Friday, June 04, 2010
The demise of ufology
I caused a bit of a stir several months ago when I called UFO case investigation a lost art. I'll go further this time: ufology looks like it's near death.
The bad news is: I'm an optimist.
I was having a conversation with Brian Savage recently, and he made the observation that the UFO phenomenon has been derailed. He was formerly with the Alberta UFO Study Group, an earlier incarnation that produced in-depth investigation reports and scoured government documents for historical Alberta cases. Brian's comment was in reference to the many popularized UFO-related developments over the past 20 years which have destroyed the legitimacy of serious UFO research.
Examples of these derailments include the alien autopsy film, Lazar's Element 115, the strawberry ice cream nonsense, Greer's telepathic vectoring of UFOs, crop circles, exopolitics, Nibiru, and the resurgence of the contactee phenomenon. These and others have served to draw public and popular attention away from serious UFO case investigations and into the realm of wild arm-waving speculation and wide-eyed fanaticism.
It's too bad; it really looked like there was something developing there, for a while.
UFO cases themselves have radically shifted characteristics. Things seemed so simple when Hynek formulated his Close Encounter classifications: CE1 was a sighting at close range; CE2 was a trace case; and CE3 involved seeing occupants. There was no CE4 or CE5, as adopted by some ufologists now, reflecting abductions and contactee incidents. Only three categories, nicely defined and delineated.
The CE2s went extinct first. Ted Philips had several thousand physical trace cases documented by the time crop circles arrived on the scene. Then - poof! No more CE2s. People stopped seeing UFOs landing and taking off; aliens stopped landing their scout craft and leaving behind scorched patches and tripod marks in fields. Instead, mysterious circles (and later, patterns) appeared, almost always without accompanying UFO sightings, and it was assumed that the aliens were using some kind of "rotating vortex" to power their ships.
Then the CE3s went AWOL. No more sightings of landed UFOs where entities were seen exiting and re-entering their crafts. Instead, abductions ballooned in number, eventually overtaking classic CE3s. Really, have you heard of a decent CE3 case recently? No bedroom visitations, no alien faces in windows, no telepathic instructions about saving the human race. Just a simple CE3 observation. No? No.
Even CE1s are mostly gone now, too. Instead, we have YouTube videos of "mysterious orbs" and "Galactic Lightships" seeming to dance all over the pace because the witness couldn't hold the video camera steady. On the other hand, we have goofballs with too much time on their hands using video toasters to create obvious hoaxed UFO videos that experienced UFO investigators can tell are not worth bothering with but go viral anyway, getting retweeted and reblogged everywhere by UFO fans.
But a well-witnessed, well-investigated CE1 case? Rarer than a straight-talking politician or oil executive. Sure, if you look at popular UFO websites that list UFO reports, there are dozens and dozens from all over the world, posted by witnesses. But follow-up to get additional details to make an evaluation, such as direction of movement, where the UFO was in the sky compared with other things, and even an accurate time? Forget it. Onsite investigation? Impossible. Referral to one of the few reliable UFO investigators who lives nearby the witness, to allow proper investigation? Can't, sorry; privacy of witnesses is guaranteed.
So what we have in ufology today is the maintaining of a high number of UFO sighting reports, but a decrease on information content of the cases. Public attention surges when UFO stories in the news go viral, but critical thinking goes out the window.
Part of this is because no one person is viewed as someone who can speak for ufology today. Following the death of Allen Hynek, no one was easily identifiable as someone to take his mantle. (Not even Philip Mantle.) Not Stan Friedman, not Jerome Clark, Mark Rodeghier, not Jenny Randles, not Kevin Randle, not Bill Birnes, not any other of the dozen or so who might (or might not) fit the bill.
(Similarly, who speaks for debunkery? After Phil Klass passed away, is it now Phil Plait? James Oberg? James Randi? Bill Nye? Even Larry King can't decide who is an authority and whom to have on as guests to debate UFOs.)
Poor MUFON and CUFOS, the few remaining doggedly determined UFO groups. They're hanging on, with declining revenue, losing staff and trying desperately to carry on with serious UFO study, when UFO fans have not the slightest interest in that.
Ufology is greatly fractured. With thousands of UFO-related web pages, everyone (and anyone) can be an expert. Anyone can tell you the "REAL Truth" about the aliens' presence on Earth and their nefarious dealings with the government and how Obama is an alien and why I've been chosen as their emissary and why alien hybrids have pale skin and why aliens will arrive in 2012 and where the underwater alien bases are in the Gulf of Mexico and why the hundreds of orbs in my photograph are mental images of aliens and not dust particles and why some UFO craft disguise themselves as airplanes and why chemtrails are not just contrails and why this blog is passing through into another dimension....
The bad news is: I'm an optimist.
I was having a conversation with Brian Savage recently, and he made the observation that the UFO phenomenon has been derailed. He was formerly with the Alberta UFO Study Group, an earlier incarnation that produced in-depth investigation reports and scoured government documents for historical Alberta cases. Brian's comment was in reference to the many popularized UFO-related developments over the past 20 years which have destroyed the legitimacy of serious UFO research.
Examples of these derailments include the alien autopsy film, Lazar's Element 115, the strawberry ice cream nonsense, Greer's telepathic vectoring of UFOs, crop circles, exopolitics, Nibiru, and the resurgence of the contactee phenomenon. These and others have served to draw public and popular attention away from serious UFO case investigations and into the realm of wild arm-waving speculation and wide-eyed fanaticism.
It's too bad; it really looked like there was something developing there, for a while.
UFO cases themselves have radically shifted characteristics. Things seemed so simple when Hynek formulated his Close Encounter classifications: CE1 was a sighting at close range; CE2 was a trace case; and CE3 involved seeing occupants. There was no CE4 or CE5, as adopted by some ufologists now, reflecting abductions and contactee incidents. Only three categories, nicely defined and delineated.
The CE2s went extinct first. Ted Philips had several thousand physical trace cases documented by the time crop circles arrived on the scene. Then - poof! No more CE2s. People stopped seeing UFOs landing and taking off; aliens stopped landing their scout craft and leaving behind scorched patches and tripod marks in fields. Instead, mysterious circles (and later, patterns) appeared, almost always without accompanying UFO sightings, and it was assumed that the aliens were using some kind of "rotating vortex" to power their ships.
Then the CE3s went AWOL. No more sightings of landed UFOs where entities were seen exiting and re-entering their crafts. Instead, abductions ballooned in number, eventually overtaking classic CE3s. Really, have you heard of a decent CE3 case recently? No bedroom visitations, no alien faces in windows, no telepathic instructions about saving the human race. Just a simple CE3 observation. No? No.
