UFO Chased by Cops in Eerie Tale

By The Sun
5-17-08

THE release of Britain's very own "X-Files" has uncovered some sensationally spooky tales of alien encounters.
     The UFO reports, documented by the Ministry of Defence, include a sighting which occurred in April 1984 where two cops persued a "flying saucer" spotted by self-confessed sceptic Ruth Novelli.

Mrs Novelli, of Stanmore, Middlesex, has revealed to The Sun the shocking tale that began in her garden and ended up in a police chase.

More . . .

See Also:

Ministry of Defence Releases Further UFO Files

British MoD Releases UFO X - Files

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

UFO Perceptions

By Stanton Friedman
fsphys@rogers.com
© 5-1-08

     I see so much false and misleading material about flying saucers and related matters (especially on the internet) that I am sure one could do a column every day pointing out the errors and false claims and still not cover all the garbage. But who would pay somebody to do that? And who would read it anyway?

I very recently received the 2nd issue (April/May 2008) of a new, six times a year, slick magazine from England known as Alien Worlds. The editor/publisher is Stuart Miller who has been busy posting on the internet about UFOs for some time. This issue is in large format with relatively small print, sometimes hard to read for us old guys, often with blue print on black paper. It is glossy and, because of all the color, would be hard to Xerox. There are many articles covering a wide variety of subjects. I strongly disagree with some, but find others of interest. The magazine isn’t cheap costing 3 pounds 99 or about $8.00 US. More information can be obtained from Stuart at The New House, Church Bank, Richmond road, Bowdon, Altrincham, Cheshire WA14 3NW, UK . His email address ed@alienworldsmag.com.

Several things caught my eye. One is that there is, somewhat surprisingly, a lot of SETI related material. My new book Flying Saucers and Science has an entire chapter on the cult of SETI.I note that Dr. Ian Morrison head of the Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire, the UK, misrepresents the Fermi Paradox as do most SETI specialists. He says, page 78,“. . . in something like about 10million years, maybe a hundred million years, you could, in principle, colonize the whole galaxy." All the suitable planets. What Fermi said was if that’s possible, then why aren’t they here, why have we never come across any other alien life form?”. Sounds like he wants them to be waiting at the bus stop or airport. This is certainly not what Fermi said though many astronomers would like to believe that is what he said. He actually said (assuming the colonizing capability) “So where is everybody?” Whole books have been written with various answers to the question known as the Fermi Paradox.

My own answer, based on what I heard about Fermi at the University of Chicago (he died while I was there) was that he was very fond of using questions as a teaching tool. One obvious answer (mine) is “We don’t know where all of them are, but we know some are visiting Earth, some few people within the government in intelligence and military circles know a great deal about them and have even recovered wreckage and bodies, tried to shoot them down (see Frank Feschino’s Shoot Them Down), and has been lying about what it knows big time”.

Fermi who, unlike most of the SETI guys, academic astronomers, ancient academics and fossilized physicists who attack ufology, knew very well, from his very important work on the multi Billion Dollar Black Budget Manhattan Project, that huge and very expensive projects involving world class scientists can be conducted in total secrecy… no publications in the Physical Review. Obviously, it is very difficult to justify searching for ET signals with radio telescopes, if aliens are already coming here and some Earthlings know it.

Another article that caught my eye was a relatively brief one (pp16,17) by Paul Kimball (producer of a number of high quality TV Documentaries)Above and Beyond: Ufology’s two Biggest Problems: The Condon Effect and Roswellism. I agree with Paul that the widespread publicity given to the University of Colorado’s loudly proclaimed (by Dr. Edward U. Condon)1969 “scientific” conclusions that there was nothing to UFOs had a devastating effect on many who might have been willing to investigate UFOs, or teach classes, or sponsor PhD theses about them, but had now no willingness to risk their professional reputations by doing so. Membership in NICAP and APRO dropped precipitously. Lazy and busy journalists and scientists now had an excellent excuse to ignore the entire question of UFOs and have very often done so.

