NationStates Jolt Archive

Wichita UFO report draws wide attention
Comments (0)
BY TIM POTTER
The Wichita Eagle

It flew fast like a jet, made a whirling sound and left an odd glow.

That's how an amateur photographer described a flying machine he spotted in the skies near Rose Hill on Friday. The UFO world is now paying attention to his photograph.

On Monday, the photo appeared under the headline "Weird Object in Wichita," on UFO Digest, a Canadian Web site.

The object looks like some kind of new-technology fighter jet, possibly a prototype, said UFO Digest editor and publisher Dirk Vander Ploeg.

Jarrod Bartlett, spokesman for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems-Wichita, said in an e-mail that he checked with flight operations staff "and they were not able to identify the aircraft. We do not often get calls regarding unidentified aircraft."

McConnell Air Force Base declined to comment.

The man who captured the image said he took the photo at 8:42 a.m. Friday near 210th and Prairie Creek Road, about three miles south of Rose Hill.

"I was facing east when I shot the photo," the man, who asked not to be identified, said in an e-mail.

He described what he saw: "The object came out of the clouds really fast. It sounded kind of like a jet but much, much softer and had a whirling sound with it.

"I only got off one shot because it was really close before I realized it was something different. It went back upward, much like a jet, and was gone.

"There was a odd pinkish glow in the sky behind it."

In a telephone interview, the man said he takes still-life photos as a hobby. He said it was fortunate he had his camera out when the object flew into his view because he saw it for only a few seconds.

"The only problem was I had a real slow lens... . I wasn't planning on taking a picture of anything moving," he said.

He said he used to work at Boeing and has seen a lot of aircraft over the years.

"It didn't sound like one of these jets that I hear all the time.... It was much quieter, much quieter," he said.

He noticed that the flying machine's exterior looked black and shiny.

He estimated the object came no closer than 1,000 feet above the ground. It swooped in as if it was on "a bombing run."

"Then in one smooth motion, it went back up," he said.

After he took the photo, relatives urged him to send it to the UFO publication. He was reluctant.

"I didn't want people to think I'm nuts," he said.

Vander Ploeg, the UFO Digest publisher, said he is a former small-plane pilot who is familiar with various aircraft. He said he was confident that the image is not a hoax.

"But I can't tell you what it is," he said.

"I've never seen a plane that looks like that."

Link (http://www.kansas.com/690/story/693965.html)

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/858-ufo2.standalone.prod_affiliate.80.jpg

So, what does NSG think of the story, and what do you think the thing really is?

There's nothing else to see or do in Kansas. That's what I think of a UFO sighting in Wichita.

I think that we need to get the average man and woman photography lessons, so that when the UFOs come to steal our chickens that we'll at least be able to grab a good photo instead of some blurred looking thing that could be a Rorschach test for all we know.

For the record, the picture looks like the FF8 flying academy thing except painted black and from really far away.

Ever notice they are always out of focus?

Kind of looks like the shuttle riding on a 747.....

Ever notice they are always out of focus?

Kind of looks like the shuttle riding on a 747.....

I know, I mean don't cameras have Auto-Focus nowadays? What's the excuse for out of focus pictures if you have auto-focus?!

I know, I mean don't cameras have Auto-Focus nowadays? What's the excuse for out of focus pictures if you have auto-focus?!

It's out of focus to fool Kansans and UFO nuts. Looks to me like - an aircraft.

It's out of focus to fool Kansans and UFO nuts. Looks to me like - an aircraft.

Could be. Depending on the angle of where the guy was shooting the aircraft at.

So far here is my theory on UFOs. They are actually top secret aircrafts, but the government go along with the whole UFO deal because it's a good cover. We're basically being mind fucked by the government.

Could be. Depending on the angle of where the guy was shooting the aircraft at.

So far here is my theory on UFOs. They are actually top secret aircrafts, but the government go along with the whole UFO deal because it's a good cover. We're basically being mind fucked by the government.

Not a new idea by any means. They even had a half-season or so of the X-Files where Mulder pursues just that theory.

Personally I think some UFOs could easily be alien ships and probably are, though the majority of known sightings seem to have other explanations. Their's certainly no reason why they some of them couldn't be alien ships, though I realize that possibility is not the same as proof.

If one wanted to play devil's advocate, you could almost say it looks like a Star Destroyer...

If one wanted to play devil's advocate, you could almost say it looks like a Star Destroyer...