Even CE1s are mostly gone now, too. Instead, we have YouTube videos of "mysterious orbs" and "Galactic Lightships" seeming to dance all over the pace because the witness couldn't hold the video camera steady. On the other hand, we have goofballs with too much time on their hands using video toasters to create obvious hoaxed UFO videos that experienced UFO investigators can tell are not worth bothering with but go viral anyway, getting retweeted and reblogged everywhere by UFO fans.
But a well-witnessed, well-investigated CE1 case? Rarer than a straight-talking politician or oil executive. Sure, if you look at popular UFO websites that list UFO reports, there are dozens and dozens from all over the world, posted by witnesses. But follow-up to get additional details to make an evaluation, such as direction of movement, where the UFO was in the sky compared with other things, and even an accurate time? Forget it. Onsite investigation? Impossible. Referral to one of the few reliable UFO investigators who lives nearby the witness, to allow proper investigation? Can't, sorry; privacy of witnesses is guaranteed.
So what we have in ufology today is the maintaining of a high number of UFO sighting reports, but a decrease on information content of the cases. Public attention surges when UFO stories in the news go viral, but critical thinking goes out the window.
Part of this is because no one person is viewed as someone who can speak for ufology today. Following the death of Allen Hynek, no one was easily identifiable as someone to take his mantle. (Not even Philip Mantle.) Not Stan Friedman, not Jerome Clark, Mark Rodeghier, not Jenny Randles, not Kevin Randle, not Bill Birnes, not any other of the dozen or so who might (or might not) fit the bill.
(Similarly, who speaks for debunkery? After Phil Klass passed away, is it now Phil Plait? James Oberg? James Randi? Bill Nye? Even Larry King can't decide who is an authority and whom to have on as guests to debate UFOs.)
Poor MUFON and CUFOS, the few remaining doggedly determined UFO groups. They're hanging on, with declining revenue, losing staff and trying desperately to carry on with serious UFO study, when UFO fans have not the slightest interest in that.
Ufology is greatly fractured. With thousands of UFO-related web pages, everyone (and anyone) can be an expert. Anyone can tell you the "REAL Truth" about the aliens' presence on Earth and their nefarious dealings with the government and how Obama is an alien and why I've been chosen as their emissary and why alien hybrids have pale skin and why aliens will arrive in 2012 and where the underwater alien bases are in the Gulf of Mexico and why the hundreds of orbs in my photograph are mental images of aliens and not dust particles and why some UFO craft disguise themselves as airplanes and why chemtrails are not just contrails and why this blog is passing through into another dimension....
# posted by rutkows @ 7:37 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Mr. Rutkowski,
We have posted your latest piece --The demise of ufology -- at three of our UFO blogs (including The UFO Iconoclasts -- http://ufocon.blogspot.com)
and also linked your piece at Facebook.
You make the argument cogent.
Max (for the RRRGroup)
We have posted your latest piece --The demise of ufology -- at three of our UFO blogs (including The UFO Iconoclasts -- http://ufocon.blogspot.com)
and also linked your piece at Facebook.
You make the argument cogent.
Max (for the RRRGroup)
I agree with what you're saying, but I'm a step further in optimism, I think. I'm in the ghost hunting field and have friends in UFO and Bigfoot communities. We are all running into the same thing as far as market overload from TV and popularity. We saw this in the 70s too, if you recall the alien abduction stories, the seances and Ouija board-themed movies, the "Legend of Boggy Creek." It all started a craze, but by the 1980s, it was all forgotten for things of "this earth," like materialism. We're back to natural curiosity again and it's been peaking and will no doubt fizzle out once folks quite tying spiritual exploration with the unknown. There's a big difference between honest scientific interest in the unknown and spiritual quests. I see a lot of folks looking for universal answers in this phenomenon instead of proof--they look for belief. So, once this spiritual replacement for the God-figure goes away and things go back to a materialistic world again, there will be some breathing room, then it will come back again. We made a lot of strides in this new phase of interest in these areas that we didn't have in the 70s and by the, say, 2020's, it'll be even further along. I have hope. But, life is trends and cycles. I think we're all burning out. Time for a breather. Fantastic post BTW!
You know not too long ago I was a skeptic to the whole crazy world of ufology (I didnt even know thats what people who study this subject were called.) It was actually on May 1st 2010 that I became a believer. To me Roswell was weather balloons and I got a chuckle from those UFO shows that should have a slap stick soundtrack in the background. But I saw something pretty weird and spectacular, and then I saw the dambed thing again May 28th 2010, but this time I had a tripod ready just incase the thing came back. Do you know what its like when you just purchase a videocamera to capture your little girls precious moments, step out the door for a smoke (I can see you shaking your head, good on you that you dont have an addiction) and look up to see a (?) So forgive the shaky camera work of a less than professional camera woman, but atleast really look at the footage and try to view it through my eyes. Why did I upload my video to youtube, because this is something unbeleivable, and should be shared with others who might have seen a similar object. I also can show my family and friends all at once instead of waiting for 20+ minutes per email for an upload of the video. It also helps when people can give thier opinions on the video, maybe that was an old mans kite with LED lights on it that lives a km away from me, and if thats the case Im sure some kite enthusiest out there can give me some answers about this strange object. So before you debunk someone for uploading a video because what they saw compared to the film is legitimatly unbelievably strange, think of what you would do if that was your first sighting of something you never ever thought could possibly exist. If youd like to give your opinion on the subject then here you go, the thing came back and you can watch it on You tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SOu7NTHY-w
Now you can see the object as it really looks and a lot less shaky this time. And then you tell me what that thing is, and if it should be shared with the world? Not only that I really wonder why a big company known as Bigelow Aerospace is anticipating to see a video shot by a housewife from northern Alberta. Oh and the researcher actually doesnt mind that the video is allready on youtube, because that way the other residents who may have seen the thing can come forward when they go searching online for an explination as to what they might have seen and run across the video of a similar object taken over our town.
-Scincerly a houswife from small town Alberta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SOu7NTHY-w
Now you can see the object as it really looks and a lot less shaky this time. And then you tell me what that thing is, and if it should be shared with the world? Not only that I really wonder why a big company known as Bigelow Aerospace is anticipating to see a video shot by a housewife from northern Alberta. Oh and the researcher actually doesnt mind that the video is allready on youtube, because that way the other residents who may have seen the thing can come forward when they go searching online for an explination as to what they might have seen and run across the video of a similar object taken over our town.
-Scincerly a houswife from small town Alberta.
Hey, you left out some of my favorite lunacies . . .
Whitley Strieber;
Underground bases;
Reptilians;
Chupacabras;
Alien-human hybrids; and
My newest fave, the Eckhart home recurring alien invasions (Phew! What's that smell?)
