. I think

maccored

its the people being cynical who dont understand they aren't being sceptical. totally disbelieving something we know little about is as bad as completely believing in things we know little about - but we'll never find out if nobody bothers looking.

igCorcaigh

maccored wrote: »

its the people being cynical who dont understand they aren't being sceptical. totally disbelieving something we know little about is as bad as completely believing in things we know little about - but we'll never find out if nobody bothers looking.

Very true.

The sun goes around the world (Earth), because it just does.
Anybody who says it doesn't are heretics and will be burned at the stake (so to speak).

Rhys Essien

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Ha ha! Sure.

Yet I think that when there exists data that calls out for explanation, there should be enquiry.

I'd imagine it would be hard to get funding too, for scientific research into the problem of consciousness, for example.

And then I remind you of the UFO sightings off the coast of Kerry in 2018 by multiple pilots and the Irish Aviation Authority said they would be investigating.

And then we heard no more about it. WHY.

We don’t even know who the pilots were and none of them ever spoke about what exactly happened.

Again..WHY.

iagreebut

Yes an investigation is the way to go, my son's nearly 20 now and I've had an interest in these things along with the paranormal and the unexplained since I was young.

He doesn't call as much anymore and I have a lot of spare time,as he's doing his own thing..I spent the last 18 year's being a single dad seeing him on a weekly basis and he's moved further away from my location with his mum and step father.

So I left go of other people's research and decided to go
my own way.
And I'm starting from scratch...
I've already some strange footage and photos and am just trying my own thing...

There's no contempt prior to investigation for me, I leave that to the likes of the cynics.... they always have contempt for fun and pleasure.

Take the likes of the clowns who go on forums undermining people's interests and trolling them until they either get someone so wound up until they're banned or just gives up...

COVID

maccored wrote: »

proper scepticism isn't closed minded, to me anyway. basically you have three categories - believers, complete non believers (those who are cynical) and sceptics (those who are open to convincing)

Psychologists like Ciaran O'Keeffe think along the same lines, and though he is quite grounded in relation to UFOs and Freudian events, he's still open to percussion. 'Question' and 'test' are the two important words. Not dismissing out of hand:

Well if Ciarán comes to this thread, he'll certainly have it drummed into him.

Btw guys, any chance of a bit of levity in these straitened times, I feel like I've walked into a meeting of the Branch Davidians.

maccored

COVID wrote: »

Well if Ciarán comes to this thread, he'll certainly have it drummed into him.

Btw guys, any chance of a bit of levity in these straitened times, I feel like I've walked into a meeting of the Branch Davidians.

I have to own up, you 'beat' me there

bangkok

iagreebut wrote: »

Yes an investigation is the way to go, my son's nearly 20 now and I've had an interest in these things along with the paranormal and the unexplained since I was young.

He doesn't call as much anymore and I have a lot of spare time,as he's doing his own thing..I spent the last 18 year's being a single dad seeing him on a weekly basis and he's moved further away from my location with his mum and step father.

So I left go of other people's research and decided to go
my own way.
And I'm starting from scratch...
I've already some strange footage and photos and am just trying my own thing...

There's no contempt prior to investigation for me, I leave that to the likes of the cynics.... they always have contempt for fun and pleasure.

Take the likes of the clowns who go on forums undermining people's interests and trolling them until they either get someone so wound up until they're banned or just gives up...

I call them dicks

I seen 2 UFO's years ago when i was about 12/13, couldnt believe it when i seen them, we stopped the car at the side of the road, 2 other cars were stopped, no noise out of either, look for about 5 mins and then they both imploded. I was obsessed about it for years and like you started at the very beginning. Done loads of research over the years, know nearly every story, every major encounter etc

You would go crazy looking at it all because when you actually do the research, its fairly obvious this is the biggest cover up in the history of mankind

maccored

i can tell you what I saw once, and - other than they were flying and I dont know what they were - technically they might be UFOs.

