UFOs -- A new Primetime "investigation"

[teddosan]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story?id=468496

This Thursday... I guess Primetime discovered the ratings power of Woo...

[Psiload]

Originally posted by teddosan
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story?id=468496

This Thursday... I guess Primetime discovered the ratings power of Woo...

But as one of the world's leading theoretical physicists says in the program, "You simply cannot dismiss the possibility that some of these UFO sightings are actually sightings from some object created by … a civilization perhaps millions of years ahead of us in technology."

Any guesses as to which "world's leading theoretical physicist" they quoted?

One of the usual suspects I'm sure... Jack Sarfatti, Stanton Friedman, etc...

[teddosan]

"As a journalist," says Jennings, "I began this project with a healthy dose of skepticism and as open a mind as possible. After almost 150 interviews with scientists, investigators and with many of those who claim to have witnessed unidentified flying objects, there are important questions that have not been completely answered — and a great deal not fully explained."

Well, at least Jennings began the project with "a healthy dose of skepticism." I'm sure that will be duly evident in the broadcast...

[Vortex]

Originally posted by teddosan
Well, at least Jennings began the project with "a healthy dose of skepticism." I'm sure that will be duly evident in the broadcast...
What always saddens me is that so many people (Jennings included) want to make the absurd leap from unidentified flying objects to "okay, make that 'extraterrestial space beings' in flying objects since I don't know what unidentified means". It just doesn't follow that unidentified equals space beings when anything less outrageous will certainly do.

[Explorer]

""You simply cannot dismiss the possibility that some of these UFO sightings are actually sightings from some object created by … a civilization perhaps millions of years ahead of us in technology."

Many scientists accept that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe. It is patently absurd IMHO, to think that we are unique, given the evidence to date, of other solar systems found on our own galaxy doorstep. The evidence supporting that probability is growing by the day.

We have sent probes beyond our own solar system, and so by logic, if we accept the probablity above, it is possible, just possible, that extra terrestial probes from other civilisations are coming our way too. It cannot yet be proven, but it is a reasonable probability that if it hasn't happened yet, it could, at some time in the future.

SETI, is a project that underlines the probability, and why considerable time and resources are allocated to it.

The quote above in this context is therefore not so woo as some here are trying to make out. It is a "possibility" even if considering our current knowledge, the sightings to date, do not represent any ET phenonemon.

UFO's are usually transient and are thus difficult to scrutinise scientifically. Eye-witness reports are often confused, contradictory, or are inaccurate recalls of memory. Like crop circles, any serious scientific investigation has now been marred by publicity-seeking charlatans and fraudsters, rendering the subject simply a matter for debunking, which is unfortunate.

We are unlikely to be able to conclusively determine the origins or cause of the very small proportion of sightings that do not have a corroborative rational and/or natural explanation. However, when we look up into that wonderful starry night sky, we should not be ashamed or embarrased by a little speculative thought, as long as we keep it in context. The scientists who were responsible for SETI, must have done just that.

[arthwollipot]

It irritates me that the Discovery Science channel on Foxtel Digital in this country regularly runs UFO-shows.

But I can forgive them, because #1: I have an Off button and #2: They also play James Burke's Connections.

[CurtC]

I'm hopeful that the show will actually have a fairly skeptical, fact-based tone. The last Peter Jennings special that I saw was about the Kennedy assassination - did anyone else here see that? He basically laid out a good amount of the hard evidence, pointed out how contrary views are all just hearsay, showed how the Oswald as lone gunman theory is the only one compatible with the evidence, and basically said "the facts are in, Oswald did it, let's move on."

That show was so well-done that it makes me hopeful for the upcoming UFO one, and I'm hoping that the statements released so far are just teasers, not to tip their hand of what the real conclusion will be.

That's my hope, anyway. We'll see Thursday night.

[Brown]

Originally posted by CurtC
I'm hopeful that the show will actually have a fairly skeptical, fact-based tone. The last Peter Jennings special that I saw was about the Kennedy assassination - did anyone else here see that? He basically laid out a good amount of the hard evidence, pointed out how contrary views are all just hearsay, showed how the Oswald as lone gunman theory is the only one compatible with the evidence, and basically said "the facts are in, Oswald did it, let's move on."

That show was so well-done that it makes me hopeful for the upcoming UFO one, and I'm hoping that the statements released so far are just teasers, not to tip their hand of what the real conclusion will be.

That's my hope, anyway. We'll see Thursday night. I have to say that the Kennedy show, for ABC News, was pretty gutsy. In the past, it was CBS News that had almost single-handledly shot down conspiracy theories. At the same time, ABC News gave a soap box to Geraldo Rivera, who put forth some of the most idiotic, wildly speculative and unsupported scenarios, reporting them as hard news. (Anybody remember Rivera's Wally Weston debacle?)

It does bother me a little bit that the UFO show is entitled "Seeing is Believing," because I know how our senses can be fooled.

Let me put it this way: I believe that there are such things as UFOs. I have seen several. (I have written about some of them on this forum).

What that means is that I have seen flying objects (or what appeared to be flying objects) that I could not identify, at least at first. They were very weird, and it would be easy to jump to a conclusion that they were not man- or nature-made.

But in each case, these objects all had earthly explanations: One was a flock of birds; one was an airplane with advertising lights on the underside of its wings; one was a sundog; one was an airplane towing an anti-abortion banner; one was a B2 bomber.

[Ossai]

Brown
one was a sundog What is a sundog?

[Brown]

Originally posted by Ossai
What is a sundog? A sundog is a bright spot in the sky. From Wolfram Research (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Sundog.html):Also called mock suns or parhelia, sundogs are bright, colorful light patches which appear in ice clouds 22° or more to either side of the Sun. At sunrise and sunset, the angular separation from the Sun is exactly 22°. I've seen sundogs on many occasions, but one instance was special: I was driving and I noticed a VERY bright oddly-shaped light, larger in appearance than the sun, but not quite as bright, in front of my car. The sky was clear, there seemed to be no clouds at all in the sky. What was this thing?

As it turned out, there was one little cloud in the sky, and it was in just the right position with respect to the sun and me to form a sundog. The result was that the cloud, and only the cloud, was very brightly illuminated against the deep blue sky.

It was a bizarre sight, and I suppose quite a rare one.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Brown
A sundog is a bright spot in the sky.

Or on a message board.


It was a bizarre sight, and I suppose quite a rare one.

Yes indeed. :D