Whitley Strieber;
Underground bases;
Reptilians;
Chupacabras;
Alien-human hybrids; and
My newest fave, the Eckhart home recurring alien invasions (Phew! What's that smell?)
I suppose it could be argued that ufology has always been "in decline," depending on who's making that determination and why, but perhaps instead of getting upset at the circus sideshows of recent decades as noted in your piece and in comments here, one should concentrate as best they can, if they want to seriously explore the topic of ufos, by both doing historical research and review of the best cases and more importantly conducting your own field research and investigation of cases locally. Vallee's "Invisible College" model is a good place to start in terms of process.
Just like in research and interest in psychic phenomena and ghosts or just about any other paranormal subject, there always has been and will be the "woo" factor, sensational proclamations without substantiation, and exploitation and manipulation of these subjects by those either too dumb or gullible to want to conduct objective, careful, agnostic investigation or who simply want to be entertained and bolster their subjective belief systems.
That's just the way things are. Get over it. Forget the crap aspects and concentrate on what is of most interest to you, and learn how to do effective, empirical field research. Educate yourself. You don't have to be a member of any established group or follow their agendas. I agree CUFOS is moribund and that MUFON does not have coherent objectives or leadership, and keeps much of their field investigator's findings too close to the vest. These same kinds of problems affected NICAP and APRO also, so this is nothing new. Part of the problem today has been the relative dearth of sightings being seriously investigated combined with the lack of any domestic waves or flaps of real merit since about 1973.
Into this vacuum much hyperbole and fantasy has intruded, such as with Strieber and Hopkins surrounding the various alleged "alien abduction" scenarios which lack virtually any real, objective, non-anecdotal evidence. I don't think the internet can or should really be blamed--it's just another tool, like a knife, which can be used for both good or bad purposes.
I'd like to see a more comprehensive computer analysis of a variety of ufo reports for object size, colors, movement, appearance, witness effects, etc. in order to try to determine patterns within the body of reports which go largely unexamined from a cross-reference perspective.
Just like in research and interest in psychic phenomena and ghosts or just about any other paranormal subject, there always has been and will be the "woo" factor, sensational proclamations without substantiation, and exploitation and manipulation of these subjects by those either too dumb or gullible to want to conduct objective, careful, agnostic investigation or who simply want to be entertained and bolster their subjective belief systems.
That's just the way things are. Get over it. Forget the crap aspects and concentrate on what is of most interest to you, and learn how to do effective, empirical field research. Educate yourself. You don't have to be a member of any established group or follow their agendas. I agree CUFOS is moribund and that MUFON does not have coherent objectives or leadership, and keeps much of their field investigator's findings too close to the vest. These same kinds of problems affected NICAP and APRO also, so this is nothing new. Part of the problem today has been the relative dearth of sightings being seriously investigated combined with the lack of any domestic waves or flaps of real merit since about 1973.
Into this vacuum much hyperbole and fantasy has intruded, such as with Strieber and Hopkins surrounding the various alleged "alien abduction" scenarios which lack virtually any real, objective, non-anecdotal evidence. I don't think the internet can or should really be blamed--it's just another tool, like a knife, which can be used for both good or bad purposes.
I'd like to see a more comprehensive computer analysis of a variety of ufo reports for object size, colors, movement, appearance, witness effects, etc. in order to try to determine patterns within the body of reports which go largely unexamined from a cross-reference perspective.
myalisa:
I wasn't necessarily making reference to your video (tripod or no tripod). I've seen many hundreds of UFO videos and I made the comment about the general nature of such evidence.
It's interesting you suggest I'm trying to debunk UFO reports. Most actual debunkers would disagree with you, and have branded me too much of a believer or a supporter of UFO cases.
Azs for Bigelow, it was I who talked with his assistant about recent UFO cases in Canada, and I suggested your case to him, as Bigelow asked me to work with him in helping to study the UFO phenomenon.
I would prefer if people emailed their reports to the Canadian UFO Report directly, so that we could try and match local investigators to regional UFO sightings. Having a UFO sighting posted to a web page doesn't necessarily help serious ufologists in their study of the phenomenon.
What direction was the UFO in the sky this time? What other objects were in the sky for reference? Next time, can you keep teh tripod steady so we can get a better idea of how quickly the object moves, how fast it descends, etc.?
It certainly must have been a fascinating experience for you and your companion. What do you think the object was? In teh video, you frequently talked to it as if it could hear you. Do you think it was aware you were watching it?
I wasn't necessarily making reference to your video (tripod or no tripod). I've seen many hundreds of UFO videos and I made the comment about the general nature of such evidence.
It's interesting you suggest I'm trying to debunk UFO reports. Most actual debunkers would disagree with you, and have branded me too much of a believer or a supporter of UFO cases.
Azs for Bigelow, it was I who talked with his assistant about recent UFO cases in Canada, and I suggested your case to him, as Bigelow asked me to work with him in helping to study the UFO phenomenon.
I would prefer if people emailed their reports to the Canadian UFO Report directly, so that we could try and match local investigators to regional UFO sightings. Having a UFO sighting posted to a web page doesn't necessarily help serious ufologists in their study of the phenomenon.
What direction was the UFO in the sky this time? What other objects were in the sky for reference? Next time, can you keep teh tripod steady so we can get a better idea of how quickly the object moves, how fast it descends, etc.?
It certainly must have been a fascinating experience for you and your companion. What do you think the object was? In teh video, you frequently talked to it as if it could hear you. Do you think it was aware you were watching it?
Interesting to see all the usual subjects come out of the fearful woodwork to celebrate what they feel they can take as a reason to stop all regard of the UFO as some terrifying intelligence apart from ourselves, and unspeakable, therefore, for that. ...Reassert their mawkish and overweening secular humanism as bereft of humility as they are devoid of imagination... reestablish their supposed place as the default jewel in creation's crown. This earns a sneer all by itself.
Sorry, little pilgrims, I shan't allow the intellectually turgid affectations of the artlessly slandering Rich Reynolds —forgetting the equally artless murder of retro-steppers he controls, RRR Group— spin CR's essay into anything other than it was: a reflection on accelerating change in a venue remaining extant and reasserting itself to thousands periodically and entirely apart from the incessant whining, indolent complaint, and rank intellectual cowardice from those unwilling to embrace a looming and inexorable future.
Ufological regard "dead," Richey? Don't get your hopes up. Forgetting the UFO won't stand for it itself, as history seems to illustrate, Rutkowski doesn't bear out _your_ hoped for, or errantly projected, conclusions, either. Return to the clue queue. Look somewhere else for support of your irrelevant, invalidated, and irredeemable personal philosophies. It's not here.