I got in my car, and left the house one day to collect my son, and as I drove up the road I could see a bright light in what I assumed was in the field. The road went up a very slight hill and around a bend to the left, and there was a field running along side the right hand side of the road.

it was really bright, very round - but it was still daylight (getting near dusk though) and i thought it must be some light yer man has to be that bright at that distance (as I say, I had assumed he was far back int he field).

When I got to the bend - maybe 10 seconds later - the light was on the road side of the fence, and as I continued to the bend and started goign around it, there was another ball of light on the other side. I'd just about thought 'wtf?' when the one I'd seen in the field, flew across the road in front of me, melted into to the other one and they just shot off.

Haven't a notion what that was.

iagreebut

bangkok wrote: »

I seen 2 UFO's years ago when i was about 12/13, couldnt believe it when i seen them, we stopped the car at the side of the road, 2 other cars were stopped, no noise out of either, look for about 5 mins and then they both imploded. I was obsessed about it for years and like you started at the very beginning. Done loads of research over the years, know nearly every story, every major encounter etc

You would go crazy looking at it all because when you actually do the research, its fairly obvious this is the biggest cover up in the history of mankind

I know what you mean, if you have an interest in the subject you're going down all kinds of rabbit holes.

Have you ever been in a forest, and noticed unusual looking structures that most people cannot observe or conceive with their unobservant eyes.

Some people supposedly have a 6th sense, you may call it a gift or in some cases a curse.

There's a channel on YouTube that I listen to sometimes about stories, it's actually called bedtime stories.
The artwork is amazing, and the narration is top notch.

It's a guy talking about unusual happening and mysterious encounters.

Most people I know won't go out hiking alone in the Woods at night, or around ancient sites.
They are cynics, but fear the things they believe don't exist.
Then they say it's a mechanism in their brain going back to neanderthal times, it makes them fear Bears and wolves etc, but it's not the boggy man..

They have scientists to back up their fear, so and so says it and that's it...

Actually in this conversation I'll only engage with non cynics and only posters who believe these things are possible.

After all it's a discussion to me, I'm not going to argue with anyone, I couldn't be bothered tying myself up in knots

Rhys Essien

bangkok wrote: »

I seen 2 UFO's years ago when i was about 12/13, couldnt believe it when i seen them, we stopped the car at the side of the road, 2 other cars were stopped, no noise out of either, look for about 5 mins and then they both imploded. I was obsessed about it for years and like you started at the very beginning. Done loads of research over the years, know nearly every story, every major encounter etc

You would go crazy looking at it all because when you actually do the research, its fairly obvious this is the biggest cover up in the history of mankind

And the possibility that we are actually sharing the planet with a highly advanced civilization. :eek:

Kunta Kinte

iagreebut wrote: »

I know what you mean, if you have an interest in the subject you're going down all kinds of rabbit holes.

Have you ever been in a forest, and noticed unusual looking structures that most people cannot observe or conceive with their unobservant eyes.

Some people supposedly have a 6th sense, you may call it a gift or in some cases a curse.

There's a channel on YouTube that I listen to sometimes about stories, it's actually called bedtime stories.
The artwork is amazing, and the narration is top notch.

It's a guy talking about unusual happening and mysterious encounters.

Most people I know won't go out hiking alone in the Woods at night, or around ancient sites.
They are cynics, but fear the things they believe don't exist.
Then they say it's a mechanism in their brain going back to neanderthal times, it makes them fear Bears and wolves etc, but it's not the boggy man..

They have scientists to back up their fear, so and so says it and that's it...

Actually in this conversation I'll only engage with non cynics and only posters who believe these things are possible.

After all it's a discussion to me, I'm not going to argue with anyone, I couldn't be bothered tying myself up in knots

What sort of unusual looking structures in forests? Genuinely curious as I have never noticed anything out of the ordinary in them myself but I would have an open mind.

iagreebut

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

What sort of unusual looking structures in forests? Genuinely curious as I have never noticed anything out of the ordinary in them myself but I would have an open mind.