There were courageous ufologists such as James E. MacDonald and J. Allen Hynek who pointed out that Condon’s conclusions were contradicted by the data in his report. Their views certainly reached fewer people than the paeans of Condon praise from such reporters as Walter Sullivan, science editor of the New York Times, and the National Academy of Sciences. We slowly seem to be overcoming Condonism ,to some extent illustrating physicist Max Planck’s comment that “New ideas come to be accepted, not because their opponents come to believe in them, but because their opponents die and a new generation grows up that is accustomed to them”.

Paul defines Roswellism “in broad strokes, it is:1.The unequivocal acceptance of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (i.e.UFOs are alien spacecraft) as fact; 2. The unequivocal acceptance that alien spacecraft crash landed near Roswell in 1947 (and the resulting acceptance that any other crashed flying saucer story may be true) ; and 3. The unequivocal acceptance that the American Government has covered up the truth about 1 and 2 since1947, in an organized conspiracy of silence that represents a “Cosmic Watergate”.

I have very serious problems with these. I and other serious ufologist are skeptical and critical of much in ufology, so unequivocal seems way too strong. There is a very large difference between my conclusion, after intensive study, that SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft, and the notion, implied by Paul, that ufologists believe ALL UFOs are alien spacecraft. I don’t know of any serious ufologist who has expressed the latter view. Yes, I am certainly convinced on the basis of a great deal of evidence that a crashed flying saucer, and bodies, were recovered near Roswell in 1947.I would be the first to point out, as I have, that there is a lot of irrelevant, false nonsense published about Roswell and other crashes. The garbage (much of it published by the government in lying and misleading volumes), has helped obfuscate the truth.

Paul speaks of the “Aztec hoax in the early 1950s”. Scott and Suzanne Ramsey’s outstanding and persistent research on the Aztec event which was in March , 1948, and should be published in book form by the end of 2008, should certainly dispel the label “hoax”.

What does Paul mean by an organized “conspiracy of silence”? I never thought of highly classified research and development and intelligence programs as organized “conspiracies of silence” when working on them. Nice terminology. Certainly the Manhattan Project would qualify wouldn’t it? How about the Corona Spy Satellite successfully launched for the first of many times in 1960 and which obtained more data on Soviet military installations than all the U-2 flights which preceded it, but was not discussed publicly until 1995? What about the NRO’s 7 very expensive Poppy satellites launched to spy on Soviet shipping between 1962 and 1971 and not discussed until 2005? How about the breaking of the German and Japanese codes involving more than 12,000 people and not disclosed for over 25 years?. I guess you could say “Conspiracies of Silence” which sounds ominous. Covering up data about alien visitations and technology is certainly of no less importance to national security than these major multi-billion dollar programs. What is the big deal?

Paul claims “ Roswellism has achieved nothing of substance . . . based on a flawed unproved set of assumptions masquerading as facts.” He doesn’t really point out what these are other than to say it is unscientific, a-historical, and no different than Condon’s methodology. I beg to differ. We point to clear and unambiguous evidence such as first hand testimony from people directly involved such as retired General T.J. DuBose, Major Marcel, Bill Brazel; contemporary press coverage and research demonstrating government and skeptical misrepresentation. Condon ignored the research of his own people and the data in his own report. So are black holes and worm holes unproved, but they are indeed very useful concepts, so what? Roswell has certainly opened a can of worms for the government and caused many people to look at the UFO question in new ways and certainly made debunkers very unhappy. Too bad. Paul seems to want clear and unambiguous tests such as DNA testing and maybe aliens introduced to the Canadian House of Commons. He does provide details of some interesting events at that august body. Many things in science aren’t like that. . . or in law either.