Sorry, little pilgrims, I shan't allow the intellectually turgid affectations of the artlessly slandering Rich Reynolds —forgetting the equally artless murder of retro-steppers he controls, RRR Group— spin CR's essay into anything other than it was: a reflection on accelerating change in a venue remaining extant and reasserting itself to thousands periodically and entirely apart from the incessant whining, indolent complaint, and rank intellectual cowardice from those unwilling to embrace a looming and inexorable future.
Ufological regard "dead," Richey? Don't get your hopes up. Forgetting the UFO won't stand for it itself, as history seems to illustrate, Rutkowski doesn't bear out _your_ hoped for, or errantly projected, conclusions, either. Return to the clue queue. Look somewhere else for support of your irrelevant, invalidated, and irredeemable personal philosophies. It's not here.
Im glad you got back to me about this. I didnt know how Bigelow got involved in the first place, so thank-you for helping out. First of all as a first time sighter, I had no idea how or where to report my sighting. I dont know whos who or whats what when it comes to this subject as I never thought Id ever see anything like this. I filed a report with the Vike factor, because that was the first website that popped up on the web, I never heard of Mufon, AUFOSG or had a clue as to any of these foundations?
The cops I reported it to looked at me as if I were nuts, and I must say my relationship with my husband pretty well went down the tubes when I tried desperatly to describe what I saw so yaa my life is pretty upside down now still. He finally saw this thing too and thank-god he did. Over the next three weeks scince I shot the first video I was wondering could this be a kite with LED lights on it as was sugested by an individual who lives in my town and found my video on youtube. I searched youtube for anything close to this thing that could be man made, and must say the first video yes plausible that its man made, but the second video I shot of the thing...theres nothing on earth like that object. I had seen the old mans kite flying in the North a few days after I had videotaped the first object, and as a skeptic I video taped the kite, and sent that footage along with the footage of the object to Bigelow. The first sighting May 1st 2010 was NNE to due north and the second sighting the thing was NNW to North, and the object flew towards the field the old man was flying his kite in and took the same flight path each time but from different directions. So it was plausible that the old man installed some sort of LED lights and was trying to raise a stir for fun.
I believed this was so until I shot the next video on May 28th 2010 same time 11:30 pm. This time I went to the weather network and checked the ceiling and windspeed 3900ft. cloudy. wind 35km hr. I didnt check the direction though. And a nice gentilman on Youtube told me how to work the camera better. So I finally figured it out and got a clearer shot of this object.
So, due to Mr. Vike taking a still photo of the object and posting it on his site the Vike factor, I wondered how I could do that too, take a still and analyze the photo. So I figured it out and just this morning started playing around with the contrast brighness cropping the image blowing it up and taking many stills and my God that thing isnt human. I must say my hair is standing up right now and Im pretty teary eyed because who are they, what are they, what do they want and should I put the coffee on when they come knocking at my door? Am I going to actually get any real answers from Bigelow? I live my life following truth. I want honesty, and I deserve to know what kind of being or beings are currently showing up over my town.
Im making a video of the analyzed pictures of the object that I have done myself and will be posting it to youtube...Or should I, now that I know that this thing truly isnt human in origin?
Scincerely housewife in Northern Alberta.
The cops I reported it to looked at me as if I were nuts, and I must say my relationship with my husband pretty well went down the tubes when I tried desperatly to describe what I saw so yaa my life is pretty upside down now still. He finally saw this thing too and thank-god he did. Over the next three weeks scince I shot the first video I was wondering could this be a kite with LED lights on it as was sugested by an individual who lives in my town and found my video on youtube. I searched youtube for anything close to this thing that could be man made, and must say the first video yes plausible that its man made, but the second video I shot of the thing...theres nothing on earth like that object. I had seen the old mans kite flying in the North a few days after I had videotaped the first object, and as a skeptic I video taped the kite, and sent that footage along with the footage of the object to Bigelow. The first sighting May 1st 2010 was NNE to due north and the second sighting the thing was NNW to North, and the object flew towards the field the old man was flying his kite in and took the same flight path each time but from different directions. So it was plausible that the old man installed some sort of LED lights and was trying to raise a stir for fun.
I believed this was so until I shot the next video on May 28th 2010 same time 11:30 pm. This time I went to the weather network and checked the ceiling and windspeed 3900ft. cloudy. wind 35km hr. I didnt check the direction though. And a nice gentilman on Youtube told me how to work the camera better. So I finally figured it out and got a clearer shot of this object.
So, due to Mr. Vike taking a still photo of the object and posting it on his site the Vike factor, I wondered how I could do that too, take a still and analyze the photo. So I figured it out and just this morning started playing around with the contrast brighness cropping the image blowing it up and taking many stills and my God that thing isnt human. I must say my hair is standing up right now and Im pretty teary eyed because who are they, what are they, what do they want and should I put the coffee on when they come knocking at my door? Am I going to actually get any real answers from Bigelow? I live my life following truth. I want honesty, and I deserve to know what kind of being or beings are currently showing up over my town.
Im making a video of the analyzed pictures of the object that I have done myself and will be posting it to youtube...Or should I, now that I know that this thing truly isnt human in origin?
Scincerely housewife in Northern Alberta.
@myalisa178:
I would advise caution that you not presume, as you say above, "...my God that thing isnt human..." and "...now that I know that this thing truly isnt human in origin..." since you really do _not_ know what you video-taped. I don't think, considering the few brief segments where some apparent "swooping" and, alternatively, somewhat stationary motions are seen, that this is any kind of kite (or ET). Don't get ahead of the evidence, is my advice.
As I suggested earlier on your youtube site (under my youtube account of stevewas7), it is more likely to be a radio-controlled (RC) hobbyist type of aircraft or helicopter, of relatively small dimensions (a few feet across, if that), equipped with a micro-controlled, on-board light emitting diode (LED) kit, many of which are sold online and in hobby shops for just this purpose, illuminated RC night flying.
A brother in-law of mine worked in a hobby shop specializing in RC craft of various kinds, and these LED kits even a couple years ago were being sold fairly often by his shop for custom-made RC night flyers of differing sorts.
There have been several news reports over the past several months of ufos in central and southern California, for example, that turned out to be RC aircraft, including some in oval or ring-shaped "flying wing" configurations. I referred you to these news articles on your youtube account, in comments.
Due to the very erratic camera work, where the object most often only appears to move due to your moving the camera on your tripod, and your use of autofocus, which blurred the object out when you tried to zoom in, there is simply insufficient visual data to conclude this is anything 'unearthly' or not prosaic in nature, such as an RC mini-airplane with an LED kit attached, which is my best guess, based on the pattern of color shifting of the object.