Imperial Fleet Week has been moved? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfqDVP_0O0c)

My theory, somewhat similar to Wil's, is that various governments are responsible for most, if not all, of the UFO idiocy we see, not to provide cover for experimental aircraft, but to keep people so focused on "conspiracies" that they won't go more in depth on what various governments are doing. Maybe Obama will change that.

First to go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/858-ufo2.standalone.prod_affiliate.80.jpg


http://www.cartoondollemporium.com/aladdin_jasmine_carpet.jpg

My theory, somewhat similar to Wil's, is that various governments are responsible for most, if not all, of the UFO idiocy we see, not to provide cover for experimental aircraft, but to keep people so focused on "conspiracies" that they won't go more in depth on what various governments are doing. Maybe Obama will change that.

First to go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

The UFO conspiracy, is a conspiracy.

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/858-ufo2.standalone.prod_affiliate.80.jpg

http://www.galbadiax.com/ff8/gardenflee.jpg

There's nothing else to see or do in Kansas. That's what I think of a UFO sighting in Wichita.Nope. Being Kansas, it was their god.

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/858-ufo2.standalone.prod_affiliate.80.jpg

I know I've seen that before...

...ah ha!

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2841548032/tt0102803

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/858-ufo2.standalone.prod_affiliate.80.jpg


...

'It flew fast like a jet, made a whirling sound and left an odd glow.'

Well, I don't know about a "glow," but...

Sounds kinda like an Osprey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey).

http://www.enemyforces.net/helicopters/v22_osprey_2.jpg

http://rubenerdshow.com/blog/wp-content/media/MaryHat.jpg

http://rubenerdshow.com/blog/wp-content/media/MaryHat.jpg

and thank you for that post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Go sit in the corner.

Imperial Fleet Week has been moved? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfqDVP_0O0c)
Ooh, i like you. :fluffle:

and thank you for that post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

mentally turn the ufo a bit...

Wicked Witch of the West is still alive :P

*closes garage door* nothing to see here, move along.

*closes garage door* nothing to see here, move along.Malcolm Gerlach?
http://simpsons.skewsme.com/img/x_files_simpsons_6.jpg

Looks like a bird.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/lilrob8871/Starscream0.jpg

Not a new idea by any means. They even had a half-season or so of the X-Files where Mulder pursues just that theory.

Personally I think some UFOs could easily be alien ships and probably are, though the majority of known sightings seem to have other explanations. Their's certainly no reason why they some of them couldn't be alien ships, though I realize that possibility is not the same as proof.

I think your definition of 'probably' needs some work.

While it is, I suppose, possible, that does not translate into any sort of probable. Hell, it's possible that every atom in your body will spontaneously turn into photons*, just not very probable.

I think that most UFO's are a result of people seeing a plane or a bird and not realising what it is, thinking about the UFO stories they've heard, and saying they saw a UFO. Crossed with a healthy dose of fakes, of course.

*This is true, by the way.

Looks like a bird.
that what it looks like to me too.

a bird.

Ever notice they are always out of focus?

Kind of looks like the shuttle riding on a 747.....

This^ Or a bird.

crud - I thought no one saw me.

now how am i going to explain this to mom and dad??? I didn't have permission to drive the hyper-mobile... and I refueled the thing, too, just so they wouldn't suspect!!

Mmmm...looks kind of like a Fod Model A with Wings (http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1930-1939/1930-Ford-Model-A-Sedan-Yellow-sy-1152x864.jpg)

It's definitely a bird. There are three parts wet enough to reflect the sun (top, mid-0right, and far-right); if you look at the rightmost of the three, you can see the beek extends to the lower right.

It's definitely a bird. There are three parts wet enough to reflect the sun (top, mid-0right, and far-right); if you look at the rightmost of the three, you can see the beek extends to the lower right.
i think so too.

consider this photo of a kestrel....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2175477900_97e2b8c576.jpg?v=0

http://www.galbadiax.com/ff8/gardenflee.jpg

I think that we need to get the average man and woman photography lessons, so that when the UFOs come to steal our chickens that we'll at least be able to grab a good photo instead of some blurred looking thing that could be a Rorschach test for all we know.

For the record, the picture looks like the FF8 flying academy thing except painted black and from really far away.

