UFO sightings are no laughing matter, group says

afp ^ | 11/12/07 | afp

[mdittmar]

UFOs may be fodder for comedians and science fiction but there was no joking Monday when a group of pilots and officials demanded the US government reopen an investigation into unidentified flying objects.

The 19 former pilots and government officials, who say they have seen UFOs themselves or been involved in probes of strange flying objects, told reporters their questions can no longer be dismissed more than 30 years after the US case was closed.

"We want the US government to stop perpetuating the myth that all UFOs can be explained away in down-to-earth, conventional terms," said Fife Symington, former governor of Arizona and air force pilot who says he saw a UFO himself in 1997.

"Instead our country needs to reopen its official investigation that it shut down in 1969," Symington told a news conference.

Symington read an appeal on behalf of the group of who came to Washington to recount their sightings of UFOs.

"We believe that for reasons of both national security and flight safety, every country should make an effort to identify any object in its airspace," the statement said.

The group included a retired pilot from Air France who said he saw an enormous flying disc during a flight from Nice to London in 1994, an Iranian pilot who tried in vain to fire on a UFO in 1976 and a former US official from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who claims a probe into a UFO seen over Alaska in 1987 was squelched.

"'Who believes in UFOs?' is the kind of attitude of the FAA all the time," Symington said.

"However, when I asked the CIA person: 'What do you think it was,' he responded 'a UFO.'"

When Symington suggested the government tell Americans about a UFO, the CIA official allegedly told him: "'No way, if we were to tell the American public there are UFOs they would panic.'"

The subject of UFOs came up in a recent debate among presidential candidates, with Democrat Dennis Kucinich saying he saw a UFO.

Skeptics say UFO sightings are merely aircraft or meteors re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

[Rick.Donaldson]

***UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects. There are zillions of those. Do Flying Saucers Exist? Yes. Are they man-made? Yes.

hehe. I don't know that I would agree there are "flying saucers", but I have seen videos of various types of vehicles the US and Russians have worked on, but none of them flew very well.

So, I wouldn't say "all flying saucers are man made". I'd actually decline to say "there are flying saucers".

***That’s why we need to rely upon Inductive reasoning because you so astutely point out that Deductive reasoning does not work on this subject. What is the most likely explanation of an event — that a kid ate the cookie from the cookie jar, or that a magic fairy visited him and left a secret message in the form of teeth marks on cookies?

I tend to use deductive reasoning because, you are basing things on knowns. You can't base things on unknowns.

Then again, using inductive reasoning -- which in general takes a vast amount of data and lets you pick and chose patterns from with in the data, but it gives you only generalized answers, not specific answers.

Deductive reasoning can be used to solve proofs in mathematics, inductive logic does not.

I use inductive reasoning quite a bit, when dealing with large quantities of posts on another web site, wherein there are discussions (in particular things like we're talking about now) to get a "feel" for where things are going and to form a basic idea of the concepts involved.

The PROBLEM is that when you use inductive reasoning for making a determination as to whether or not "flying saucers exist and they are weapons systems" you're actually applying your own belief system to the argument.

YOU believe, therefore it must be. --- Umm no. If you can show an image, or a description of a "flying object" and show something similar, in say, the war on terror and apply the similarities of the two objects to show that one is a weapons system, therefore the other MUST be, then I'd agree with you.

Simply reading vast amounts of information regarding observations of UFOs and their behavior doesn't give a good sense to me that they exist and are man made. MOSTLY because patterns of operation of "said craft" vary greatly based on the people making the observations, as well as the LOCATIONS of the observations. Things spotting in China look and behave "differently" than they do in Brazille or the USA.

***Well, I’m going to start focusing on the flying saucer variety. They aren’t swamp gas. They aren’t Venus. Nor are they aliens. They are secret weapons.