Your having seen it twice within a month in the same general area is also an indication someone is flying a lighted RC craft, as genuine, truly unknown ufo activity in such a relatively short period in the same basic area is extremely rare, historically speaking.
Don't let your emotional reactions get ahead of your rational mind and objective analysis, as jumping to conclusions that "...this thing truly isnt human in origin..." is very premature and presumptuous. It most likely is of human origin, rather than extraterrestrial in nature, based on the minimal characteristics which can be discerned from your video.
I would suggest you practice video taping aircraft at night to get the hang of your camera's features (like using manual focus) and proper use of your tripod in anticipation of video-taping this object if it appears at night again.
Keep watching, and have your camera, batteries, and tape prepared for any reappearance, and perhaps you'll be able to capture enough detail and type of movement to obtain a better idea of what this object actually is. Good luck!
I would advise caution that you not presume, as you say above, "...my God that thing isnt human..." and "...now that I know that this thing truly isnt human in origin..." since you really do _not_ know what you video-taped. I don't think, considering the few brief segments where some apparent "swooping" and, alternatively, somewhat stationary motions are seen, that this is any kind of kite (or ET). Don't get ahead of the evidence, is my advice.
As I suggested earlier on your youtube site (under my youtube account of stevewas7), it is more likely to be a radio-controlled (RC) hobbyist type of aircraft or helicopter, of relatively small dimensions (a few feet across, if that), equipped with a micro-controlled, on-board light emitting diode (LED) kit, many of which are sold online and in hobby shops for just this purpose, illuminated RC night flying.
A brother in-law of mine worked in a hobby shop specializing in RC craft of various kinds, and these LED kits even a couple years ago were being sold fairly often by his shop for custom-made RC night flyers of differing sorts.
There have been several news reports over the past several months of ufos in central and southern California, for example, that turned out to be RC aircraft, including some in oval or ring-shaped "flying wing" configurations. I referred you to these news articles on your youtube account, in comments.
Due to the very erratic camera work, where the object most often only appears to move due to your moving the camera on your tripod, and your use of autofocus, which blurred the object out when you tried to zoom in, there is simply insufficient visual data to conclude this is anything 'unearthly' or not prosaic in nature, such as an RC mini-airplane with an LED kit attached, which is my best guess, based on the pattern of color shifting of the object.
Your having seen it twice within a month in the same general area is also an indication someone is flying a lighted RC craft, as genuine, truly unknown ufo activity in such a relatively short period in the same basic area is extremely rare, historically speaking.
Don't let your emotional reactions get ahead of your rational mind and objective analysis, as jumping to conclusions that "...this thing truly isnt human in origin..." is very premature and presumptuous. It most likely is of human origin, rather than extraterrestrial in nature, based on the minimal characteristics which can be discerned from your video.
I would suggest you practice video taping aircraft at night to get the hang of your camera's features (like using manual focus) and proper use of your tripod in anticipation of video-taping this object if it appears at night again.
Keep watching, and have your camera, batteries, and tape prepared for any reappearance, and perhaps you'll be able to capture enough detail and type of movement to obtain a better idea of what this object actually is. Good luck!
Ok then, what king of LED light, or styrofoam aircraft as I researched more videos on the patterns of crafts that can do this sort of color change, first none of them can have a glowing green aura surounding a pink and blue bulbous inside? Maybe its just jpg distortion when I try to bring out details by using the tone curve, or play with the brightness, and contrast, but it seems to have on the top of its form about 5- 6 dots that form some sort of entni, hatch? I dont know. I found this in a few of the pictures I turned the contrast down on to get rid of the aura. Also the two bulbous eyes? on the front of the object change form, not only that I can see that the eyes we'll call them change green before the body does and if it were just lights how come the bright flashes dont reflect off of the body of the object? It to me looks like a plasma covered object. when I get rid of the green aura surounding the body you can make out it looks like a color changing egg yolk inside of its whites? I estimate the object is aproximently 30ft across, due to me seeing a single engine air craft fly through the same space a few days later at about the same altitude...thats how Im basing my comparison on the size, because single engine aircrafts are about 30ft long. Not only that I took a still frames of the object as it was decending behind the houses and trees. Thinking it could have landed in a yard, but I walked out there and found the poles and where the brightest arc sodium light was in the video and it seemed to have swooped over the houses not land actually on the ground, but I cant be sure. Who knows where it did actually go after that. I know its strange and thats why Im doing my own investigation into this thing. But based solely on the pictures of the blowing up of the object, its really weird and the color change is spectacular. When the whole body is surrounded by a color aura and the insides of the thing change color too at different times. Many people have seen this thing scince 2000? But south of Edson, north of Edson, now in Calgary a few days ago.Phillipeans and other countries. What range does a radio controlled RC air craft have? Because to where the old man launches his kite, its about a km away from the Catholic school. Not only that when I saw it in the NNE the object flew from the Catholic shcool missing all of the powerlines, if it was a kite how did it do that? Unless the guy had a km of string? And how did he see my flashlight and have the thing come back towards me again and flash at me like it was aknowledging me. And during all of this seeing of the object it made no sound at all. If that was the old mans kite with LED lights on it, sign me up that thing is unbelievable. And the first sigting of this thing, it looked to me like it was way up in the sky and decended basically right over the catholic school across the street and was dancing around up there before it took off North. So if I see it again What kind of video do you want? Do you want me to not zoom in to see the details? Thats to me is rediculous and bare with me as Im learning how to use my video camera.
Concerned House wife in Alberta.
Concerned House wife in Alberta.
Now *this* is case investigation! Thanks to posters following Myalisa's video UFO report, and congratulations for Myalisa for going the extra mile to help understand what she has seen and what it might be.
A note about video analysis, however: desktop software is not always efficient at image enhancement. Furthermore, as I think Myalisa noted, haloing or aura effects are almost certainly artefacts of the camera capabilities and optics and not of the object itself. These effects are quite common in digital imaging.
Interesting discussion and analyses, however. Good work.
A note about video analysis, however: desktop software is not always efficient at image enhancement. Furthermore, as I think Myalisa noted, haloing or aura effects are almost certainly artefacts of the camera capabilities and optics and not of the object itself. These effects are quite common in digital imaging.
Interesting discussion and analyses, however. Good work.
Thank-you very much for..shows what a curious housewife with too much time on her hands can do. I am making a video with original still and then blown up and then with contrast and brightness altered to bring out detail, try to clear up the background, and brighten it to see if there is anything in the background, so far this abject is pretty strange. Hopefully I can get this video uploaded within a few days. Yaa I dont know what it is, and maybe it is a RC plane, but this thing changes so drastically and I think I even got a shot of the object moving away (its rear end) and side view of it too, so maybe someone out there that has more experience in those technologies can identify it. I did take day time shots of where it was at night so have to put that into the video too. I do believe this object is at least thirty feet across though because of the single engine plane I saw a few days later in the same area of the sky at around the same elevation. I know it was over 3900ft up because it was up atleast another 500ft in the clouds in a haze, and that was the cloud ceiling at the time on the weather network. Well, we'll see what people think or may know. Im iching to find out thats why Im doing this.