You're my hero for today. Now I am going to go play that game. :)

i think so too.

consider this photo of a kestrel....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2175477900_97e2b8c576.jpg?v=0

Nah. Someone definitely rigged a jet engine to the top of an old Model A, and wings to the bottom and let 'er fly. ;)

aliens don't exist so I guess its at best the US government making an epic fuckup with flight plans (though why make an aircraft in that shape is beyond me)

*This is true, by the way.

*cue star trek innuendo*

SNIP

I'd have you know the distribution of classified information such as this aircraft is an act of treason

You're my hero for today. Now I am going to go play that game. :)

Took me forever to find that picture - couldn't remember the name of Balamb Garden.

Nah. Someone definitely rigged a jet engine to the top of an old Model A, and wings to the bottom and let 'er fly. ;)
lol

that would be sooo cool! and sooooo kansas!

A UFO? That's just plain poppycock. What we have here is a weather balloon that encountered some swamp gas, was struck by lightning, and fell near a local frisbee tournament. Happens all the time.

A cookie for anyone who gets that reference.

http://www.cartoondollemporium.com/aladdin_jasmine_carpet.jpg

I was thinking that too.

I think your definition of 'probably' needs some work.

While it is, I suppose, possible, that does not translate into any sort of probable. Hell, it's possible that every atom in your body will spontaneously turn into photons*, just not very probable.

I think that most UFO's are a result of people seeing a plane or a bird and not realising what it is, thinking about the UFO stories they've heard, and saying they saw a UFO. Crossed with a healthy dose of fakes, of course.

Well, I heard once that their are 40 UFO sightings a day, of which about ten percent remain unexplained. So that's 4 a day, or almost 1500 a year. I just figure that some of those must be genuine, and once you rule out the various conventional explanations, I feel that this one's the most scientifically plausible of the various "extreme" theories.

Also, their are occasionally the really good sightings where you have hundreds of witnesses and multiple radar contacts. Their was one of those I believe in Phoenix, and probably quite a few others that I can't remember right now.

Now, I don't expect scientists to decide that these things are in fact alien space craft without solid proof. I would like to see more serious investigation of the subject, though. Even if it is all a mass delusion, that in and of itself is a phenominon worthy of investigation.

*This is true, by the way.

Source? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.

Well, I heard once that their are 40 UFO sightings a day, of which about ten percent remain unexplained. So that's 4 a day, or almost 1500 a year. I just figure that some of those must be genuine, and once you rule out the various conventional explanations, I feel that this one's the most scientifically plausible of the various "extreme" theories.

Also, their are occasionally the really good sightings where you have hundreds of witnesses and multiple radar contacts. Their was one of those I believe in Phoenix, and probably quite a few others that I can't remember right now.

Now, I don't expect scientists to decide that these things are in fact alien space craft without solid proof. I would like to see more serious investigation of the subject, though. Even if it is all a mass delusion, that in and of itself is a phenominon worthy of investigation.

I simply look at it like this: the nearest planetary system we know of is 10 light years away. Presuming there is an alien civilisation which has the capacity of travelling 10 light years, why the hell would they just have a load of little tiny ships floating around meeting a few people at once?

And then there's the fact that most UFO's reported could not work as any sort of interstellar craft.

Space is big. Space, indeed, is fricking colossal. To claim that despite this, there are four alien spacecraft a day which arrive at Earth, and invariably just buzz it a little before leaving again, is completely ridiculous.

I still stand by most UFO's being an unusual bird or optical effect or something, which the witness then considers to be a UFO, because they've heard they exist. Once you've convinced yourself you see a flying saucer, your mind starts to fill in the appropriate bits. Then bear in mind that one's memory isn't perfect, so when telling it to someone you will generally (not consciously) fill in the bits you don't quite remember with bits that fit better with it being a UFO, and stories get generated rather fast.

Advanced aircraft or the like does fit rather nicely for some of the particularly unusual sightings, but most are probably just a simple case of not realising what you're looking at.


Source? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.

Quantum physics, standard consequence thereof. On the quantum level, every particle acts randomly, so electrons can dissolve into photons and vice versa, among other things. It would be theoretically possible for every electron in your body to do this at once, turning you into a rapidly expanding cloud of light and ions. It's just phenomenally unlikely.

Didn't we get round to telling Kansas that we've mastered powered flight yet? Better add it to that memo about electricity we keep meaning to send round.

A UFO? That's just plain poppycock. What we have here is a weather balloon that encountered some swamp gas, was struck by lightning, and fell near a local frisbee tournament. Happens all the time.

A cookie for anyone who gets that reference.

narf.

