Skeptic's Opinions of The UFO Phenomenon

[bngbuck]

I have asked this question (second paragraph) of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Marilyn Vos Savant and many other brights, and I would like to address it to anyone on this forum that would care to respond. I am currently writing a monograph on this and other similar events of mass or large group perception of apparently anomalous phenomena - religious visions, conjurors illusions, mass hallucinations or "mass hysteria", and the like - obviously my focus is not on individual narratives of unusual perceived events regardless of apparent credibility. I welcome your comments. Here is the question.

What is your view (or better, opinion) of The UFO Phenomenon? I do NOT mean anything regarding little grey men, alien abductions, or "encounters" of any kind.

I refer only to the small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial or space phenomena as reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts - sightings that have been thoroughly investigated and remain unexplained. Also those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other Air Force investigations - and NOT rejected as hoax, hallucinatory, or balloons, aircraft, planets, etc.

bngbuck
bngbuck@roadrunner.com

[vbloke]

I'm not going to comment on the

small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial or space phenomena

as I do not have access to the documents, and so, to comment on them would be pointless without the full facts at my disposal.

However, my opinion of extra-terrestrial life is this:
It would be extraordinary for us to assume that we are alone in the universe. The fact that complex organic molecules form in nebulae from the ionising radiation of newborn stars, and that organic residue is likely to help form any planets that orbit those stars, then the ingredients for life are strewn throughout the known and observable universe. (In a recent journal article, it has also been shown that DNA precursors form in these nebulae, molecules that form helices and are self-replicating, so life is found, in it's constituent parts, where star-birth is observed).

Not every planet around every star will harbour the necessary conditions for life to evolve, however, in the observable universe, there may be billions of planets that have the right conditions for life to emerge. it may be only bacteria; it may form into complex life like ourselves - intelligent and technological.

Taking these factors into account, the evolutionary processes on an alien world would be very different from the ones here on Earth, so the chances of any alien life being similar to us is, whilst not impossible, highly improbable. We evolved from earlier, simpler animals - they would do the same, but their progenitors would face different evolutionary challenges and would evolve along different lines.

The chances of one of the life forms being intelligent enough to develop space travel is reasonably good (assuming they don't wipe themselves out in war or other disaster). However, the vast distances between the stars, even in our own galaxy makes interstellar travel highly improbable - even at the speed of light (the theoretical speed limit of the universe), it would take 4 years to reach our nearest stellar companion. Our galaxy is around 100,000 light years wide, making a quick visit to a stellar neighbour a multi-generational trip. Even assuming that aliens might have longer lifespans, would you really want to spend centuries in a spaceship to visit another world that you don't even then make proper contact with?


Whilst I believe that finding alien life nearby (Mars, Europa, Encedalus) is almost inevitable, and finding evidence of alien life on another world is also inevitable (via indirect means, such as spectroscopy), the chances of us being visited by aliens is highly improbable, due to the inherent speed limit of the universe, the power required to drive such a means of propulsion, the time it would take to get here, the lifespans and boredom threshold of any alien species and the mechanics of eating (where would you store all the food for a centuries long trip on such small craft?).

Whilst it is a romantic notion that we are being visited by alien craft on a regular basis, the mechanics of such visits are highly improbable and the sightings usually conform to our (human) cultural norms (and tend to evolve over time - the aliens from 50 years ago do not resemble the aliens of today, neither do their craft).

To sum up:
Alien life - very probable
Alien life visiting us - very improbable

[bngbuck]

Vbloke.....

Thank you for your reply.

May I ask you to reconsider my question if I pose it as a hypothetical?

What would your opinion of the UFO Phenomenon be if there were a few hundred sightings that had been thoroughly investigated ("vetted" in current terminology) and remained unexplained?

I understand your highly reasoned opinion regarding alien visitation, and I largely agree with that assessment. I am not particularly concerned with extraterrestrials other than they constitute one of many possible UFO sighting explanations. Considering the low probability of alien visitation, what would you consider as other possible or even probable explanations of sightings that have been thoroughly vetted and still remain unexplained?

[vbloke]

Vbloke.....

Thank you for your reply.

May I ask you to reconsider my question if I pose it as a hypothetical?