Part 1 of 2 (split into two parts due to blogger limit of 4096 characters per comment):
@myalisal78:
"...what king of LED light, or styrofoam aircraft as I researched more videos on the patterns of crafts that can do this sort of color change, first none of them can have a glowing green aura surounding a pink and blue bulbous inside?"
As Chris Rutkowski indicates, and I agree, the "aura" or halo effect you can see when you tried to zoom in to get a closer look at the object is most likely caused by your camera's auto-focus setting, which might have been picking up closer objects out of view frame, such as the metal poles of the streetlights in the foreground of your video, as in in the shots where you zoom back out.
The "aura" is probably the result of the object going out of focus, making the object appear to be a translucent, larger ball of light of varying colors, as the color displayed by the object shifts from white/green/purple/red.
As for what kind of LED kits or craft might have been used, that cannot be determined, given the minimal visual information on the video. As I had suggested, I think this may be a custom-built RC craft, but that is just my guess or speculation in lieu of better evidence.
"...I do believe this object is at least thirty feet across though because of the single engine plane I saw a few days later in the same area of the sky at around the same elevation. I know it was over 3900ft up because it was up atleast another 500ft in the clouds in a haze, and that was the cloud ceiling at the time on the weather network."
Just because you saw a small civilian aircraft in daytime a few days later in the same area of the sky does not mean you can make an accurate estimate that the lighted object on the video is of similar size, distance, or altitude by comparing the two, as any unfamiliar or unknown object viewed at night is just that, unknown as to relative size.
The problem in comparing such an unknown to a familiar object such as a small prop aircraft of about 30 feet in length is that at night, at an unknown distance or altitude, an unidentified lighted object can easily be mistaken as equal in size, since your subjective perception is operating to make this invalid comparison.
In other words, if the object were considerably smaller, and thus quite a bit closer to you and also, as a result, at a lower altitude that you might have thought, then the object would not be anywhere near the size of a small private plane.
This is a fairly common mistake in witnesses attempting to make estimates of the size, distance, and altitude of unidentified flying objects--it's almost impossible to accurately estimate due to the fact that the ufo is unknown, seen at night, and the mind tends to make comparisons to known aerial objects, such as a private plane in your example.
However, since you cannot tell that, since there's no frame of reference in the video that's reliable, and the object's size is unknown, this makes distance and altitude also unknown. A passenger jet at 1 mile distance, for example, of 100+ feet in length, can appear smaller than a Cessna airplane at 1/4 mile away. Unless you weren't already familiar with the relative sizes of these man-made craft, it might appear to you that, visually, related to distance, the Cessna was larger than the commercial airliner, due to differing distances, which at night, with unknown objects, cannot be clearly discerned.
Again, I think the object is much smaller than you are presuming, and thus also closer and lower to your ground location in the video.
I hope you can see what I'm somewhat awkwardly trying to describe--if it's unknown, you cannot really tell size, distance, or altitude. Your mind is trying to fit a frame of reference around what you saw to a familiar object, such as a small plane. That cannot be assumed as a basis for objective comparison.
@myalisal78:
"...what king of LED light, or styrofoam aircraft as I researched more videos on the patterns of crafts that can do this sort of color change, first none of them can have a glowing green aura surounding a pink and blue bulbous inside?"
As Chris Rutkowski indicates, and I agree, the "aura" or halo effect you can see when you tried to zoom in to get a closer look at the object is most likely caused by your camera's auto-focus setting, which might have been picking up closer objects out of view frame, such as the metal poles of the streetlights in the foreground of your video, as in in the shots where you zoom back out.
The "aura" is probably the result of the object going out of focus, making the object appear to be a translucent, larger ball of light of varying colors, as the color displayed by the object shifts from white/green/purple/red.
As for what kind of LED kits or craft might have been used, that cannot be determined, given the minimal visual information on the video. As I had suggested, I think this may be a custom-built RC craft, but that is just my guess or speculation in lieu of better evidence.
"...I do believe this object is at least thirty feet across though because of the single engine plane I saw a few days later in the same area of the sky at around the same elevation. I know it was over 3900ft up because it was up atleast another 500ft in the clouds in a haze, and that was the cloud ceiling at the time on the weather network."
Just because you saw a small civilian aircraft in daytime a few days later in the same area of the sky does not mean you can make an accurate estimate that the lighted object on the video is of similar size, distance, or altitude by comparing the two, as any unfamiliar or unknown object viewed at night is just that, unknown as to relative size.
The problem in comparing such an unknown to a familiar object such as a small prop aircraft of about 30 feet in length is that at night, at an unknown distance or altitude, an unidentified lighted object can easily be mistaken as equal in size, since your subjective perception is operating to make this invalid comparison.
In other words, if the object were considerably smaller, and thus quite a bit closer to you and also, as a result, at a lower altitude that you might have thought, then the object would not be anywhere near the size of a small private plane.
This is a fairly common mistake in witnesses attempting to make estimates of the size, distance, and altitude of unidentified flying objects--it's almost impossible to accurately estimate due to the fact that the ufo is unknown, seen at night, and the mind tends to make comparisons to known aerial objects, such as a private plane in your example.
However, since you cannot tell that, since there's no frame of reference in the video that's reliable, and the object's size is unknown, this makes distance and altitude also unknown. A passenger jet at 1 mile distance, for example, of 100+ feet in length, can appear smaller than a Cessna airplane at 1/4 mile away. Unless you weren't already familiar with the relative sizes of these man-made craft, it might appear to you that, visually, related to distance, the Cessna was larger than the commercial airliner, due to differing distances, which at night, with unknown objects, cannot be clearly discerned.
Again, I think the object is much smaller than you are presuming, and thus also closer and lower to your ground location in the video.
I hope you can see what I'm somewhat awkwardly trying to describe--if it's unknown, you cannot really tell size, distance, or altitude. Your mind is trying to fit a frame of reference around what you saw to a familiar object, such as a small plane. That cannot be assumed as a basis for objective comparison.
Part 2 of 2:
"...none of them can have a glowing green aura surounding a pink and blue bulbous inside?"
I don't see that. After reexamining the video, there never appears to be a moment when both the halo effect is present at the same time as any discrete points of light within the halo. It's either one or the other, as the camera is zoomed in and out.