I agree with you on a couple of points (Swamp gas, planets etc). Of course, I can generally recognize Venus, or Mars, or Jupiter most of the time with the naked eye. And I do understand jumping eye muscles making lights in the sky appear to wobble everywhere after staring for a few moments. I'm quite familiar with that phenomenon :)

I've watched people see a bright light in the sky and actually freak out calling it a "flying saucer" when all it turned out to be was a plane, at a great distance, with the bright landing lights aimmed in their direction. They would give a description that "the light varied quickly" or something similar. Then when the object got closer, they were disappointed to see it being a plane....

I've also had people point at Venus and say it was "moving around". Once you explain to them their eye muscles are jerking about, and show them a stationary object to sight across to look at their "UFO" they can see it's not jumping around.

That's not to say folks don't see odd things. They do. Sometimes they can't be explained away.

(As for "swamp gas", this is something else I'm familiar with. It happens usually close to the ground, isn't THAT bright and blinks in and out usually, pretty quickly as it ignites).

[GunRunner]

So he has *evidence* that every unidentified object, that every pilot, engineer, military personnel, cop etc has ever seen, and continue to see is in reality secret military aircraft?

Do you have *evidence* that they were seeing alien crafts?

[Rick.Donaldson]

In my opinion, Pepsionice (I love Pepsi on Ice, by the way... with peanuts... LOL!) I would put it more in terms of “religious dogma”.

Not to pick on anyone, and indeed I’m not, since I take the “Christian Side” EVERY time - and will fight on the moral side of things every time — but I won’t stand for the final word coming out of the Bible that “Man” is the only life, and created in God’s image.

Why? Because how do WE KNOW? We don’t. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that God created other universes, galaxies or star systems supporting life. It talks about OUR life, on our planet in terms we could understand — the Book having been written by MAN.

Thus, without in any way denigrating the Bible or religious beliefs it’s not difficult for logic to tell us life indeed STATISTICALLY exists elsewhere.

There is a distinct bias to try to force one or the other views of either “Creationism” or “Darwinism”.

I don’t think either of the views is entirely accurate. I personally think that “IF” God created life, He did so on a much more vast canvas than we can observe, and left “natural selection” in charge after He wandered off to do other things.

That’s me. I’m a “scientist at heart”, but after you observe so much of the galaxy with your own eyes, and begin to understand the extreme forces of nature that exist through the light we capture in telescopes, you can begin to grasp the idea that “something Else” had a hand in both the chaos and symmetry of the Universe.

I don’t, for one second think that something much greater and more complex than we can ever imagine DIDN’T create what we see out there — and here. But, I don’t for one second think, either that He watches over us any more than we watch over bacterium that we’ve created in our refrigerators... at least not any more.

I think He gave us the intelligence to think and learn, and to venture beyond this tiny microcosm and to go and do great things. Perhaps we will, or, perhaps like the dinosaurs we’re doomed to die when an asteroid slams into the planet.

(We are almost ready to venture out, beyond and into space, to carry life as we know it further — but we’ve got to get past political, economic, religious and cultural differences. If everyone worked together for the common goal of pushing life as we know it onward to the Stars, we could be doing that within less than 50 years.....but, I don’t see it happening in MY lifetime. )

[dragnet2]

Why no. Did someone here alleged that?

[Rick.Donaldson]

Nothing out there is close enough to have received any transmission we have made.

I missed a point I need to expound upon.

In 1860, James Maxwell predicted the existence of radio waves. In 1866, a fella named Loomis, an American dentist was able to actually demonstrate a type of wireless telegraphy.

By 1895 Marconi was able to send the very first wireless signals across the Atlantic. There were broadcasts before that, and ever since.

If we ignore all that and assume that the "modern use of radio systems" dates only to the 1930s when huge radio stations broadcast morse code and began to send out Amplitude modulation (What we in radio call "intelligence") then radio signals have been traveling since 1930 outward in all directions from this planet.

That's 77 years.