Ok I started researching the phenomena know as the sasquatch or bigfoot.
And during the lockdown I was looking into a lot of sightings, stories and encounters.

This lead me to all kinds of ideas, observations and theories.

There's unnatural bends in tree's and branches put in certain shapes and forms.

Now I'm open to this being native American sculpture or something kid's made or someone into Wicca or just messers.

But where they're located you could never bring in machinery or a man couldn't bend these trees in the places they're bent, and get an industrial step ladder positioned so as to bend the tree's, let alone drag one up you'd see the trails, or a rope for that matter.

Or in certain places way out in the boonies, trees weaved and facing a similar direction, branches Criss crossed, or fort's which are made out of broken branches rather than branches which are cut by a chainsaw.

Try bending and snapping these branches and not even a body builder could snap them.
And in order to snap them with a slow motion, you'll split them and you'll see the bark all crumpled up, even the wind will crumple the bark.

It looks as if the branches were snapped by something that was fast, strong and basically not by a man or force of nature.

I'm only a beginner and thinking anything is possible,so I'm I'm not out to prove anything.
Just an ordinary guy doing my own research...

emo72

I've heard witnesses describing it as something that can't be described. Coming into contact with something that is not Earthly. They can't describe it, and can't put it into logical words.

That's interesting enough for me to follow it up. I'm off down the rabbit hole lads. Chat later.

jmlad2020

iagreebut wrote: »

It looks as if the branches were snapped by something that was fast, strong and basically not by a man or force of nature.

I'm only a beginner and thinking anything is possible,so I'm I'm not out to prove anything.
Just an ordinary guy doing my own research...

Any pics you could share?..

iagreebut

jmlad2020 wrote: »

Any pics you could share?..

If you go on YouTube or sasquatch site's, you'll get all the information about the structures etc

And you'll be able to research the bends in the tree's and some of the research is just mind boggling.

Listening and trying to get my head around some of the theories and concepts, just opens the mind.

it's not for people who are cynical, they're not interested in it, they don't understand it so they just make a joke about it.

If you're interested fire away or just observant, but if you get sucked into these things you'll be on a ride through a fast flowing river with lots of white water and end up wondering wtf...

It's very intriguing and warps your perceptions of reality...

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

its the people being cynical who dont understand they aren't being sceptical. totally disbelieving something we know little about is as bad as completely believing in things we know little about - but we'll never find out if nobody bothers looking.

True. Those type of people are actually quite dogmatic i.e "I know it's not that and anyone who thinks that is wrong".

One famous sceptic was George Cuvier, a zoologist who lived in the 19th century. He uttered a phrase that is now used as a teaching aid in science to warn against sceptics towards the dogmatic side of the spectrum. The phrase, labelled "Cuvier's rash dictum" goes like this:

There is little hope of discovering new species of large mammals as all have been discovered.

Cuvier was responding to reports of a large, man-like creature that was sighted in the Congo and Rwanda. Today we know this as the gorilla, but to Cuvier, none of the reports mattered simply because he didn't believe that any large animals remained undiscovered.

There are countless examples of this type of thinking being proved wrong. There's no room for belief in science "i.e this is definitely what I think it is and anyone who disagrees is crazy",

bosco12345

If your interested in the UFO phenomenon, I'd recommend listening to the Joe Rogan podcast with Bob Lazar. Not saying I believe the story but its fairly interesting to listen

bangkok

bosco12345 wrote: »

If your interested in the UFO phenomenon, I'd recommend listening to the Joe Rogan podcast with Bob Lazar. Not saying I believe the story but its fairly interesting to listen

good film as well with him in it from 2018..

Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers

iagreebut

I remember there was a strange triangular shaped craft seen around West Limerick and south Clare in the early 90's I'd say it was a stealth bomber refueling in Shannon airport, I know they can also refuel in the air too.
But now and again they have no other choice.

Some things can be debunked others are a mystery.