What would your opinion of the UFO Phenomenon be if there were a few hundred sightings that had been thoroughly investigated ("vetted" in current terminology) and remained unexplained?

I understand your highly reasoned opinion regarding alien visitation, and I largely agree with that assessment. I am not particularly concerned with extraterrestrials other than they constitute one of many possible UFO sighting explanations. Considering the low probability of alien visitation, what would you consider as other possible or even probable explanations of sightings that have been thoroughly vetted and still remain unexplained?

In that case, I still really couldn't answer unless I saw the official reports on these sightings.

You see, anecdote, whilst appearing to be compelling, is not a valid method of assessment - I really would need to see the vetting procedure and the findings before I could make a comment.

it may be that even after all these reports, unexplained means just that - unexplained. It does not necessarily mean aliens.

[Mongrel]

Whoops - managed to miss where Vbloke made the same point :(

I'll sit in the corner now

[MRT]

'Unexplained' is not the same as 'alien visitations'. This is a common problem with anomaly research. If a haunting is 'unexplained', some people think that it validates the existence of ghosts. It does nothing of the sort. Unexplained means there is insufficient information to come to any firm conclusion. It might be annoying but there it is.

The UFO phenomenon divides into two parts: sightings of 'objects' and apparent alien communication (abductions etc).

Most sightings are explained. Of the few remaining unexplained sightings there is not enough evidence to come to any firm conclusion. However, if aliens were visiting it seems odd that there should be no unambiguous evidence considering the large number of reports involved.

Regarding alien communication, it is odd that aliens have never told us anything we didn't already know, considering their clearly superior technology and science. It is also odd that alien messages seem to change over time to reflect our own concerns at the time of the communication (such as nuclear war, global warming etc). Indeed, their content closely parallels messages from 'spirits' given by psychics.

Just my opinion ...

[MRT]

Regarding unexplained sightings: consider the following. I saw a UFO recently. It looked quite dramatic and puzzling floating across a blue sky with a metallic glint in the sunshine. Luckily, I happened to have a pair of binoculars with me. I was quickly able to decide that it was a kid's novelty balloon, even though that wasn't at all obvious to the naked eye.

It is very difficult to judge scale in detached objects in the sky. The same object could be large and distant or small and close. If someone tells you they saw a UFO travelling at a particular speed and altitude, ask them how big the object was, in metres, and how they knew that. Without knowing the physical size of an object, altitude and speed can only be guesses. If I hadn't had those binoculars it would have been an unexplained sighting - another statistic - but not exactly aliens.

[MRT]

Incidentally, regarding my own 'UFO'. I should point out that I have, over the years, been actively interested in astronomy, meteorology and ornithology and so very rarely see anything in the sky, night or day, that I don't immediately recognise. However, I still needed the binoculars to work out what this sighting really was. This shows that even people who are familiar with what to expect in the sky can still not recognise things when conditions are unfavourable. Reports of scientists, pilots etc seeing things they can't explain is not as exciting as it might at first seem. You need to look at the circumstances of the sighting. Even an expert needs to get a good look!

PS: I am not actually a skeptic - hope that doesn't invalidate my comments. :)

[MRT]

Another point to consider: are the 'highly documented' unexplained reports consistent with each other? As others have said, it is statistically unlikely that we are being visited by any aliens. Even if we are, it is extremely unlikely that we are being visted by several different species of alien at once. Therefore, if those 'highly documented' reports really are alien visitations, you would expect most of them to be very similar, representing just one or two species of alien visitor at most.

[bngbuck]

MRT.....

Thank you very much for your extremely incisive reply:

'Unexplained' is not the same as 'alien visitations'. This is a common problem with anomaly research. If a haunting is 'unexplained', some people think that it validates the existence of ghosts. It does nothing of the sort. Unexplained means there is insufficient information to come to any firm conclusion. It might be annoying but there it is.

The UFO phenomenon divides into two parts: sightings of 'objects' and apparent alien communication (abductions etc).

Most sightings are explained. Of the few remaining unexplained sightings there is not enough evidence to come to any firm conclusion.

I have been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to persuade participants on various forums that I am not concerned with aliens or extraterrestrial visitation. I am concerned with mass viewings of vetted and unexplained aerial or space phenomena.

Thank you again for understanding and expressing my position so eloquently.