Next time (if there is one), try letting the object move within the field of view of the camera from a distance, as still as the camera can be on a tripod, to allow the pattern of aerial movement to be seen more clearly.
Then, using manual focus, slowly try to zoom in to get a hopefully better, closer look at the object. Don't try to move the camera around trying to chase the object or keep it within the field of view, as this causes too much erratic, jerky video smearing, and the pattern of movement is then less clear or identifiable.
Also try to get some ground lights or horizon into the frame when the object moves low enough to do so. I think you'll obtain much better results by trying this technique.
"...none of them can have a glowing green aura surounding a pink and blue bulbous inside?"
I don't see that. After reexamining the video, there never appears to be a moment when both the halo effect is present at the same time as any discrete points of light within the halo. It's either one or the other, as the camera is zoomed in and out.
Next time (if there is one), try letting the object move within the field of view of the camera from a distance, as still as the camera can be on a tripod, to allow the pattern of aerial movement to be seen more clearly.
Then, using manual focus, slowly try to zoom in to get a hopefully better, closer look at the object. Don't try to move the camera around trying to chase the object or keep it within the field of view, as this causes too much erratic, jerky video smearing, and the pattern of movement is then less clear or identifiable.
Also try to get some ground lights or horizon into the frame when the object moves low enough to do so. I think you'll obtain much better results by trying this technique.
All I can say sir is just wait see the video and then you tell me what this is. My pinky finger is falling off from constantly sliding the mouse cropping each frame 90+ of them in the clearest shots in sequence to blow the images up. You be the judge, and then tell me what makes that luminesance. Also I have 60X zoom on my camera. I was zoomed fully out when I took that clearest shot of the thing. And I could see the bottom of the clouds at 3900ft, something the video didnt pick up. Ask my husband he was there too. I also have video of the kite the old man flies during the daytime fully zoomed and the kite is about a km away at the time in the field near the other trailer park. I have tried my 60x zoom on a recent trip to vancouver and took pictures of ships way out on the horizon across from West vancouver to second beach, and they came in quite clear.how many kms away I dont know but they were pretty far.Not only that I went through the banff parkway and could zoom up to the top of the mountains the tallest one was 5000 ft. It was neat to take clear pictures of the tree lines on the mountain tops by leaning on my car. Well you be the skeptical judge but all I can say is the light pattern on this thing is very strange.
Yes, it is rather strange. I look forward to reviewing your next video for further data. However, simply compiling a sequence of enhanced still frames from this video will not likely produce any significant new data, since between the erratic motion and the 60x zoom, a tremendous amount of video image "blooming" or distortion occurs.
If you additionally crop, contrast enhance, and further modify the image with software, this may also create and exaggerate inherent video artifacts.
Interestingly enough, when I went to your youtube account (myalisa78), I noticed you made another video of what I assume is the same object from about a month ago. Others here might want to go check it out and consider what it suggest to them.
By the way, what is the brand, model, and year of your video camera?
If you additionally crop, contrast enhance, and further modify the image with software, this may also create and exaggerate inherent video artifacts.
Interestingly enough, when I went to your youtube account (myalisa78), I noticed you made another video of what I assume is the same object from about a month ago. Others here might want to go check it out and consider what it suggest to them.
By the way, what is the brand, model, and year of your video camera?
Ok my arm feels like its falling off, but I just cropped and blew the object up by cropping the pictures. I didnt enhance it in any way. I took about 90+ stills and put them together in sequence..oh tired LOL
Well I bought a Carl Zeiss vario tessar 60X optical zoom Sony. Brand new, had it about two and a half months now? its a nice camera, now I wish I would have got the 100X zoom. But yes take a look... what the heck is that thing? Can LEDs do that? Youll see on the video that the kite I had taken was at full zoom, and the flashing object on May 28th clearest shot I just cropped was at full zoom too. heres the new video thank-you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFfpiwDjfYA
Well I bought a Carl Zeiss vario tessar 60X optical zoom Sony. Brand new, had it about two and a half months now? its a nice camera, now I wish I would have got the 100X zoom. But yes take a look... what the heck is that thing? Can LEDs do that? Youll see on the video that the kite I had taken was at full zoom, and the flashing object on May 28th clearest shot I just cropped was at full zoom too. heres the new video thank-you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFfpiwDjfYA
Very nice work, Myalisa! (I sure wish most UFO witnesses were so interested in understanding what they saw.)
Would you be agreeable to speaking with a UFO researcher in Alberta who might be able to come out to visit you for a follow up?
Would you be agreeable to speaking with a UFO researcher in Alberta who might be able to come out to visit you for a follow up?
Yes...I will put the coffee on, clean out the second bedroom and pull out the lawn chairs. Bring all of the equipment you want and Ill show you where the Ive seen this thing a few times now. Now that I think about it there a white orb that scoots really fast across the sky and I even saw it a few days ago but couldnt pick it up on camera, I think this might be the same object. So Ive seen this thing about 5 times all ready? But three times flashing and two times white cloud like glowing orbs, so yes yes yes, please do get a hold of me on youtube and Ill send you my email address, and then through email give you my phone number.
Yep.Canned like the Cultural Revolution that was photocopied off of Life magazine, cloned by the velocity of a printing press that eats it's young.
Philosophic cartoons are dime store trinkets, affordable, disposable sloganeering that depend on soon to be obsolete tastes that only go as far as the mouth. The Pop Tart of The Mind. It's as dead as dead could ever be dead, a philosophic zombie, the drunk at the end of the bar, the cut and paste methodology of a narrative. You F'n Ontology is a social club as deep as Facebook and as emotionally mature as a high school freshman. The phenomenon itself is forgotten, relegated to trivial pursuits and punditry.The King is Dead. Long Live The King.
Philosophic cartoons are dime store trinkets, affordable, disposable sloganeering that depend on soon to be obsolete tastes that only go as far as the mouth. The Pop Tart of The Mind. It's as dead as dead could ever be dead, a philosophic zombie, the drunk at the end of the bar, the cut and paste methodology of a narrative. You F'n Ontology is a social club as deep as Facebook and as emotionally mature as a high school freshman. The phenomenon itself is forgotten, relegated to trivial pursuits and punditry.The King is Dead. Long Live The King.
Hi Mr Rutkowski,
Very well said. The subject has definitely been hijacked by sheisters on both sides with questionable intent. Ironically though, on the 4/6/10 I got some very interesting footage of an object in the sky. I believe it is far better than most of the other stuff I see on the news, but none of the current affairs/news shows I've contacted want anything to do with it. I don't want to go to the government or the UFO brigade because I think they're as bad as each other. I'm currently trying to contact people who've gotten quite similar looking stuff just recently around my country (Australia) because I'm trying to make a case for a hypothesis I have about this. One guy even got on the news but they just made him look silly like always. If I could just get all this footage and the hypothesis I have out there I believe it could bring the whole subject back to the forefront of our conciousness again. Then we might actually get somewhere.