That means that INTELLIGABLE radio signals in the radio bands, and later television (and later in higher and higher frequencies) have been moving outward from our planet, in all directions now. That covers a huge chunk of space, 77 light YEARS to be precise.

Within 100 light years of Earth, there are approximately 14,600 stars. I can't (and won't) even begin to try to estimate how many planets are out there, but I will say that given the fact we've discovered to date MORE than 150 extrasolar planets. (Those are around stars other than OURS.)

Most of those are within the 100 light year radius I chose (it was easier than working out the numberof stars within 77 light years, yuk I hate math sometimes).

So, assuming there are... 10 planets out there with intelligent life within 100 light years of Earth, then to say "Nothing out there is close enough to have received any transmissions we have made" is a completely inaccurate statement. Actually, there are around 12-14 thousand stars that are WELL WITHIN the radio-radius of Earth's broadcasting systems........

[Rick.Donaldson]

You’re using inductive reasoning here, what is the most likely to be the case. And it is far more likely that the UFOs flying around in the 1890’s at 100-140MPH were man-made rather than evidence of alien visitation. Or are you going to venture forth that 140MPH is de facto evidence of alien visitation?

I believe that was part of my point. Using "inductive logic" doesn't give you a firm answer, just a -- well, a generalization (and in my case, more like a Wild-Assed Guess). I can't imagine that the things flying around in 1890 were doing 140 MPH and were man made. The FIRST known flying craft was the Wright Flyer in 1903. I'm sure that they and others were indeed working on planes in the 1890s, but they certainly weren't going 140 MPH. On the other hand, there were cameras in the 1890s and photography had advanced quite well by then, so where are the images to show these craft?

[GunRunner]

No, but the way you jumped all over someone for insinuating that these were most likely top secret military aircraft made it seem that your extraterrestrial sensibilities were offended.

[Calvin Locke]

Perhaps they should spend a few bucks on aircraft and aerial vehicle identification books first?

[fanfan]

The nearest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri. It is four years away at the speed of light. The nearest habitable planet is probably over 100 years away at the speed of light.

As we measure it.

But what are the odds they would be just 100 light years from us? From one side of the galaxy is between 70,000 and 100,000 light years. We are about 26,000 light years to the galactic center.

Yes, as we measure distance.

We used to use sextants. ;-)

[Quix]

Good enough.

Thx.

How do you explain the centuries old examples of such craft via your theory?

[Smokin' Joe]

Does it make sense that a military prototype would crash near a military base and get covered up by military personnel?

As much as all the UFO sightings in the vicinity of Groom Lake (which is plenty). I recall the flurry of triangular or arrowhead shaped UFO sightings a few years before the F117 was unveiled...

[dragnet2]

Perhaps you should give it a closer examination, and you'll note I was enjoying his humorous posts, watching um back track while making inconsistent statements. My simple point was, that nobody has *evidence* that all of these sighting are military craft. And that is exactly what he seemed to be suggesting, or implying from the beginning.

So you understand, I have no idea what all these people see, but I am confident they are not all seeing military craft that are capable of what many credible witnesses have described them as doing in regards to speed, maneuverability etc.

[GunRunner]

Fair enough.

But would you admit that given the nature of what we know of past military projects like the Spirit, Nighthawk, the SR-71, the U2, the Aurora project, and the scramjet, that it is a scenario that is 1000% more likely than anything extraterrestrial or supernatural?

With the absence of any other credible explanation, I think it is safe to say that what these people are seeing are a varying mix of optical illusions, natural phenomena, misidentified landmarks, and top secret military projects.

[dragnet2]

But would you admit that given the nature of what we know of past military projects like the Spirit, Nighthawk, the SR-71, the U2, the Aurora projeBut would you admit that given the nature of what we know of past military projects like the Spirit, Nighthawk, the SR-71, the U2, the Aurora project, and the scramjet, that it is a scenario that is 1000% more likely than anything extraterrestrial or supernatural?

Do these aircraft not appears as typical aircraft more or less?