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...

Actually it's probably just a bird or a plane.

Thats strange. I haven't heard of this in Kansas.

I simply look at it like this: the nearest planetary system we know of is 10 light years away. Presuming there is an alien civilisation which has the capacity of travelling 10 light years, why the hell would they just have a load of little tiny ships floating around meeting a few people at once?

Or one or two big ships hiding in system doing long term study, with multiple support craft going down for closer observation. Without truely advanced tech that may very well be impossible, any manned interstellar vessel is going to be massive. But they might carry smaller vessels for planetary landings, atmospheric work, and stealth opperations.

As to only meeting a few people at once, their are plenty of rational explanations for that. They may have a Prime Directive-style policy of non-interference. They may wish to study us "in our natural habitat." They may be protecting us. Frankly, any civilization with advanced technology that lasts very long may be likely to have an ecological bent. Finally, it may not even occur to them to "make contact" with us. Think humans and chimpanzes: we study them, we "abduct" them from the wild. We don't usually care if they see us, and we may even try to communicate with them. We may recognize a close kinship with them (some sick few of us may even want to mate with them). But it would never occur to Barack Obama to send Ambassadors to a chimpanze chief, or make any sort of formal diplomatic contact.

Now, the following is by nessessity somewhat speculative, but it makes for an interesting intellectual exercise.

Again, try to put yourself in the hypothetical alien's position: you are a scientist/diplomat/soldeir living around a nearby star. Your telescopes have detected a habitable world a couple dozen lightyears away, and your government has asked you to plan a mission their to assertain more information. Your psychology may be completely unhuman, but presume you are capable of a certain level of logical and pragmatic thought. How would you procede? I'll post my answer later, and how it fits with my speculation on UFOs, but I'd be interested to here your answer if you wish to give one.

And then there's the fact that most UFO's reported could not work as any sort of interstellar craft.

Leaving aside the bullshit stories and the easily explained ones, I'd say, for reasons described above, that most of the ships we see are not nessissarily star ships.

Space is big. Space, indeed, is fricking colossal. To claim that despite this, there are four alien spacecraft a day which arrive at Earth, and invariably just buzz it a little before leaving again, is completely ridiculous.

Space is big. It contains billions of stars in this galaxy alone. It probably contains thousands of intelligent species, some of which may have been around for thousands or millions of years.

And I never even claimed their are four a day. Allow me to clarify: I simply suggest that with that many sightings that are unexplained, some are probably going to require explanations outside of currently excepted fact, and that I have heard no "fringe" explanation that is more scientifically plausible than alien spacecraft.

If my position remains unclear, or you feel I have contradicted myself, please explain.

I still stand by most UFO's being an unusual bird or optical effect or something, which the witness then considers to be a UFO, because they've heard they exist. Once you've convinced yourself you see a flying saucer, your mind starts to fill in the appropriate bits. Then bear in mind that one's memory isn't perfect, so when telling it to someone you will generally (not consciously) fill in the bits you don't quite remember with bits that fit better with it being a UFO, and stories get generated rather fast.

People can lie. People can be insane. People can have memory problems. While some witness testimony is better than others, and the shear ammount in encouraging, I wouldn't want to rely on it alone. Hence my referencing sightings that are picked up on radar, and have large numbers of simultaneous witnesses.

Advanced aircraft or the like does fit rather nicely for some of the particularly unusual sightings, but most are probably just a simple case of not realising what you're looking at.

What about when the military sends jets up after the unknown radar contact? I suppose they might be putting on a really good show, or Russia might be a lot farther ahead than the government cares to admit though.;) Or it could just be one branch not informing the others/low level guys.

Quantum physics, standard consequence thereof. On the quantum level, every particle acts randomly, so electrons can dissolve into photons and vice versa, among other things. It would be theoretically possible for every electron in your body to do this at once, turning you into a rapidly expanding cloud of light and ions. It's just phenomenally unlikely.

Very interesting. Has their been much research into potential practical applications of this phenomina?

Thats strange. I haven't heard of this in Kansas.
its a blurry photo of a bird posted on a UFO forum. its not exactly 11 o'clock news material.

If one wanted to play devil's advocate, you could almost say it looks like a Star Destroyer...

Or one of those Naboo ships. :tongue:

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object.

That thing is clearly a little black doohickey that looks like a helicopter or maybe a bird.

It is thus an identified flying object, and not a UFO at all. QED.