Psychlops

iagreebut wrote: »

I remember there was a strange triangular shaped craft seen around West Limerick and south Clare in the early 90's I'd say it was a stealth bomber refueling in Shannon airport, I know they can also refuel in the air too.
But now and again they have no other choice.

Some things can be debunked others are a mystery.

As a planespotter, I can tell you that kind of info wouldnt last long in Ireland, Shannon was always a hot bed for Soviet & NATO/US movements during & after the Cold War, that kind of movement going through Shannon would be all over the place.


Shannon is/was one of those rare places were Soviet & Western Aircraft both shared the ramp/parking area at the same time.

Rhys Essien

The second caller’s story is pretty ‘out there’ to say the least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfPvN7kMFa4

COVID

suninthesky wrote: »

No I don't.

What about Bigfoot?

silliussoddius

COVID wrote: »

What about Bigfoot?

For Bigfoot I would go with the same approach as the alien hypothesis for UFOs, skeptical but wouldn't be surprised if proven to be true with hard physical evidence. What would the minimum number need to be for a breeding population so as to avoid inbreeding/pedigree collapse?

auspicious

Is it more believable to guess that they wormholed thier way across the galaxy than they time travelled from the distant future? Of cousre the breakaway civilisation is not on the discussion table...

fryup

warp speed?

COVID

silliussoddius wrote: »

For Bigfoot I would go with the same approach as the alien hypothesis for UFOs, skeptical but wouldn't be surprised if proven to be true with hard physical evidence. What would the minimum number need to be for a breeding population so as to avoid inbreeding/pedigree collapse?

I would be a tiny bit sceptical myself.

Regarding Bigfoots breeding to make Littlefeet, then two would probably do it, didn't the human race begin with just Adam and Eve?

COVID

auspicious wrote: »

Is it more believable to guess that they wormholed thier way across the galaxy than they time travelled from the distant future? Of cousre the breakaway civilisation is not on the discussion table...

You might be overthinking it a bit with 'wormholed'; sometimes the obvious explanation is the best one - Occam's Razor - so they probably got here in the quaint, old-fashioned, almost analogue way, by dint of a transporter, or even a simple flux capacitor.

COVID

fryup wrote: »

warp speed?

That's a toughie, but I'll go for Warp factor 6, which is approximately (according to the 'Star Trek Warp Speed Chart') 423 billion kilometres per hour.
You really would have to 'brace yourself' at that speed!

ohnonotgmail

silliussoddius wrote: »

For Bigfoot I would go with the same approach as the alien hypothesis for UFOs, skeptical but wouldn't be surprised if proven to be true with hard physical evidence. What would the minimum number need to be for a breeding population so as to avoid inbreeding/pedigree collapse?

50/500 rule. minimum of 50 to prevent inbreeding. minimum of 500 to have enough genetic diversity to cope with environment change.

bangkok

anyone remember Michael Knighton, English business man who tried to buy Manchester United...

He said him and his wife seen a UFO, was publicly mocked after he told a paper not to publish the story, had to step back then from everything as he said it wasnt fair on his family. sad to say that if you say you seen a UFO it can potentially ruin your life

ohnonotgmail

bangkok wrote: »

anyone remember Michael Knighton, English business man who tried to buy Manchester United...

He said him and his wife seen a UFO, was publicly mocked after he told a paper not to publish the story, had to step back then from everything as he said it wasnt fair on his family. sad to say that if you say you seen a UFO it can potentially ruin your life

he also claimed to be a multimillionaire when he tried to buy United. the man was a spoofer.

COVID

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

50/500 rule. minimum of 50 to prevent inbreeding. minimum of 500 to have enough genetic diversity to cope with environment change.

Wow, 500 Bigfoots, Bigfeet..is there a plural?

I know the collective noun is a 'Stampede'.

I wonder do they meet up annually for family gatherings?

COVID

bangkok wrote: »

anyone remember Michael Knighton, English business man who tried to buy Manchester United...