Newton’s laws are very useful in understanding how the universe operates, even though that aren’t correct at the small and large limits of the universe. The biggest source of outright lies about Roswell are the 2 big reports on Roswell provided by the government not by ufologists. What are we supposed to make of crash test dummies, 6’ tall, weighing 175 pounds, dropped in 1953 and thereafter, and later used as an “explanation” for reports of small bodies observed in 1947? What are we to make of Colonel Cavitt’s claim that the Roswell wreckage covered an area 20 feet square and could easily fit in a single car when even the July 9,1947, contemporary cover-up newspaper account said it covered an area 200 yards in diameter. The New York Times front page coverage of the silly Mogul balloon explanation was indeed as bad as Condonism, since Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist William Broad ignored the relevant evidence (Mogul simply doesn’t fit. . . so one must acquit).I demonstrate government UFO lies in an article on my website www.stantonfriedman.com. Cosmic Watergate is the right phrase.

One must further note that there are no licensing regulations for qualifying ufologists. We in the field can do little to keep people from calling themselves ufologists. There are licensing regulations for doctors and lawyers, electricians and plumbers, not ufologists. Certainly the preponderance of the evidence indicates, some UFOs are alien spacecraft, Roswell involved a crashed flying saucer, and there has been a substantial government cover-up concerning many aspects of ufology

More . . .

See Also:

National Geographic Mockumentary

Drake Equation

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

McMinnville, Oregon: 9th Annual UFO Festival!

By www.ufofest.com
5-15-08

     On May 16 and 17, 2008, McMenamins hosts the 9th Annual UFO Festival! Our keynote speaker is Richard Dolan, author of a 500-page study entitled UFOs and the National Security State (vol. 1, with vol. 2 to be released this year) and frequent guest on the History Channel, Sci Fi Channel, the BBC and other European networks.

We are equally as pleased to host Robert Nichol, a producer and filmmaker with Genesis Communications based in British Columbia, Canada, for a Saturday morning screening of his documentary Star Dreams about the mystery of crop circles, followed by questions from the audience. The film deals with the many possibilities of how these beautiful crop circles are created (more than 11,000 have been reported all over the world since 1980) and what they might signify, with commentary by top-rated ufology experts. Nichol is an award-winning director, producer and filmmaker with 25 productions to his credit. His motivation is to encourage the development of a new spiritual consciousness while seeking to bring about a new awareness for humanity’s purpose. Go to www.stardreams-cropcircles.com for additional information on the documentary and the filmmaker.

While overnight packages at Hotel Oregon are now SOLD OUT, go to the McMinnville Downtown Association for a list of local accommodations.

If you'd like email updates about our 2008 event, join our UFO Festival Mailing List.

About the UFO Festival
The festival began as a way to honor the famous 1950 Trent sighting in which two local citizens witnessed and photographed a UFO, said to be some of the most credible images of UFOs to date. Read a detailed history of the Trent sightings. Thanks to everyone who attended McMenamins Hotel Oregon's 8th Annual UFO Festival in 2007, the second largest in the U.S. and growing! Guests enjoyed a speaker's forum featuring alien abduction expert Dr. David M. Jacobs who discussed his research with people who believe they have had abduction experiences. Our second guest, noted UFO expert and best-selling author Peter Robbins, detailed the story of James Forrestal, the nation's first Secretary of Defense who, some say, knew too much about the UFO threat and met an untimely end.

More . . .

See Also:

Believe it or not: McMinnville's UFO Festival Draws Flying-Saucer Trackers, Skeptics and an Alien Implant Specialist

Considering Aliens U.F.O. Adventures Past and Present

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Ministry of Defence Releases Further UFO Files

By Defence News (MoD)
5-14-08

The first in a series of Ministry of Defence UFO files, dating back to the 1970s, have been released on The National Archives' website today, Wednesday 14 May 2008.

     The files include descriptions of alleged Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon or "UFO" sightings and subsequent MOD evaluations of the reports.

The MOD receives a large number of requests each year for information relating to UFOs, and so has introduced a system to meet this demand by releasing these historic files in a structured way.

The released files can be seen on The National Archives' website.

The rest of the files are currently under review and will be added to The National Archives over the next three years.

