
Newly released UFO files from the UK government - jjp9999
http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
======
revscat
I think at this point that there are (somewhat simplistically) two opposing
camps in this debate. The first believes that UFOs are entirely the result of
terrestrial phenomena, and take the Sagan/de Grasse Tyson view. The other
viewpoint is that there is sufficient evidence to point to some sort of
extraordinary phenomena which belies common explanation.

Now, this is obviously a simplistic breakdown. Broadly speaking, however, this
is usually what we see in such debates. (With typically much ridicule being
thrown about by both sides.) Files like these, though, give even the most
hardened skeptics room for wonder. While I do not doubt the logical validity
of the skeptics positions, there is nevertheless a large body of evidence
(circumstantial though it may be) which becomes difficult to deny when taken
in the aggregate.

These files are, unfortunately, just more in the circumstantial category.
Although they have the "official" seal of approval they are still, at root,
not hard evidence. It is frustrating to those of us who are curious about this
that nothing beyond eyewitness reports ever seems to surface, no matter the
source. I think most people at least pay attention to these news items, but do
not know what to make of them beyond raising more questions.

~~~
Permit
>While I do not doubt the logical validity of the skeptics positions, there is
nevertheless a large body of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) which
becomes difficult to deny when taken in the aggregate.

I think it's incredibly important to remember that the plural of "anecdote" is
not "data".

~~~
calebmpeterson
> I think it's incredibly important to remember that the plural of "anecdote"
> is not "data".

Honestly, where is the barrier between the two? I'm not suggesting it doesn't
exist, just genuinely asking where it is, or at least where it's near?

~~~
grimboy
Well, roughly and someone may have a better answer. Data is collected in a
structured, systematic way, and the sample is carefully chosen. Anecdotes are
not structured or collected in a systematic way, but worst of all the sample
you've taken is the people who've chosen to speak up.

------
gfodor
If you're a scientifically minded skeptic, I'd encourage you to read this book
on the UFO phenomenon:

[http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-
Offici...](http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-
Officials/dp/0307717089/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342503506&sr=8-1&keywords=leslie+kean+ufo+book)

It's a very good read. Also, in all UFO threads there should be a disclaimer
that you are not making a point by pointing out that UFO stands for
Unidentified Flying Object not Alien Spaceship; most people when referring to
the truly unexplainable cases use them interchangeably since extraterrestrial
origin is one of the few hypotheses that are consistent with the evidence,
though it's never obviously conclusive.

~~~
mbenjaminsmith
Another well researched book is:

[http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-
Chronolog...](http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-
Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=pd_sim_b_2)

It covers the intersection of military/governmental organizations and the
phenomenon, mostly in the latter half of the 20th century. The short version
would be to search YouTube for Richard Dolan. He's a great speaker and
presents the information in a way that should be palatable for even the
hardest skeptic.

~~~
quesst
Yes, I have read that book and several others on the subject and have been
blown away. As both an open-minded and scientifically minded skeptic, it would
be intellectually dishonest - even foolish - to deny that something
extraordinary is going on that is worthy of investigation by science. While
most cases can be explained away, about 5% of the cases deserve further study.
For example, there are well documented cases of objects spotted moving at
speeds of 20 or 30,000 miles per hour and making right angle turns and other
impossible maneuvers, backed by both air and ground radar readings, and dozens
of eyewitnesses. Or of massive objects the size of a football field gliding at
low speeds, with no sound at all, over an entire city, and observed by
hundreds of people. Something strange is going on in our skies, and sadly
mainstream science and media are dismissing it, even ridiculing it.

~~~
VMG
Can you point to the documentation of these events?

~~~
quesst
Read any of the books above or watch this Yotube documentary
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk> where hundreds of high ranking
officials in Govt, military, aviation etc. are willing to go on the record and
testify under oath, of some of these events.

~~~
VMG
That is not documentation. That is eye-witness testimony.

 _Edit_ : I won't sit through 2hrs of slow-talking elderly men reminiscing
about that time they see some unexplained lights in the sky. It is difficult
to take proponents of the ET-hypothesis serious if they always point to such
bad evidence.

------
frankydp
Found a great paragraph..

"I am afraid we have a slight political problem. This ufologist is of course
the Earl of Clancart, with whom HMG exchanged views in the Lords Debate. I
feel our political masters would think it improper if the RAF News should be
too rude about him. I suggest the problem could be resolved without altering
any of the text from "Brinsley ...." to ".....interior of the earth" but
toning down the faintly derisory setting and letting the idiocy of the Earl's
ideas speak for themselves."

~~~
blueprint
Could you link or cite the PDF? Curious to know what that was about the
interior of the Earth.

------
jay_kyburz
Having seen a UFO myself I can safely say that there _are_ aircraft with
capabilities far above that what I would expect from our own air force in our
skies.

A friend and I witnessed formations of lights sweeping across the horizon
making 90 degree turns in the blink of an eye.

There you go.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
lights =/= aircraft

There are a myriad of natural phenomena, optical illusions and - dare I say -
mental aberrations that could account for one seeing lights in the sky.

I've seen several objects in the sky that I've not been able to immediately
explain. Having been 'tricked' in this way and later realising the 'natural'
explanations the idea of UFOs being explained as extra-terrestrial is not at
all surprising to me.

~~~
spitfire
I've seen a UFO once, it was probably either a Beechcraft or a Cessna.

It was unidentified, flying an most definitely and object.

------
Locke1689
Doesn't Bayesian statistics solve this pretty easily? I have a lot of priors
for weird aeronautical and weather phenomenon (e.g., St. Elmo's fire/ball
lightning), meteoroids, missiles, balloons, and secret prototype aircraft.

I have no priors for technologically advanced alien life.

------
mootothemax
I love the idea that governments, so incompetent in oh-so-many ways, are
capable of a multiple-decade coverup involving one of the most fantastic
discoveries possible, somehow managing to prevent leaks of any meaningful
data, including any mention whatsoever in data dumps such as, e.g. WikiLeaks.

And yet still people choose to focus their energies on UFO conspiracies,
despite releases like these showing the true meaning behind the term UFO:
stuff that looks weird in the sky and can't be identified by the viewer.

------
Hari_Seldon
The Obama administration has some believers

[http://www.examiner.com/article/the-obama-administration-
s-s...](http://www.examiner.com/article/the-obama-administration-s-startling-
ufo-connections)

------
leke
Hold on a sec, I thought the UK outed all their UFO cases a number of years
ago.

