To reiterate what I’ve posted earlier, I’m open to the idea that some or all the the reported phenomena attributed to “UFOs” going back the last 70+ years may be classified domestic or foreign craft, exotic atmospheric phenomena or evidence of some terribly oblique technology of earthly origin (human or non-human) or even of extraterrestrial origin.
@bigun
With that, I ask you this: what do you think ghost rockets were?
@bigun
With that, I ask you this: what do you think ghost rockets were?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Interesting, never heard about ghostrockets. I’ve no better idea of what those observations were than the explanations offered in that article.
I’m not saying that sightings like this aren’t real, or that any other unidentified image or experience didn’t happen and I’ve no explanation for them that I can prove. I’m only saying that I don’t ascribe to any belief about what they actually were and I’m saying, like others, that it’s sufficiently improbable that aliens are involved to this not being a useful explanation. I’d like to know what is causing these observations too, ultimately I’d like such explanations to be based on evidence but so far we have nothing of substance. I’ve not seen evidence that these observations are of real material objects even. The theories put forth are often interesting and I’ve plenty of curiosity about many of them such as plasma discharges (ball lighning). Some theories are just too much in conflict with existing knowledge to bear any credibility.
I’m not saying that sightings like this aren’t real, or that any other unidentified image or experience didn’t happen and I’ve no explanation for them that I can prove. I’m only saying that I don’t ascribe to any belief about what they actually were and I’m saying, like others, that it’s sufficiently improbable that aliens are involved to this not being a useful explanation. I’d like to know what is causing these observations too, ultimately I’d like such explanations to be based on evidence but so far we have nothing of substance. I’ve not seen evidence that these observations are of real material objects even. The theories put forth are often interesting and I’ve plenty of curiosity about many of them such as plasma discharges (ball lighning). Some theories are just too much in conflict with existing knowledge to bear any credibility.
Last edited:
I'm actually glad to hear you feel that way. I think there are others here that are not as open minded as you and hope to shut down any inquiry as to what might be behind the evidence. In other words by blaming it on the witnesses or using a more modern version of "swamp gas".
Yes they can both be true. However, “evidence” also includes multiple eyewitness accounts corroborated by radar telemetry and a partial paper trail of government/military documentation demonstrating how serious the phenomenon was being taken at those higher levels in the 40/50s.
Last edited:
For the normies here, “swamp gas” was the explanation then-debunker and scientific consultant to Project Blue Book Allen J Hynek stated as being the explanation for the Dexter, Michigan UFO sighting of March 1966.
Great article summarizing here and another (with blurry photos) here.
Allen J Hynek would eventually turncoat and become a believer and the “swamp gas” explanation he provided haunted him.
As always, feedback is welcomed.
"Full" disclosure.
I admire these guys, and others like them:
"[Martin Gardner was] the single brightest beacon defending rationality and good science against the mysticism and anti-intellectualism that surround us"—Stephen Jay Gould
Maybe "your guy" is Hynek or Puthoff, or others like them.
If the possibility existed that the Soviets were launching post-WWII missiles, of course other governments/militaries would take the possibility seriously. The US military in particular. That bit of obviousness says nothing at all about space alien technology or visitations.
Any implication to the contrary, no matter how subtle, would be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Nothing in the ghost rocket Wikipedia article bewilders, except why no attempt to date the submerged lake crater was mentioned.
It appears there was some rockets, some meteors, and some people.
I admire these guys, and others like them:
"[Martin Gardner was] the single brightest beacon defending rationality and good science against the mysticism and anti-intellectualism that surround us"—Stephen Jay Gould
Maybe "your guy" is Hynek or Puthoff, or others like them.
If the possibility existed that the Soviets were launching post-WWII missiles, of course other governments/militaries would take the possibility seriously. The US military in particular. That bit of obviousness says nothing at all about space alien technology or visitations.
Any implication to the contrary, no matter how subtle, would be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Nothing in the ghost rocket Wikipedia article bewilders, except why no attempt to date the submerged lake crater was mentioned.
It appears there was some rockets, some meteors, and some people.