To date, independent experts have concluded that there are straightforward explanations behind alleged UFO reports, such as aircraft lights or natural phenomena.

Reports of UFOs are examined by the Ministry of Defence solely to establish whether UK airspace may have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised military activity.

If required, sighting reports are examined with the assistance of the Department's air defence experts. Unless there is evidence of a potential threat, no further work is undertaken to identify the nature of each sighting reported.

The Ministry of Defence has no other interest or role regarding UFO matters and does not consider questions regarding the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life-forms.

The MOD now routinely releases information on reported UFO sightings. This information can be found on the MOD website, through our Freedom Of Information Publication Scheme.

See Also:

British MoD Releases UFO X - Files

Air Controllers Reported UFO: British Papers

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

British MoD Releases UFO X - Files

British 'X Files' papers revealed

By ANTONELLA LAZZERI
The Sun
5-13-08

UFOs hovering over Waterloo Bridge? Green men known as Elgar? This can only mean the British 'X-Files' have been opened up to the public for the first time.

     The fascinating reports, taken so seriously they were documented by the Ministry of Defence, have been revealed after a Freedom of Information request by UFO researchers.

And, according to the files, the number of reports of UFOs doubled after the release of Steven Speilberg's sci-fi drama Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977.

Among the most sensational is the famous Rendlesham Forest case.

A report from Lt.Col Charles Halt on 13th January 1981 tells how on the night of December 27th security patrolmen spotted odd lights above the forest.

They saw the lights plunge down and went to investigate.

In the forest they found a triangular shaped object 9ft long by 6ft high hovering above the ground.

Flashing lights
The object had a pulsing red light on top with blue lights underneath.

According to the patrolmen a white light coming from the UFO illuminated the whole forest.

The object suddenly took off and flew away. Other airmen on the base also saw the lights.

Investigators studying the site where the craft landed found three depressions in a triangular shape. A radar reading spiked at each depression.

Two nights later more lights were noticed.

Fiction ... but movie Close Encounters Of The Third Kind sparked UFO reportings

Fiction ... but movie Close Encounters Of The Third Kind sparked UFO reportings

Lt.Col Halt's report states that a large red glow split into five separate white objects which hovered in the sky for two to three hours.

His investigations showed that there were no aircraft in the vicinity on the two nights which could account for the phenomenon.

MoD investigators also admit in the files that they could find no explanation for what was seen.

But their task was to ensure that the object was not some sort of spy craft.

Once that was done, investigation stopped and the sighting remains a mystery.

One of the strangest reports in the files is the case in Northumbria where 12 police officers say they saw a UFO in December 1981.

They all reported seeing an intense green light.

In the same month of the same year another policeman in Shropshire claimed to see a UFO hovering above Wolverhampton hospital.

He saw a two foot long, 18 inch wide object like an 'inverted meat dish' flying in the air.

The cop said the dish had an arm which descended from underneath it for about 18 inches.

Other mystery space craft seen flying over Wallasey Town Hall were also recorded by government officials.

One file reveals how easy it is for people to be fooled into thinking normal aircraft are flying saucers.

A group of drinkers at The Walnut Tree near Tunbridge Wells in 1982 reported seeing red and green flashing lights above the pub.

When the local bobby investigated what direction the lights appeared to be travelling he realised it was always towards Gatwick airport.

But other sightings were not so easy to dismiss.

In 1986 a pilot reported seeing a UFO object passing his aircraft just 1.5 nautical miles away.

In his report he states that if it was a missile, he and his crew were, "not impressed".

Two police officers also recorded a sighting of a UFO in April 1984.

The cops responded to a call from members of the public in Stanmore, Middlesex, claiming to have seen a flying saucer.

When they arrived at the scene the two cops saw a circular object, with a dome on the top and bottom, and multi-coloured lights.

Misidentification
Nick Pope, who worked for the MoD for 21 years investigating sightings said: "While there's no evidence of little green men in these files, they should be of immense interest to sceptics and believers.