You seem to be suggesting that witnesses, such as professional pilots, design engineers, cops, and military personnel are not capable of distinguishing between a modern, man made aircraft, and an unidentified object...

Is this what you're suggesting?

[Kevmo]

How do you explain the centuries old examples of such craft via your theory?
***One step at a time. Start with original eyewitness accounts, meet the threshold of 10 for a flap, run it through the prism of Occham’s Razor (what is this really, most likely?) and then look for distinctive confirming evidence if you can find it. Starting from the 1947 flaps (which are coincidentally 2 years after WWII ends and the aeronautical experiments have begun) and look at it with a rational perspective.

[Kevmo]

Well, it looks like you’ll need to read that “UFO Controversy” book.

Personally, I have my doubts that they went that fast. But they obviously weren’t going thousands of miles per hour, so what happened? Did the aliens come across the galaxy to learn how to fly? Starting at 100MPH in 1890s and getting to 4000MPH in the 1950’s? Using inductive reasoning, is an increasing speed more indicative of ET visitation or secret terrestrial aircraft?

[GunRunner]

You seem to be suggesting that witnesses, such as professional pilots, design engineers, cops, and military personnel are not capable of distinguishing between a modern, man made aircraft, and an unidentified object...

Is this what you're suggesting?

I am suggesting that they misinterpreted what they saw or were witnessing things that were optical illusions, natural phenomena, misidentified landmarks, and black projects whose capabilities are not public knowledge.

What are you suggesting?

[Kevmo]

As much as all the UFO sightings in the vicinity of Groom Lake (which is plenty). I recall the flurry of triangular or arrowhead shaped UFO sightings a few years before the F117 was unveiled...
***Good data point. Those UFO sightings would tend to fall into the explained category, right? You run this exercise a few times and there aren’t that many left that are unexplainable. But those remaining unexplainable items will be fun and fascinating.

[dragnet2]

You seem to be suggesting that witnesses, such as professional pilots, design engineers, cops, and military personnel are not capable of distinguishing between a modern, man made aircraft, and an unidentified object...

I am suggesting that they misinterpreted what they saw

OK, so you're saying credible professionals in the aviation business, and many others are just not capable of providing accurate observations, and they all have just misinterpreted what they've witnessed.

OK, your opinion is clear.

[raygun]

I don't know where that guy came up with some of that stuff (especially regarding the cited names of angels); there are only two personal pronouns used respecting angels in all of scripture, i.e., Michael (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9) and Gabriel (Dan. 9:21; Luke 1:26).

Michael is called the archangel in Jude 9 and the great prince in Daniel 12:1. Michael is the only angel designated archangel, and may possibly be the only one of this rank. The mission of the archangel is protector of Israel. He is called “Michael your prince” in Dan. 10:21 and Dan 10:13 mentions " chief princes", of whom Michael was one, as the highest ranking angels of God. Wile "ruling angels" (Eph. 3:10) are also mentioned, no further details are given.

Gabriel on the other hand appears to be God’s special messenger of His kingdom program in each of the four times he appears in the Bible record … He reveals and interprets God’s purpose and program concerning Messiah and His kingdom to the prophets and people of Israel.” In a highly significant passage, Gabriel explained the events of the seventy weeks for Israel (Dan 9:21–27). In Luk 1:26–27 Gabriel told Mary that the One born to her would be great and rule on the throne of David. In Dan 8:15–16 Gabriel explains to Daniel the succeeding kingdoms of Medo-Persia and Greece as well as the untimely death of Alexander the Great. Gabriel also announced the birth of John the Baptist to Zacharias (Luk 1:11–20).

Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible:

Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. When they are mentioned, it is always in order to inform us further about God, what he does, and how he does it.

Since they are spirit beings, they are usually not seen, unless God gives the ability to see them or unless they manifest themselves. Balaam could not see the angel standing in his way until the Lord opened his eyes (Num. 22:31) and Elisha’s servant could not see the host of angels surrounding him until Elisha prayed for his eyes to be opened (II Kgs 6:17). When angels have been seen as recorded in Scripture, they were often mistaken as men because they were manifested in a man-like appearance (Gen 18:2, 16, 22; 19:1, 5, 10, 12, 15, 16; Jgs 13:6; Mar 16:5; Luk 24:4). Sometimes, they appear in a way that either manifests God’s glory (Luk 2:9; 9:26) or in some form of brilliant apparel (cf. Mat 28:3; Jno 20:12; Act 1:10 with Eze 1:13; Dan 10:6). Consistently, they have appeared as real men, never as ghosts, or as winged animals (cf. Gen 18:2; 19:1; Mar 16:3; Luk 24:4).

They are occasionally pictured in other forms and in other manifestations as with wings, and as a combination of man, beast, and birds as in Eze 1:5f and Isa 6:6. But apparently such manifestations only occurred by way of a vision or special revelation from God. No angel literally appeared in such form.

They also seem to always have appeared as youthful or mature men (Mar 16:5), but never as old men, perhaps because they neither age nor die (Luk 20:36).

The contemporary angel-mania of our culture, the common conception of angels is that of winged creatures and most times as female. Only Zec 5:9 alludes to such possibility, in that The two women mentioned in this passage are not specifically called angels, they are nevertheless clearly agents of God or forces of Satan, like angels, good or evil.

Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Mat 24:36). From this two things are suggested:

1. The phrase, “not even the angels” implies that angels have superhuman knowledge
2. the main statement of this verse shows they are limited in their knowledge. That their knowledge is greater is also suggested by the fact they were present at some of the heavenly counsels, were involved in conveying revelation (Gal 3:19), and were used of God to interpret visions as with Daniel and Zechariah.

According to Charles C. Ryrie (Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, chapter 17, electronic media):

Angels were created as a higher order of creatures in the universe than humans are. Therefore, innately they possess greater knowledge. (2) Angels study the Bible more thoroughly than some humans do and gain knowledge from it (James 2:19; Rev. 12:12). (3) Angels gain knowledge through long observation of human activities. Unlike humans, angels do not have to study the past; they have experienced it. Therefore, they know how others have acted and reacted in situations and can predict with a greater degree of accuracy how we may act in similar circumstances. The experiences of longevity give them greater knowledge - pg. 125

Heb 13:2 is interesting, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." From this it can be inferred that angels can be manifested in our midst without anything to draw attention to themselves. And as such it can be inferred they're not prone to flaunt their powers needlessly. Contrast this with II Cor 11:14, "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." However the latter's motivation is that of deception. Throughout scripture whenever angels manifest with glory, it is stupendously impressive. HOWEVER, the admonition that ALWAYS follows is not to fear, and a message is then given with respect to God's Word. Without that qualification, I'd be highly skeptical about any supernatural manifestation's motivation.

The issue raised in Heb 13:2 shows an aspect of the angels nature: watchfulness. It would be illogical to infer from this verse that scripture is advocating entertaining demons. So then why the apparently clandestine activity of holy angels?

The word “watchers” is an Aramaic word which means, “vigilant, waking, watchful.” and seems to used in describing holy angels who are constantly vigilant to serve the Lord and who watch over the rulers of the world and the affairs of men (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23). With the added distinction made concerning “a holy one” in v13, a logical inference could be made that there are unholy watchers, i.e., demonic forces who are watching the affairs of men and seeking to influence and destroy.

Corroboration of this notion can be seen in Dan 10:13 referring to to the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” opposing Michael. This was not the king of Persia but rather a fallen angel under Satan’s control; he was a demon “of high rank, assigned by the chief of demons, Satan, to Persia as his special area of activity” (cf. Rev. 12:7). This then could be reference to a special type of angel (if a special class is intended).

A number of passages speak of the angels as observers. Many would be surprised by this truth, but the Bible teaches us that angels are spectators of God’s activities in the world and that they are especially keen on observing the unfolding of His plan of redemption. A number of passages specifically address the fact angels are spectators of what God does and there certainly must be a reason and a lesson to be learned from this (Job 38:7; Luk 15:10; I Cor 4:9; 11:10; Eph 3:10; Tim 3:16; I Pet 1:12). Study of scripture shows that angels have observed God’s creation and rejoiced (Psa 38:7), the birth of Christ and rejoiced in praise to God (Luk 2:13-14) and they witnessed the entirety of Jesus’ life on earth (I Tim 3:16). They also observe God’s joy when a sinner repents (Luk 15:10). Angels are keenly interested in man’s salvation in Christ and carefully observe God’s manifold wisdom in the unfolding of His redemptive plan (I Pet 1:12; Eph 3:10). In the statement, “things into which the angels long to look,” “things” are those things that belong to our salvation (vs. 10), and “long to look” is the same word used of the actions of John and Peter and Mary when they stooped down to peer into the empty tomb (Luk 24:12; Jno 20:5, 11). The Greek verb, parakuptw “to bend over,” conveys the idea of bending over to see something more clearly or to look intently (see also Jam 1:24).

The angels watched Lucifer kicked out of heaven, and Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and the curse levied upon the universe, the whole of which "groaneth and travaileth in pain together" (Rom 8:22). They were stupefied at God's comments in Gen 3:15. They stood there with their hands upon their swords, gnashing their teeth, howling like chained pit pulls, totally enraged at the humiliation of their Lord and then crucified to an agonizing death upon the cross. Rev 5:2-14 exemplifies their utter amazement for their Lord.

And yet, despite their intellectual brilliance (they're largely unimpressed), their strength (and angel rolled away the 4 ton stone covering Christ's tomb), they're perpetually astonished by something so extremely mysterious, vast, of such great variety, that they still haven't figured it out completely. ANd so they earnestly desire to "look into these things".

They see a few sentences of a sermon, a Christian's brief testimony, a simple washing ceremony, a mouthful of bread and a gulp of wine, and they're stunned to see the pleasure evidenced in the Lord's countenance. Eph 3:10 gives a clue concerning the school that the angels are attending and why they're so interested in what's going on.

God uses the Church to teach them something of His manifold wisdom. How can these spirit beings learn the significance of the Lordship of Christ, the place of the Church and the significance of the individual believer? These things are an utter mystery to angels. God instructs the angels through object lessons or symbols. This is foundational to the meaning intended to I Tim 2:10. Such a woman becomes a rebuke to the wicked angels (for their sin is rebelling against divine authority). For she is proclaiming an object lesson of submission to divine headship. What a delight it must be to the holy angels to see a congregation of believers worshiping unto the Lord in such fashion, commemorating that sweetsmelling savour of oblation made by Christ upon the cross.

Quite frankly, if UFO's are manifestations of spiritual beings, then I'd posit that they're demons. First off, holy angels don't manifest themselves with power and glory without a definite purpose directed by God's will. Secondly, all accounts of UFO's and encounters with them are at best neutral, and usually have negative consequences. There are many accounts were people have suffered severe psychological trauma as a result of these incidents. Furthermore, purported cattle mutilations and accounts of abductions are postively egregiously heinous, wicked and evil in nature. Frankly I find the argument that these super-sophisticated technologically advanced beings that can travel the enormous distances of the galaxy, and then have to resort to performing such alleged havengod diabolical expirements is not just ludicrous but absurd.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Mat 7:20

Finally, it should be pointed out that many believe in an eschatological doctrine of the Rapture. And without doubt demons have quoted scripture, as did Satan to Christ during His temptation in the wilderness. And so they'd be quite familiar with that doctrine. And so, knowing that this time is approaching what better means to explain the sudden disappearance of a vast number of the population? That is: the UFO's took 'em.