The UFO Phenomenon

The idea that all "real" ufos are experimental craft is refuted by a large amount of evidence to the contrary). I used to think like you until I started delving deeper into the subject.

... and pause it at 100 light-years (about 1:30)

 

- the region of space shown at 100 light-years contains all the stars (and planets and maybe civilisations) that would know we exist if they had the capability to detect our man-made EM transmissions [radio/tv/etc] ... which would be a major technological achievement in itself given the relative weakness of the signals we radiate out into space and the dratted inverse square-law that they are subjected to. [signal strength decreases in proportion to the square of the distance from the source]. We also don't know the shielding effect that the Oort cloud would have on any signals.

 

To put that into perspective, with our best telescopes we cannot see all the stars in that volume of space and they radiate EM radiation at colossal powers - our Sun radiates EM radiation with a power of 400 septillion Watts (400,000,000,000,000,000 kilowatts) and it's not the brightest crayon in the box by a long stretch. Imagine now trying to detect a radio transmission of say 100 kilowatts emanating from a small planet in that 100 light-year spherical volume of space.

 

Why is this important? Well, to visit us an "alien" would need to know we are worth visiting - random chance is not cost effective even if they could warp space or travel by interstellar osmosis. Assuming that there are 200,000 stars in that region of space (estimates vary - 200,000 is above the best guess so far) then finding a technologically advanced species in that volume is very difficult - we know of only one. They would have the same problems detecting us that we have in detecting them, and the argument put forward is they would recognise us as worth visiting because of the man-made EM noise we spew into space, but even this is tenuous given the physics of electromagnetic transmission. In practically terms the ability to detect us also follows an inverse square law of distance - the more distant the "alien" planet is from us the less chance they have of discovering we exist and the less reason they have for visiting.

 

I'm curious as to how everyone has come to their own positions. Have you read articles, books, online web sites...or are you forming an opinion based on cultural information via the media?

I recommend these books to get a good overall picture of the enigma:

The UFO Experience by Dr J Allen Hynek

Dimensions by Dr J Vallee

UFO's And The National Security State by R Dolan.

Abduction:Human Encounters with Aliens-Dr John Mack

While there are many books on ufos and the later abduction 'syndrome' , I found these to be thorough, well written, and fair minded.

 

As to a few comments above about alien motivations....imo it's impossible to say why a truly alien species would want to visit earth or what their agenda might be. One can certainly speculate and the ufo arena is full of that.But if we had the technology I have no doubt we would be buzzing around the galaxy checking out the other residents also.

Regarding the tech itself, again it's impossible to say for certain how advanced such beings could be. They could easily be 100,000 years or more ahead of us (or even a million years) and have discovered laws of physics new to us or learned how to bend them.

I don't necessarily accept the ETH (though I have no doubt there are sentient races out there.)....but imo 'something' is interacting with mankind and has for a very long time. For me the question is what does it truly represent?

How funny that they visit us precisely in ways where just some rather unreliable people and in unconfirmable circumstances do experience the visit, but in no instance they allow uncontroversial experience by other people or instruments.

Why would they do that? Do they want us to know that they exist or not? are they just so incompetent that they don't want us to know but they fail at hiding? Are they here just to play a game of hide and seek and have a laugh at us?

p.s. I guess that 'unconfirmable' is not a proper English word, sorry but I can't come up with one right out of my head. 

Precisely. Not looking too closely into this (and I haven't the time to see a 1½hr documentary during working hours):Why ignore the Orford Ness lighthouse (which apparently can be seen from the forest) rotating on a 5 second period, which just happens to be the same time interval of the appearance/disappearance of the light described on the tape - why do none of the eyewitnesses mention seeing two lights (the UFO and the lighthouse)? [for example]

 

Nighttime disorientation and group hysteria can account for quite a lot. The eyewitness accounts do not corroborate each other and seem to be somewhat unreliable,  I'm inclined to discount any testimony given under hypnosis (whether you believe hypnosis induced statements or not, I don't). Failure of the authorities to take it seriously (for example the local police) does not constitute a cover-up or conspiracy. Much of the after the event analysis of the site shows strong indications of confirmation bias - they saw what they wanted to see - for example does this look like a mark made by an axe or a burn made by a UFO to you?

 

 

Just because people chose to ignore feasible (ie non-ET) explanations it does not mean that the feasible explanations are false. Once a plausible non-extraterrestrial explanation exists the onus is on the "believer" to prove his explanation, not ignore the "sceptic" and his plausible explanation.

 

That's not scepticism, that's just being rational.

 

All UFO sightings can be (and have been) explained by fully understandable natural explanations not requiring visitors from other worlds - Unidentified does not mean Unexplained.