"Most of the UFO sightings here are probably misidentifications of aircraft lights and meteors, but some are more difficult to explain, and include UFOs seen by police officers and pilots, and cases where UFOs have been tracked on radar."

In the first files released an MoD 1983 memo admits that their experts were sometimes baffled by the sightings saying: "The sole interest of the Ministry of Defence in UFO reports is to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest (e.g intruding aircraft).

"The Ministry of Defence does not deny that there are strange things to see in the sky."

The memo goes on to say that much of what is seen may be space junk burning up in the atmosphere, unusual cloud formations and weather balloons.

It concludes that the MoD "certainly has no evidence that alien spacecraft have landed on this planet."

But many of the people who made the reports which feature in the files obviously feel that they have evidence.

The Waterloo Bridge UFO was seen by numerous people many of whom called police.

One man, acccording to the files, certainly belives he has seen little green men in the UK.

He claims he was visited frequently by an alien called Elgar who he says was killed by another race of beings in the 1980s.

He also claimed to have seen a space craft crash land near Wallasey Town Hall.

Dr David Clarke, journalism lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, was one of the people who campaigned for the release of the files.

He said: "It has taken 10 years of campaigning to get these papers out and now that they are it lays to rest some of the claims of a cover up by the MoD.

"Personally I think that some of the sightings have got to be of scientific interest. There are some that just cannot be explained."

Another 150 files are due to be released over the next four years.

More . . .

See Also:

Air Controllers Reported UFO: British Papers

"London’s X-Files Have Been Opened to The Public"

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Air Controllers Reported UFO: British Papers

By Chicago Sun-Times
5-13-08

     LONDON — The men were air traffic controllers. Experienced, calm professionals. Nobody was drinking. But they were so worried about losing their jobs that they demanded their names be kept off the official report.

No one, they knew, would believe their claim an unidentified flying object landed at the airport they were overseeing in the east of England, touched down briefly, then took off again at tremendous speed. Yet that’s what they reported happened at 4 p.m. on April 19, 1984.

The incident is one of hundreds of reported sightings contained in more than 1,000 pages of formerly secret UFO documents being released Wednesday by Britain’s National Archives. It is one of the few that was never explained.

The air traffic controllers’ ‘‘Report of Unusual Aerial Phenomenon’’ was filed from an unspecified small airport near the eastern coast of England.

The men, each with more than eight years on the job, described how they were helping guide a small plane to a landing on runway 22 when they were distracted by a brightly lit object approaching a different runway without clearance.

‘‘Everyone became aware that the object was unidentified,’’ their report said. ‘‘SATCO (code name for a controller with 14 years experience) reports that the object came in ’at speed,’ made a touch and go on runway 27, then departed at ’terrific speed’ in a ’near vertical’ climb.’’

The incident is one of the more credible in the newly public files because it was reported by air traffic controllers, said David Clarke, a UFO expert who worked with the National Archives on the document release.

‘‘They were absolutely astonished,’’ he said. ‘‘It was a bright, circular object, flashing different colors, and after it touched down it disappeared at fantastic speed. The report comes from very qualified people, and it’s one of the few that remained unexplained.’’

But while there are some unexplained cases in the papers, there is no reported instance in which the Ministry of Defense found any evidence of alien activity or alien spacecraft, said Clarke, who nonetheless expects conspiracy theories about a UFO cover-up by the British defense establishment to persist.

‘‘The Ministry of Defense doesn’t have any evidence that our defenses were breached by alien craft,’’ Clarke said. ‘‘They never found one, no bits of one. That’s all we can say.’’

Clarke said the released documents, dealing with the late 1970s and early 1980s, are the first batch in a series that will be made public in the next few years.

The National Archives is releasing the files because of numerous freedom of information requests seeking information about the government’s UFO reports. Officials said that names of many individuals had been blacked out to protect their privacy and that the entire files had been reviewed to make sure their release did not compromise national security.