Is it really that hard to not take a retarded photo these days?

Is it really that hard to not take a retarded photo these days?

If only they could come out with a camera that focuses automatically with hardly any human input at all... like some sort of magic camera... God camera... aliens...

it looks like they shot a tug boat out of a damn slingshot

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/858-ufo2.standalone.prod_affiliate.80.jpg

http://yeinjee.com/discovery/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/atlantis-on-747.jpg

Honestly, some people...

http://yeinjee.com/discovery/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/atlantis-on-747.jpg

Honestly, some people...

But don't they usually just use the 747 when the shuttle lands in California and have to fly it back to the Cape?

That's the SCA's main purpose, yes, but I doubt that it is used exclusively for that particular purpose.

The SCA + orbiter have traveled the world extensively on tours and, given the vehicle's very low range (The drag caused by the addition of that orbiter must be immense), any cross-continental or inter-continental flight would undoubtedly require multiple stops (that being said, I doubt Wichita would be the scene of such a stop)..

Also, aren't they retiring the orbiter fleet in a year or so and considering offers from different museums and US government institutions (like the Smithsonian) to display them? Maybe this is a dress-rehearsal for that Herculean task?

Regardless, the first thing I thought of was that the picture must be that of a 747 with an orbiter on its back. Let's put it this way: both vehicles (if it is indeed a composite carrier plane + orbiter) have the features of man-made aeroplanes. ;)

(Edit: Hmm.. is it just me or is the 747 - if it is indeed a 747 - missing its vertical stabilizer? It seems to have smaller fins attached to its horizontal stabilizer (which the SCA does, btw). Looks like an An-225, to be quite honest.. just as bulky and ill-proportioned.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Buran_On_Antonov225.jpg

Thats strange. I haven't heard of this in Kansas.
Must be that libruhl media conspiracy i've heard so much about. Kinda depressing that it has such a firm clutch on the pure state of Kansas.

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object.

That thing is clearly a little black doohickey that looks like a helicopter or maybe a bird.

It is thus an identified flying object, and not a UFO at all. QED.
I'll go the other way on this. It's impossible to figure out what it is from the photo so it really is an Unidentified Flying Object.

Of course...I could throw a stick in the air, take a lousy picture and that would be an Unidentified Flying Object, too.

What we need is a new category like


ITIFO: Impossible To Identify Flying Object
PDFO: Photographer Drunk Flying Object
WTFO: Won't Track Flying Object
MOFO: Messy Optics Flying Object

Any other ideas on what to call the shoddy camera image category?

Or one or two big ships hiding in system doing long term study, with multiple support craft going down for closer observation. Without truely advanced tech that may very well be impossible, any manned interstellar vessel is going to be massive. But they might carry smaller vessels for planetary landings, atmospheric work, and stealth opperations.

Two problems. Firstly, we would have picked up radio transmissions between 'their' ships in such a case. We already scan the sky rather carefully for any sign of artificial radio sources, and have been doing so for about half a century. If there are alien ships traveling around like that, we would have picked up their communications long ago. We have not done so, hence we can conclude there are no such ships (Occam's razor, as this is simpler than the alternate explanations).

Secondly, I am of the opinion, which I have mentioned before, that without truly advanced technology which may well be impossible, any manned insterstellar vehicle cannot exist. This is simply because of the sheer size of space, and thus the incredible time that would be needed to travel between stars. As a result, constructing a craft to survive the journey and safely carry a living cargo to the other end is not possible - there are far too many little problems that add up over the hundreds of years of travel.

As to only meeting a few people at once, their are plenty of rational explanations for that. They may have a Prime Directive-style policy of non-interference. They may wish to study us "in our natural habitat." They may be protecting us. Frankly, any civilization with advanced technology that lasts very long may be likely to have an ecological bent. Finally, it may not even occur to them to "make contact" with us. Think humans and chimpanzes: we study them, we "abduct" them from the wild. We don't usually care if they see us, and we may even try to communicate with them. We may recognize a close kinship with them (some sick few of us may even want to mate with them). But it would never occur to Barack Obama to send Ambassadors to a chimpanze chief, or make any sort of formal diplomatic contact.

Well, if they don't care if they see us (to reverse your chimpanzee analogy), why do we lack any hard evidence for there even being UFO's*? After all, we don't flit around in hang-gliders observing chimpanzee society from above the clouds with thermal cameras, we arrive in person and look at it. Given an alien society which were to view us similarly, why would they bother?

*Not in the strictly technical sense - there are definitely flying objects we have not identified. But I think the point is clear.

Now, the following is by nessessity somewhat speculative, but it makes for an interesting intellectual exercise.

Again, try to put yourself in the hypothetical alien's position: you are a scientist/diplomat/soldeir living around a nearby star. Your telescopes have detected a habitable world a couple dozen lightyears away, and your government has asked you to plan a mission their to assertain more information. Your psychology may be completely unhuman, but presume you are capable of a certain level of logical and pragmatic thought. How would you procede? I'll post my answer later, and how it fits with my speculation on UFOs, but I'd be interested to here your answer if you wish to give one.

According to a little calculation work, approximately 6.7 x 10^-6 % of stars in the Milky Way* are within 100 light years of us. This includes a large proportion which are in binary (or greater) systems, and therefore completely unsuitable for life as we know it. Handily, this cuts both ways - even if an alien civilisation were to develop on such a star, it would be so fundamentally different that they wouldn't see our world as habitable. So, while the chance of an alien civilisation developing somewhere is almost certain, the chance of it being anywhere that might have detected us is vanishingly small.

Now, 100 light years is approximately the outer limit for human radio transmissions. We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that any aliens which were to wish to make contact with us would have to be within this radius to discover our existence. However, we have kept an eye on possible interstellar radio signals for the last 50 years or so, and have not yet found any. Certainly, it could be they have only just acquired the use of radio, and have therefore not yet sent out any signals which could reach us. However, such a civilisation would be in no place to attempt interstellar travel. And in reverse, any civilisation which could attempt interstellar travel would be giving off radio signals, none of which we have measured. Thus, I consider there to be one slight problem with your hypothetical - it is impossible. There cannot be an alien civilisation sufficiently advanced to be considering practical interstellar travel which is only a couple dozen light years away.

(Sorry, that's a slightly confused paragraph. In brief, we have not detected any radio signals in the 50 years we have been listening. Thus any alien civilisation must be young enough its transmissions have not yet reached us. For it to also be close by, it must therefore be younger than us. However, for it to have interstellar travel (assuming this is possible) it must be much older. On the third hand (maybe it's a Raman?) it must be nearby in order to pick up our radio signals, and thus consider us an interesting place to visit. As a result, there are no civilisations which can both know of our existence and be in a position to contemplate visiting us. (That wasn't very brief).

Now, were this all to be discarded, and presuming I am capable of logical and pragmatic thought, I would argue that we have no effective and safe method of sending any beings over there, and thus the idea should be discarded, in favour of attempting contact by radio or unmanned probes, preferably radio.

*If you want to know how I arrived at this figure. I calculated the volume of space in cubic light years that our radio signals will have reached. I then converted this into parsecs, multiplied by the star density per cubic parsec, and divided by 200 x 10^9 - a low end estimate of the size of our galaxy. I think this demonstrates rather helpfully what I was saying about interstellar distances being incredibly vast. If you're interested, the raw number is roughly 13500 stars.


Leaving aside the bullshit stories and the easily explained ones, I'd say, for reasons described above, that most of the ships we see are not nessissarily star ships.

I would go slightly farther, and say that for reasons I go into more later, none of the UFOs we see are starships.


Space is big. It contains billions of stars in this galaxy alone. It probably contains thousands of intelligent species, some of which may have been around for thousands or millions of years.

See previous comments about star density and things. Furthermore, it's been argued (rather convincingly) that intelligence is not a good long term survival trait for a species. While one might suppose that sufficient age and technology makes a species practically invulnerable, there is a massive amount of time before this for calamity to strike in innumerable ways, and any one of these can knock a civilisation back to the stone age, or even destroy a species. Look at the number of times humans have practically destroyed themselves in only a few hundred thousand years, and compare it to the dinosaurs which were dominant for millions of years. While any particular generation can get a massive boost from being smarter, the species as a whole runs far greater risks of early extinction.


And I never even claimed their are four a day. Allow me to clarify: I simply suggest that with that many sightings that are unexplained, some are probably going to require explanations outside of currently excepted fact, and that I have heard no "fringe" explanation that is more scientifically plausible than alien spacecraft.

If my position remains unclear, or you feel I have contradicted myself, please explain.

Well, of course not - very few 'fringe' explanations are scientifically plausible, that's why they are fringe explanations. For more sensible ones, we still don't understand anywhere near all of the weather phenomena that exist, and those can often provide interesting possibilities. Combined with eyewitness misidentification (common enough with human subjects under good light) and occasional advanced aircraft, I feel that all UFO sightings can be adequately explained. In many cases, we don't have anywhere near enough information to form an explanation, which really doesn't help, but in principle I feel it is sound.


People can lie. People can be insane. People can have memory problems. While some witness testimony is better than others, and the shear ammount in encouraging, I wouldn't want to rely on it alone. Hence my referencing sightings that are picked up on radar, and have large numbers of simultaneous witnesses.

Even multiple simultaneous witnesses is tricky, because it's quite common that discussion of the events afterwards will lead to stories being reconciled. Again, I'm not claiming any sort of conscious lying on the part of anybody, but if half a dozen people glimpse an unusual aeroplane, and then talk about it afterwards, they will tend to settle down to a very similar interpretation. Even if they don't talk to eachother beforehand, a journalist interviewing them will probably ask questions like "Did it look like $x to you?" and similar, which help lead people to all give similar answers.


What about when the military sends jets up after the unknown radar contact? I suppose they might be putting on a really good show, or Russia might be a lot farther ahead than the government cares to admit though.;) Or it could just be one branch not informing the others/low level guys.

The last one of those seems by far the most likely. The military is not any sort of information sharing culture, and this particularly applies for research work and the like.


Very interesting. Has their been much research into potential practical applications of this phenomina?

Absolutely no way to control it - as far as we know, quantum processes are completely, totally, and utterly random. Electrons do whatever they like, and all we can do is work out the probabilities.

Two problems. Firstly, we would have picked up radio transmissions between 'their' ships in such a case.What if communications were based on principles of Bell's Theorem?
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/043
Given an alien society which were to view us similarly, why would they bother?There's enough reasons given in science fiction for this, a few good ones.
This includes a large proportion which are in binary (or greater) systems, and therefore completely unsuitable for life as we know it.GHZ aside, there's one not far at all from us right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40913/title/Earth_may_be_home_to_unear
Absolutely no way to control it - as far as we know, quantum processes are completely, totally, and utterly random. Electrons do whatever they like, and all we can do is work out the probabilities.Interestingly put.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts

Drake's Equation redux anytime soon?

What if communications were based on principles of Bell's Theorem?
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/043

Cannot transmit information, so it cannot be used for communication. When I observe my photon, its spin state is determined, as is the spin state of your photon. However, these are randomly determined, so there is no way of using it to encode information. Hell, you aren't even able to know if I've observed my photon yet.

This is, I must admit, stupidly hard to explain in text. Let me see. Here's (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=717479) a better written version.

There's enough reasons given in science fiction for this, a few good ones.

But very few particularly sensible ones, in my opinion. Again to pick up on the chimpanzee analogy, we don't just hang around the edges, trying to be completely unobserved. Instead, we focus particularly on the centers of their locations, where we can find big groups and see how they interact. Why would an alien species investigating humanity not do the same thing, when it's easily the best and quickest method of data gathering?

GHZ aside, there's one not far at all from us right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm

Firstly, complete speculation - as far as I know, we have not yet discovered any extrasolar planets that are even vaguely similar to Earth. Secondly, my calculations from earlier still apply here - the same vastness which means there are a vast number of planets also means that there are a tiny number anywhere near us.


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40913/title/Earth_may_be_home_to_unear

Misses the point - I don't argue that there is no life different from that which we have on Earth, rather that there is no life sufficiently advanced to carry out interstellar travel which lives near enough to have detected us. Following from your previous link, life which has not detected us is incredibly unlikely to consider visiting us, because of the very great number of similar planets, some of which are bound to be nearer.

Finally, no civilisation could have reached us yet. In order for a civilisation to be advanced enough to carry out interstellar travel, they would be polluting the radio spectrum a lot more than we are now. As they would travel slower than light, we would first of all pick up their radio signals. We have not done so, and thus their ships cannot have arrived yet either.

Interestingly put.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts

Intriguing article, but the author makes many silly assumptions. The research he's talking about is only dealing with very specific aspects of photosynthesis, and has nothing to do with the brain.

Drake's Equation redux anytime soon?

I've talked about that before - while Drake's Equation is interesting, it is useless, because we have next to no information about the value of most of the terms. Depending how one selects one's approximations, there is an insanely high change in the values - from 1 civilisation (us) to millions.