Either did I 10 years ago, when as a skeptic I first delved into this topic.
Welcome to the club.
One of the first things I found useful when I started researching (and I did struggle to realize this) was that one has to deprogram oneself to stop thinking about UFOs from a pop-culture standpoint with flying saucers and aliens, et al and instead think about it from a military-defense standpoint (though not entirely). The term “UFO,” after all, was coined by the Air Force’s Project Blue Book in the mid-60s. It was a useful “bucket” to group all reports of anomalous phenomena, whether witnessed by military or civilian personnel. This is the “bucket” that the military threw ghost rockets, foo fighters and green fireballs into; the above mentioned topics not being known to the general public at the time.
What the US public was familiar with by 1947 was what was reported as what Kenneth Arnold reported seeing over Mt. Ranier. Arnold did not describe “flying saucers” but rather metallic craft flying in a group formation that maneuvered through the sky “like a saucer if you skip it across the water.” Headlines emphasized the movement of the craft and “flying saucer” entered the lexicon as mass public shorthand.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
1947….Indeed, and not long after that somebody wrote and domebody else made one of my favourite movies “The Day The Earth Stood Still”. Of course, the unearthly power of the nuclear bomb being the ultimate demonstration of the power of physics controlled by man then created in the public an openness to believe science would soon deliver ever more incredible things and for story telling,sci-fi took off.
A little more etymology from Wikipedia:
"[T]he first recorded use of the term "flying saucer" for an unidentified flying object was to describe a probable meteor that fell over Texas and Oklahoma on June 17, 1930. "Some who saw the weird light described it as a huge comet, a flaming flying saucer, a great red glow, a ball of fire."[2] The term "flying saucer" had been in use since 1890 to describe a clay pigeon shooting target,[3] which resembles a classic UFO shape."
"[T]he first recorded use of the term "flying saucer" for an unidentified flying object was to describe a probable meteor that fell over Texas and Oklahoma on June 17, 1930. "Some who saw the weird light described it as a huge comet, a flaming flying saucer, a great red glow, a ball of fire."[2] The term "flying saucer" had been in use since 1890 to describe a clay pigeon shooting target,[3] which resembles a classic UFO shape."
You are treating speculation and skepticism like claim. JMFahey already made that mistake when he manipulated OP's speculation "It seems they are here" to a claim "they are here". You don't want to go there.
Don't interpret it as an argument. The Arnold sighting is accepted as origin of the modern phenomenon.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I know what I said, but I’ve no idea what you are saying. And what I said was without any reference to JMF or the OP. Hopefully I’m not going wherever it is you say I don’t want to go.
You are playing word game like you did a week ago. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/372524-ufos-please-help-process-117.html#post6713690
"explanation", do you mean claim?
Interesting. Honestly, I don’t think about it in those terms. Coming into the subject as a skeptic, I came to realize that science-minded people had investigated the subject and found it valid for study. My feeling of being misled by conventional scientific wisdom deepened when I realized there was a body of evidence divorced from “alien abduction in the woods” folklore that was corroborated by military & government documentation. Soon after I came across stuff like Jacques Vallee’s Invisible College that made me realize I was not alone in feeling like there was a void between the full spectrum of reality on an experiential level and what conventional science was able to address in that regard. I’ve never forsaken science as an tool that can help us understand the world around us but I do recognize it’s practical limitations given that flawed primates such as ourselves are the ones who must sort it all out.
As profound a subject as this may be, paying a mortgage and sending the little ones to college are understandably more immediate pressing concerns.
Ok - well, you appeared to:
But your statement above is also wrong. A hypothesis does not require any "belief" in it's validity. A hypothesis is an idea to be investigated. Not a belief....
"It in those terms" is science in particular, and knowledge in general.
Coming into the subject (UFOlogy) as a believer, I came to realize that science-minded people had investigated the subject and found it valid for study. Those findings are the topic of this thread.
Coming into the subject (UFOlogy) as a believer, I came to realize that science-minded people had investigated the subject and found it valid for study. Those findings are the topic of this thread.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.