Ministry of Defense officials indicate in the files that UFO reports were only investigated to make sure no enemy aircraft had illegally entered British airspace. This was crucial during the Cold War when Russian planes posed a threat.

Officials said they did not try to solve UFO riddles once an enemy attack had been ruled out.

The vast majority of UFO reports come from members of the public who see strange things in the sky and jump to the conclusion that a UFO is involved even though there are logical explanations for what they observe, experts said.

‘‘The most common things are aircraft lights, bright stars and planets, satellites, meteors, airships and things like that,’’ said Nick Pope, another UFO expert who helped the Ministry of Defense investigate the phenomenon.v That was the case when a number of people leaving a Tunbridge Wells pub one night reported seeing a strange craft ‘‘with red and green’’ lights, according to the released documents.

Asked by police where the object seemed to be traveling, the pub crawlers said it appeared to be heading for London’s Gatwick Airport. It didn’t take a scientist to figure out it was a commercial plane making a routine approach.v

More . . .

See Also:

UFOs Cause Alarm in Boston Airport

". . . Jets From RAF Lakenheath Were Called to Intercept a UFO"

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

UFO Abductee 'Herbert Schirmer' Speaks

See Also:

DIVINE REBELS, ALIEN DISSIDENTS!

An Alien Abductee Shares Proof That We are Not Alone

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

MY UFO EXPERIENCE: Phoenix Lights Witness Breaks His Silence

Reader Submitted Report
[Names Redacted]
4-23-08

". . . when they started moving towards me, I turned to run . . ."

     I not only witnessed the 3/13/97 "Mass Sighting" from the time the formation of orange orb's were hovering just to the southeast of Sky Harbor at about the same altitude as the transmission towers on South Mountain. I could see lights from the city in the background, so I could tell it was not a solid object, but individual vessels that resembled 9 round, orange and red flowing lava lamps floating in formation silently and gracefully as it parrallelled South Mntn due west, then turned south as it went behind the range as I lost sight of it orb by orb as it turned south towards Tucson. Timespan of my sighting was 15-20 mins, time was about 8:30 until about 8:50.

I was working as every eve for 18 yrs, for XXX @ xxxxxx & xxxxxx in s. tempe. although they were never closer to me than 8 mi, when they started moving towards me, I turned to run, but they were only making a u-turn so I calmed down and continued watching. I felt that they knew I was watching, and they knew me.

For some reason I never really talked about that night, not until last year when the 10 yr aniv hype started up, and from then on I havn't been able to get the them out of my head. Last sat eve. I talked my 13 year old daughter into sitting on my roof with binoc's for about an hour, because I told her they were coming back real soon. I was fixated on one area, and wouldn't even hardly look elsewherer. I kept telling my daughter that they will be to the left of Camelback Mtn. (due north of my house also in s. tempe).

48 hrs later (mon night) the news shows the same kind of lights... the same spot I knew they would be seen 2 nights earlier. My daughter freaked out when she found out.

I've told my story in great detail to Dr. Lynne by e-mail, also reported it to MUFON, and one other site that I can't think of now, but I've never gotten so much as a reply from any. Jerry Pippin asked me to do a live interview on his show, and I asked him what kind of show he had... before that, I'd never heard of him, he never did follow up and tell me any details, so it's like nobody is interested in what I know to be true. They are coming back real soon for all to see and deal with. This is something I'm sure of. I'm wondering the same thing as you are... WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INVESTIGATION????? I am so far, a willing witness but the time for pondering is almost over.....

See Also:

Phoenix Lights: Witness Affirms "Two Events" Occurred That Night--One Wasn't Flares!

MY UFO EXPERIENCE: Munitions Specialist Says Phoenix Lights Were Flares, He Was There!

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Frank Drake — Evidence/Data Methodologies In Ufology

By Frank Warren
© 2005-2008

In 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 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 radar

The 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

Mr. Drake hasn't responded to date.

See Also:

Drake Equation
By Stanton T. Friedman

The Great UFO Debate: Friedman V. Shostak (Part One)

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator