top | item 4253763

Newly released UFO files from the UK government

57 points| jjp9999 | 13 years ago |ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk | reply

81 comments

order
[+] revscat|13 years ago|reply
I think at this point that there are (somewhat simplistically) two opposing camps in this debate. The first believes that UFOs are entirely the result of terrestrial phenomena, and take the Sagan/de Grasse Tyson view. The other viewpoint is that there is sufficient evidence to point to some sort of extraordinary phenomena which belies common explanation.

Now, this is obviously a simplistic breakdown. Broadly speaking, however, this is usually what we see in such debates. (With typically much ridicule being thrown about by both sides.) Files like these, though, give even the most hardened skeptics room for wonder. While I do not doubt the logical validity of the skeptics positions, there is nevertheless a large body of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) which becomes difficult to deny when taken in the aggregate.

These files are, unfortunately, just more in the circumstantial category. Although they have the "official" seal of approval they are still, at root, not hard evidence. It is frustrating to those of us who are curious about this that nothing beyond eyewitness reports ever seems to surface, no matter the source. I think most people at least pay attention to these news items, but do not know what to make of them beyond raising more questions.

[+] Permit|13 years ago|reply
>While I do not doubt the logical validity of the skeptics positions, there is nevertheless a large body of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) which becomes difficult to deny when taken in the aggregate.

I think it's incredibly important to remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

[+] samstave|13 years ago|reply
Also, we will never know if accounts that would be considered hard evidence were not simply destroyed and not included in any surviving record.

While I am personally on the fence about believing the accounts any gov has - clearly we know basically nothing of the universe relative to its size and existence.... so I will withhold judgement in any form - but lets look at the examples through history:

The earth is flat. The Sun revolves around the earth. Germs dont exist. What is this radiation malarky? There are no other planets in the universe. There are no other solar systems like ours in the universe. Lets kill eachother over imaginary rulers and their rules. etc etc etc

People are STUPID.

So, are there UFOs? No idea - but I have sen weird stuff and I will never let another human tell me what the limits to the universe are. I'd prefer to just keep seeking, keep experiencing life and the wonders of all that is.

The fact that Humans exist proves there is some intelligence in the Universe, lets just hope we are not the pinnacle as that would be rather sad.

[+] chmike|13 years ago|reply
Eyewitness reports contains facts that can be checked objectively. I.e witness reports powerlines oscillating in opposite phase in presence of UFO. There are also photographs showing strange things like a fuzzy dark mass beneath the UFO or multiple dark rings around the UFO. This can be explained as light polarisation in presence of intense magnetic field. It is even possible to estimate the strength of the magnetic field. This is something eyewitness can't make up. There are also reports of rotating compass. This can be explained and can only happen if precise conditions are met i.e oscillating intense magnetic field. By knowing the properties of the compass it is possible to determine the frequency of the magnetic field.

If there is some reality in this phenomenon, it is possible to find evidences in the testimonies that can be indirectly objectively checked. This is science process.

[+] derekp7|13 years ago|reply
Let's say I flipped a coin a million times. Now lets assume multiple witnesses saw me flip the coin so that heads came up twice in a row. There may be hundreds of such reports. Maybe even thousands. Would you conclude from that group of reports that I can, on demand, always flip the coin so that it comes up heads twice in a row? Or even that every time I flip the coin it comes up heads? Before taking a group of reports as evidence, keep in mind that this is selection bias.
[+] dinkumthinkum|13 years ago|reply
I don't think there is anything difficult to deny for skeptics. There are fundamental, and very serious problems with the whole ET visitation thing that make the whole thing just untenable. Where are they? I mean this would be a "big freakin' deal". The idea that the government could cover this up is ridiculous. World governments can barely keep secrets from eachother. You'd have to believe in basically MIB and neurolyzers. The physics of this ... is basically an appeal to magic in the guise of "advanced technology" (and don't give me the whole "any sufficiently advanced technology ... line). Now, it seems to be a big coincidence that there are many, many definitive hoaxes, I mean admitted by the perpetrators, but yet that the phenomena is still exists ("Sure we have faked this thing a million times, but it just so happens that it's real, I promise").

So we have to believe 1) ET doesn't want us to know about him and 2) ET is mega advanced but is so stupid that a bunch of rednecks and believers in woo/psi have discovered him (not that every "believer" is like that but clearly Joe Bob has discovered, so ET is evidently a mega physicist but sucks at basic hide and seek even with dimension traveling technology?). It's just too much nonsense.

[+] nazgulnarsil|13 years ago|reply
if humans are all cognitively similar we shouldn't expect a large number of similar reports about things to be surprising.
[+] sage_joch|13 years ago|reply
Interesting; I had always taken Sagan's opinion as gospel, but I suppose there is room for questions. A bit of googling shows both Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich have seen a UFO, and they're honest people. That certainly doesn't make me a believer, but it's nice to see there's at least a small possibility.
[+] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
If you're a scientifically minded skeptic, I'd encourage you to read this book on the UFO phenomenon:

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Offici...

It's a very good read. Also, in all UFO threads there should be a disclaimer that you are not making a point by pointing out that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object not Alien Spaceship; most people when referring to the truly unexplainable cases use them interchangeably since extraterrestrial origin is one of the few hypotheses that are consistent with the evidence, though it's never obviously conclusive.

[+] mbenjaminsmith|13 years ago|reply
Another well researched book is:

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronolog...

It covers the intersection of military/governmental organizations and the phenomenon, mostly in the latter half of the 20th century. The short version would be to search YouTube for Richard Dolan. He's a great speaker and presents the information in a way that should be palatable for even the hardest skeptic.

[+] ladzoppelin|13 years ago|reply
Wow to accept that anytime someone says UFO they actually mean alien spacecraft is ridiculous. Do you think that military testing, misinformation, hallucinations, psychological projections and t.v entertainment do not exist?
[+] mkaltenecker|13 years ago|reply
You mean, extraterrestrial origin is by far the most absurd explanation and shouldn't even be accepted as a hypothesis, right?
[+] frankydp|13 years ago|reply
Found a great paragraph..

"I am afraid we have a slight political problem. This ufologist is of course the Earl of Clancart, with whom HMG exchanged views in the Lords Debate. I feel our political masters would think it improper if the RAF News should be too rude about him. I suggest the problem could be resolved without altering any of the text from "Brinsley ...." to ".....interior of the earth" but toning down the faintly derisory setting and letting the idiocy of the Earl's ideas speak for themselves."

[+] blueprint|13 years ago|reply
Could you link or cite the PDF? Curious to know what that was about the interior of the Earth.
[+] jay_kyburz|13 years ago|reply
Having seen a UFO myself I can safely say that there _are_ aircraft with capabilities far above that what I would expect from our own air force in our skies.

A friend and I witnessed formations of lights sweeping across the horizon making 90 degree turns in the blink of an eye.

There you go.

[+] pbhjpbhj|13 years ago|reply
lights =/= aircraft

There are a myriad of natural phenomena, optical illusions and - dare I say - mental aberrations that could account for one seeing lights in the sky.

I've seen several objects in the sky that I've not been able to immediately explain. Having been 'tricked' in this way and later realising the 'natural' explanations the idea of UFOs being explained as extra-terrestrial is not at all surprising to me.

[+] re_todd|13 years ago|reply
I once saw what I at first thought was light from a helicopter one night, then it turned a tight angle and shot off toward space. I thought for a second that maybe UFOs were real, then I realized I was close to a military base. There is probably technology in the armed forces so advanced that most people do not know about it.
[+] DannyBee|13 years ago|reply
How do you know this has anything do with UFO's? The idea that these lights are aircraft is just crazy.

It could just be aliens playing with their equivalent of pocket laser lights that people use to annoy others at movie theaters, watch dogs chase, etc.

The aliens shine them, and watch you guys on the ground go nuts, and laugh their asses off.

[+] dfischer|13 years ago|reply
My father says the same thing. I've heard others describe similar formations and "sweeps across the horizon."

I don't doubt it at this point. I really just have two thoughts, maybe three.

1) I really want to see it for myself.

2) Is it of present-tine Earth origin?

3) Please come to me and take me somewhere magical!

[+] ary|13 years ago|reply
On the very, very slight chance that this isn't a troll it should be voted down to oblivion for being the purest form of anecdote.
[+] Locke1689|13 years ago|reply
Doesn't Bayesian statistics solve this pretty easily? I have a lot of priors for weird aeronautical and weather phenomenon (e.g., St. Elmo's fire/ball lightning), meteoroids, missiles, balloons, and secret prototype aircraft.

I have no priors for technologically advanced alien life.

[+] mootothemax|13 years ago|reply
I love the idea that governments, so incompetent in oh-so-many ways, are capable of a multiple-decade coverup involving one of the most fantastic discoveries possible, somehow managing to prevent leaks of any meaningful data, including any mention whatsoever in data dumps such as, e.g. WikiLeaks.

And yet still people choose to focus their energies on UFO conspiracies, despite releases like these showing the true meaning behind the term UFO: stuff that looks weird in the sky and can't be identified by the viewer.

[+] leke|13 years ago|reply
Hold on a sec, I thought the UK outed all their UFO cases a number of years ago.