Very well said. The subject has definitely been hijacked by sheisters on both sides with questionable intent. Ironically though, on the 4/6/10 I got some very interesting footage of an object in the sky. I believe it is far better than most of the other stuff I see on the news, but none of the current affairs/news shows I've contacted want anything to do with it. I don't want to go to the government or the UFO brigade because I think they're as bad as each other. I'm currently trying to contact people who've gotten quite similar looking stuff just recently around my country (Australia) because I'm trying to make a case for a hypothesis I have about this. One guy even got on the news but they just made him look silly like always. If I could just get all this footage and the hypothesis I have out there I believe it could bring the whole subject back to the forefront of our conciousness again. Then we might actually get somewhere.
@The Fleecer:
"If I could just get all this footage and the hypothesis I have out there I believe it could bring the whole subject back to the forefront of our consciousness again. Then we might actually get somewhere."
If you think your footage is really that good, I would suggest you create a blog (Google / blogger.com or wordpress.com are both good options), post your video, perhaps also post it to youtube, and include all relevant data as to your contact info, time, day, GPS location (use Google or MapQuest maps for illustration), and include the details of what you saw, with direction of flight, estimated size, color, shape, movements, angle of elevation, and any other useful data (Google Blue Book report form for insight). This should create a good start.
Or, if you don't want to do that, contact some group such as www.narcap.org and consider submitting a clean, complete copy of your footage via NARCAP to either Ted Roe or Dr. Richard Haines, both of whom are pretty knowledgeable, experienced, and pro-ufo expert specialists with video/film hardware and software analysis tools.
"If I could just get all this footage and the hypothesis I have out there I believe it could bring the whole subject back to the forefront of our consciousness again. Then we might actually get somewhere."
If you think your footage is really that good, I would suggest you create a blog (Google / blogger.com or wordpress.com are both good options), post your video, perhaps also post it to youtube, and include all relevant data as to your contact info, time, day, GPS location (use Google or MapQuest maps for illustration), and include the details of what you saw, with direction of flight, estimated size, color, shape, movements, angle of elevation, and any other useful data (Google Blue Book report form for insight). This should create a good start.
Or, if you don't want to do that, contact some group such as www.narcap.org and consider submitting a clean, complete copy of your footage via NARCAP to either Ted Roe or Dr. Richard Haines, both of whom are pretty knowledgeable, experienced, and pro-ufo expert specialists with video/film hardware and software analysis tools.
Thanks for the advice Steve, I'm presently making further enquiries. I hope everyone sees the critical piece of the jigsaw I believe I've discovered soon.
@ the Fleecer, are you seeing things like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6p7n0i-kRs
Look me up on youtube myalisa78 and watch my vids and lets talk because Im experiencing the same weird things which is really strange because its me an average joe housewife who didnt believe in any of this, and I am talking with others now who have similar tales to tell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6p7n0i-kRs
Look me up on youtube myalisa78 and watch my vids and lets talk because Im experiencing the same weird things which is really strange because its me an average joe housewife who didnt believe in any of this, and I am talking with others now who have similar tales to tell.
I guess that those that seriously want to dedicate their time and efforts to the quest of finding alien life should leave UFOlogy and start new careers in exobiology, which is considered a science instead of a pseudoscience. Something like that happened with alchemists that wanted to continue their studies seriously once their activity lost its prestige due to charlatans of all sorts. They simply reinvented themselves as chemists. Now it wouldn't be that simple today, but its not impossible and exobiology / astrobiology could seriously benefit from their work, honesty and enthusiasm.
Looking at the state of most of current Australian UFOlogy, I have to agree with your comments. Classic CE1s, CE2s, CE3s have all but disappeared here.
The current clear up rate of all incoming raw reports to AUFORN the national UFO group is about 10% IFO, 90%UFO.
I was at a seminar recently where Keith Basterfield, a respected national level UFO researcher said that even back in the 1970's, it was 90-95%IFOs and 5-10% unknowns after proper investigation. Seems we have lost the art of proper investigation.
I am doing my bit for "good" research at my blog:
http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
The current clear up rate of all incoming raw reports to AUFORN the national UFO group is about 10% IFO, 90%UFO.
I was at a seminar recently where Keith Basterfield, a respected national level UFO researcher said that even back in the 1970's, it was 90-95%IFOs and 5-10% unknowns after proper investigation. Seems we have lost the art of proper investigation.
I am doing my bit for "good" research at my blog:
http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Okay guys so no-one seems to care about my footage, certainly not the media, but I think it's great. At the very least, I think it supports my contention that something is using star scintillation as camouflage for their gateway/stargate, and as far as I know it's the only footage anyone has of a real stargate anywhere in this crazy world. It always cracks me up when skeptics say "I'll believe in ET's when a ship lands on the 6 o'clock news and a little green man walks out", because in fact some poor person probably got that very footage twenty or thirty years ago but it was taken off them and never seen again. Anyway, come and check out what I have on YouTube at IamtheFleecer, and don't forget to look at the stills too because they give you much more detail!
The important question is have the events diminished or the reports (many possible reasons for that)?
Ufology has descended into crankery but the ET hypothesis was pretty dumb to start off with.
Linked this to my Facebook Site
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=99941868408
Ufology has descended into crankery but the ET hypothesis was pretty dumb to start off with.
Linked this to my Facebook Site
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=99941868408
The important question is have the events diminished or the reports (many possible reasons for that)?
Ufology has descended into crankery but the ET hypothesis was pretty dumb to start off with.
Linked this to my Facebook Site
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=99941868408
Ufology has descended into crankery but the ET hypothesis was pretty dumb to start off with.
Linked this to my Facebook Site
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=99941868408
Hey Chris, I agree with about 95% of what you say but you are wrong in stating that MUFON is losing ground. True there was a period of time when it seemed that way but in recent months we have seen our membership rise and we are now expanding globally with new National Directors and investigators in several countries. No, MUFON is alive and well and is begin to flourish again.
Hey Chris, I agree with about 95% of what you say but you are wrong in stating that MUFON is losing ground. True there was a period of time when it seemed that way but in recent months we have seen our membership rise and we are now expanding globally with new National Directors and investigators in several countries. No, MUFON is alive and well and is begin to flourish again.
Terry: I hear what you're saying about MUFON. It's certainly just a shadow of its former self, but I would concede that in recent years it's rebuilding.
You needed to add the demise of implants as well. Whatever happened to this part of the abduction phenomenon?
Post a Comment
<< Home