He said him and his wife seen a UFO, was publicly mocked after he told a paper not to publish the story, had to step back then from everything as he said it wasnt fair on his family. sad to say that if you say you seen a UFO it can potentially ruin your life

Not only did he see one, but he claims it spoke to him too, sounds plausible enough:

“Knighton: Aliens Spoke To Me”.
As they set off from their Yorkshire home one afternoon in 1976, he and his wife had watched an apparently alien craft perform a range of “impossible” aero-gymnastics. As the glowing UFO disappeared, he believed he had received a telepathic message urging him: “Don’t be afraid, Michael.”

https://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/view-from-the-pressbox/the-day-knighton-got-carlisle-in-the-space-race/

Weepsie

That's not what ruined his life. He tried being an owner, chairman and manager of a football club afterwards and showed he was entirely useless at it. Club went into administration under him too. That's on him

EmmetSpiceland

maccored wrote: »

i can tell you what I saw once, and - other than they were flying and I dont know what they were - technically they might be UFOs.

I don’t think anyone has any issue with people seeing “unexplained” things in the sky. Any object you see flying in the sky is an unidentified flying object, to the uninformed witness. Just as no one is making the claim that there is no intelligent life somewhere in the universe.

The issues arise when people claim, seemingly with absolute certainty, that these “sightings” are hard proof that alien replicons from beyond the moon are zip zapping across our skies, in their hip little space cruisers, like the Neutrinos from the ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’. Although they were inter-dimensional beings not space aliens visiting from Aldebaran b.

A lot of Fortean “enthusiasts” will latch on to any video that purports to show something inexplicable and instantly claim it’s, obviously, aliens. Anyone remember the ‘Rods’ phenomenon that was around a good few years back? People were catching these ‘sky fish’ on camera, moving at great speed, and in a range of sizes.

Of course, after various claims that these were an “undiscovered” species, most certainly alien in origin, but it transpired that they were nothing more than moths, and other flying creatures, filmed at a certain speed.

The thread topic is ‘Do You Believe in UFO/Flying Saucers?’, I believe there are unexplained things being seen in the skies but I don’t, for one second, believe there are little green men piloting these objects. And I, also, don’t believe anyone should be scoffed at, scoffed at no less, for holding this grounded, and rational, “belief”.

If others want to believe in all that Von Däniken stuff that’s their “business” but I’m not sure, with all the modern understanding of the size, and scale, of the universe that anyone could claim, with a straight face, that it has any basis, or merit, in actual science.

raspberrypi67

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I don’t think anyone has any issue with people seeing “unexplained” things in the sky. Any object you see flying in the sky is an unidentified flying object, to the uninformed witness. Just as no one is making the claim that there is no intelligent life somewhere in the universe.

The issues arise when people claim, seemingly with absolute certainty, that these “sightings” are hard proof that alien replicons from beyond the moon are zip zapping across our skies, in their hip little space cruisers, like the Neutrinos from the ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’. Although they were inter-dimensional beings not space aliens visiting from Aldebaran b.

A lot of Fortean “enthusiasts” will latch on to any video that purports to show something inexplicable and instantly claim it’s, obviously, aliens. Anyone remember the ‘Rods’ phenomenon that was around a good few years back? People were catching these ‘sky fish’ on camera, moving at great speed, and in a range of sizes.

Of course, after various claims that these were an “undiscovered” species, most certainly alien in origin, but it transpired that they were nothing more than moths, and other flying creatures, filmed at a certain speed.

The thread topic is ‘Do You Believe in UFO/Flying Saucers?’, I believe there are unexplained things being seen in the skies but I don’t, for one second, believe there are little green men piloting these objects. And I, also, don’t believe anyone should be scoffed at, scoffed at no less, for holding this grounded, and rational, “belief”.

If others want to believe in all that Von Däniken stuff that’s their “business” but I’m not sure, with all the modern understanding of the size, and scale, of the universe that anyone could claim, with a straight face, that it has any basis, or merit, in actual science.

I believe in di-lithium crystals ok, scottie says there great....