UFOs and Aliens

[MrBogosity]

"How do you know they were connected?"

"Because we couldn't see stars between them!"

Same answer as to the moon hoaxers: stars are DIM. Lights like that of ANY brightness will wash them out.

"It was a mile south of our house."

It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge such a distance visually. People see meteors all the time that seem to fall right near where they live when they really fall hundreds of miles away.

Etc. They were making BASIC mistakes, and THEY were the ones attacking HIM for pointing it out! THEY'RE the ones that are dogmatic, NOT him!!!

[JaquesPlafond]

It was also THEY who observed the object, so to state that they make MISTAKES in their observations is unwarranted, since it was THEM making the observations, not YOU, nor McGaha. What makes you so sure they were making mistakes?

And you gotta love his question whether they are qualified observers.. lol.. who exactly would he deem to be a 'qualified observer'?

Now if you want to make a proper qualification of whatever happened in Stephenville, you'll have to deal with ALL the data.. not just a sweeping statement like 'the witnesses were making mistakes in their observations'. They may very well have, but the point is that once again SOMETHING was observed by multiple witnesses, independant of eachother, and it also showed up on radar. So the question is: what was it? What does the data tell you? you'd have to apply the scientific method to cases like this, not make sweeping statements that disqualifies the data before you even look at it.


This is what Watson (one of the witnesses) said: WATSON: 'It was probably like a mile south of our house. My two brothers and I witnessed, it was a V-shaped, like boomerang shaped, and it kind of like kind went in a little bit and then it was gone. There was no fumes. There was no evidence'.

So he's estimating it to be a mile.. Despite your statement, i think you can actually make an estimation of how far an object is from an observer. You can tell the difference between an object that's 10 miles away from you and an object that's 1 mile away from you. There's all sorts of factors at play here. I wouldn't compare observing a gigantic object flying around in your neighbourhood to meteors flashing through the atmosphere, and hopefully i don't have to explain why that is a silly comparison.

As for the connectedness of the object.. the object was flying straight over that witnesses house, and took several minutes to do so. This means they had the time to have a good look at it, and they looked straight up at it, and to them it looked like it was blocking out the stars. Your theory that the lights were washing out the stars is just a theory.. It could be the case, but it's still just an assumption on your part. In fact, your statement that lights of ANY brightness will wash out stars is just plain wrong. I've seen many things (such as satllites, the ISS, airplanes) fly past stars (visually) at night, and they didn't wash out the stars. It takes quite a bright object to do that to any meaningful extent.



I suggest you have a look at the full report of this case, so at least you have a grasp of it's depth and magnitude. The entire MUFON report can be found here: http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf

McGaha disqualifies pilots as good observers.. maybe Astronomers would qualify? After all, they make their career watching and identifying things in the sky. Anyway, as a little extra, here is a list of astronomers 'seeing things' http://www.scribd.com/doc/16805639/A-List-of-UFO-Sightings-by-Astronomers

[MrBogosity]

It was also THEY who observed the object, so to state that they make MISTAKES in their observations is unwarranted,

FAR from unwarranted, it's PROBABLE! We know that these are EXACTLY the kinds of mistakes people make. Unless you're going to start siding with the moon hoaxers, too?

And you gotta love his question whether they are qualified observers.. lol.. who exactly would he deem to be a 'qualified observer'?

Meaning, understanding enough about the sky to be able to identify most of the known phenomena, as well as knowing things that can cause observations to go awry, like the examples I gave.

They may very well have, but the point is that once again SOMETHING was observed by multiple witnesses, independant of eachother, and it also showed up on radar.

No one is questioning that SOMETHING was there. The only argument is WHAT. Look at how adamant they were that it could NOT be several objects, that it could NOT be further away than they thought, etc. This makes their evaluations extremely unreliable at best!

This is what Watson (one of the witnesses) said: WATSON: 'It was probably like a mile south of our house.

Again, there's no way to judge these kinds of distances visually.

My two brothers and I witnessed, it was a V-shaped, like boomerang shaped,

Based on the fact that they couldn't see the stars between them, which I have already debunked. Also, things flying in a V-formation are hardly unknown.

So he's estimating it to be a mile.. Despite your statement, i think you can actually make an estimation of how far an object is from an observer.

Go download the latest Atheist Experience podcast (2009-07-05). Listen to Tracie's story about seeing a meteor and how she COMPLETELY underestimated the size and distance. This is a KNOWN PHENOMENON! We underestimate distances in the "up" direction. THIS (and not the bogus explanation about comparing it to objects) is the reason why the moon appears bigger on the horizon: we see it as the same area in our FOV, but interpret it as being further away than we do when it's overhead.

You can tell the difference between an object that's 10 miles away from you and an object that's 1 mile away from you.

NO, YOU, CAN, NOT!!! In fact, really the ONLY way to tell distance is with either sonar/radar type equipment, or with multiple observers recording it from multiple locations (photogrammetry). You CANNOT TELL IT BY LOOKING! NO ONE can!!!

There's all sorts of factors at play here. I wouldn't compare observing a gigantic object flying around in your neighbourhood to meteors flashing through the atmosphere, and hopefully i don't have to explain why that is a silly comparison.

Except that it's NOT silly, for reasons I've pointed out.

Your theory that the lights were washing out the stars is just a theory.

No, it's a CERTAINTY. The stars are DIM. The DARK part of the moon is brighter than the brightest star!

McGaha disqualifies pilots as good observers.. maybe Astronomers would qualify? After all, they make their career watching and identifying things in the sky. Anyway, as a little extra, here is a list of astronomers 'seeing things' http://www.scribd.com/doc/16805639/A-List-of-UFO-Sightings-by-Astronomers

Yes, well, why aren't MORE of them seeing things? Why do they see things to a MUCH SMALLER degree than ordinary people do?

[JaquesPlafond]

FAR from unwarranted, it's PROBABLE! We know that these are EXACTLY the kinds of mistakes people make. Unless you're going to start siding with the moon hoaxers, too?

Unless there was really something there which fits their description, as is likely because several witnesses independently describe the same object. And no, your attempts to connect me to the moonhoax people aren't going to work. In journalism this is known as smear-journalism, or yellow journalism. I hope you don't feel the need to keep on doing it.

Meaning, understanding enough about the sky to be able to identify most of the known phenomena, as well as knowing things that can cause observations to go awry, like the examples I gave.

Well, you seem to have different criteria than McGaha does then.. he disqualifies pilots as good observers.. one should expect that they are familiar with most known phenomena one is likely to observe in the sky, since they spend their entire career there.

No one is questioning that SOMETHING was there. The only argument is WHAT. Look at how adamant they were that it could NOT be several objects, that it could NOT be further away than they thought, etc. This makes their evaluations extremely unreliable at best!

Well, could their being adamant on what it's NOT be due to their having seen something other than the other theories offered?

Again, there's no way to judge these kinds of distances visually.

Based on the fact that they couldn't see the stars between them, which I have already debunked. Also, things flying in a V-formation are hardly unknown.

Go download the latest Atheist Experience podcast (2009-07-05). Listen to Tracie's story about seeing a meteor and how she COMPLETELY underestimated the size and distance. This is a KNOWN PHENOMENON! We underestimate distances in the "up" direction. THIS (and not the bogus explanation about comparing it to objects) is the reason why the moon appears bigger on the horizon: we see it as the same area in our FOV, but interpret it as being further away than we do when it's overhead.

NO, YOU, CAN, NOT!!! In fact, really the ONLY way to tell distance is with either sonar/radar type equipment, or with multiple observers recording it from multiple locations (photogrammetry). You CANNOT TELL IT BY LOOKING! NO ONE can!!!

Not a precise evaluation you can't. But you can estimate the distance of an object. The witness stated that it was about a mile away, indicating that is wasn't terribly close, nor was it extremely far away. maybe it was 2 miles, or even 20 miles (which would make it a gigantic thing), but that's not the point. The point is that the statement of it being about a mile away illustrates what it looked like to the witness.. it gives a feel of the perceived distance. To me that gives me a mental image of what was observed, and i think that's the point of such a statement.

Except that it's NOT silly, for reasons I've pointed out.

Well, looks like evolution equipped us with stereoscopic vision and holophonic perception of sound in vain then.

No, it's a CERTAINTY. The stars are DIM. The DARK part of the moon is brighter than the brightest star!

You mean you don't see stars next to where a satellite might be flying? Or an airplane? Sure, straight on landinglights will wash out a few nearby stars, and theoretically fainter objects might do so too.. it all depends on the brightness of the lights, the configuration, weather conditions, etc. Your THEORY is that the brightness of the lights were the singular cause of the stars being blocked, but OBJECTS (one might assume that the light was attached to an object) also have a tendency of blocking light.. The question then is: what was the object, and how big was it, and (if applicable) whose object was it?

Yes, well, why aren't MORE of them seeing things? Why do they see things to a MUCH SMALLER degree than ordinary people do?

What's your basis for that assumption? Did you actualy see the list? I thought it was pretty big!

Also, you have to keep in mind that only a very small percentage of people actually report anomalous sightings (UFO's). One reason for that is the giggle-factor (thanks to the media and the 'skeptics' ridiculing UFO-witnesses whenever they can), and these people often have a career, so the last thing they need is to become 'Joe the UFO-guy'. Often it means professional suicide. Despite this, there's still that list of courageous people (in this case astronomers) who did report whatever it is they saw.

Another factor is that they are actually what McGaha would call 'qualified observers', so they're less likely to misperceive other phenomenae as UFO's. Truth be told, a lot of people aren't familiar with celestial events, so a LOT (like 95%) of 'ufo sightings' are actually known stuff. So astronomers are more likely to report genuine UFO's (in the literal sense, doesn't mean they're spaceships from Zargon, even though they might )

Here's a video with a host of FAA recordings of pilots 'seeing things'. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4398747992022736462

Enjoy

[MrBogosity]

Unless there was really something there which fits their description, as is likely because several witnesses independently describe the same object.

No, they describe the same SIGHT. What it was--including whether or not it was one or many objects--is, without more hard evidence, a matter of interpretation.

And no, your attempts to connect me to the moonhoax people aren't going to work.

But they make the EXACT SAME CLAIM!!!

he disqualifies pilots as good observers.

There's nothing that shows that they are.

Well, could their being adamant on what it's NOT be due to their having seen something other than the other theories offered?

Except that as I have shown, there is no way they could have made a proper evaluation. They don't have video from multiple angles that can verify the distance. They don't have cameras made with the right settings to show the background stars. They don't have ANYTHING they need to support that assertion.

But you can estimate the distance of an object.

NO YOU CANNOT!!! If you KNOW the distance you can estimate its size, and vice-versa, but they're trying to DETERMINE BOTH!!! That CANNOT BE DONE!!!

And the WHOLE reason they were saying it had to be a single object (aside from the bogus stars bit) was because the lights stayed in the same place relative to each other without drifting; but of the objects in formation were further away than they thought, then any drift would not be noticeable!

Well, looks like evolution equipped us with stereoscopic vision and holophonic perception of sound in vain then.

Evolution only equipped us to be able to make that determination within 50-100 FEET. Ask ANY optician.

You mean you don't see stars next to where a satellite might be flying?

A satellite is in ORBIT, you IDIOT!!! It's HUNDREDS of miles away AT A MINIMUM!!!

Your THEORY is that the brightness of the lights were the singular cause of the stars being blocked, but OBJECTS (one might assume that the light was attached to an object) also have a tendency of blocking light.

Haven't you ever seen two lights coming down the road, and they appeared to switch from being two motorcycles to one car?

The question then is: what was the object, and how big was it, and (if applicable) whose object was it?

WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!

What's your basis for that assumption? Did you actualy see the list? I thought it was pretty big!

Fallacy of numbers. What's the proportion to the TOTAL number of astronomers? And how does that compare to the percentage of the population who has claimed to see UFOs?

Often it means professional suicide.

Because it's a sign of gross incompetence.

Another factor is that they are actually what McGaha would call 'qualified observers', so they're less likely to misperceive other phenomenae as UFO's. Truth be told, a lot of people aren't familiar with celestial events, so a LOT (like 95%) of 'ufo sightings' are actually known stuff. So astronomers are more likely to report genuine UFO's (in the literal sense, doesn't mean they're spaceships from Zargon, even though they might )

You're still assuming that there ARE genuine UFOs! YOU SAID IT YOURSELF: they're "less likely to misperceive," but less likely is NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!

[JaquesPlafond]

No, they describe the same SIGHT. What it was--including whether or not it was one or many objects--is, without more hard evidence, a matter of interpretation.

Except that it corroborates RADAR data:

In the MUFON report, we read the following concerning the Radar data:

1: The object that shows up at 6:15pm on radar matches up directionally with what four witnesses saw between about 6:10 and 6:20pm on January 8, 2008

2: The high rate of speed seen by the witnesses from Selden, Chalk Mtn, and Lake Proctor is supported by the radar data, which calculates a minimum mvelocity of 2100 mph. The lack of high velocity in the object from the perspective of the Gorman witness may be due to the point of time that it was observed as the object was seen both stationary and moving at a high rate of speed

3: The object is large. The smallest calculated value of the objects'size was 524 feet. This supports the impression of all witnesses

4: Little can be said about the altitude of the object other than all the calculations indicate that it was of sufficient rate to be detected by primary radar.

This analisys was based on the data from 5 different radar sites.


So what we have here is corrobororative data from eyewitnesses and radar. This data doesn't tell you what was observed, but it does tell you that a big object was observed at those times over Stephenville. I really suggest you have a look at the Mufon report for all the details.

But they make the EXACT SAME CLAIM!!!

Umm nope.. not quite

There's nothing that shows that they are.

Well that's your opinion then. I sure hope pilots know what they're doing when they're up there, and that they don't get startled by balloons, swampgas, birds, meteorites, or what have you

Except that as I have shown, there is no way they could have made a proper evaluation. They don't have video from multiple angles that can verify the distance. They don't have cameras made with the right settings to show the background stars. They don't have ANYTHING they need to support that assertion.

Except there's the corroborative radar data (see mufon report).

NO YOU CANNOT!!! If you KNOW the distance you can estimate its size, and vice-versa, but they're trying to DETERMINE BOTH!!! That CANNOT BE DONE!!!

And the WHOLE reason they were saying it had to be a single object (aside from the bogus stars bit) was because the lights stayed in the same place relative to each other without drifting; but of the objects in formation were further away than they thought, then any drift would not be noticeable!

That's a possible explanation, but is that really what happened? What do you think those lights were anyway? Airplanes? F16s?

Evolution only equipped us to be able to make that determination within 50-100 FEET. Ask ANY optician.

Well your claim was that we can't estimate any distance at all.. lol

Seriously, i don't have to ask anyone in a white coat whether i can estimate a distance. When i'm driving my car, i sure can anticipate abjects coming towards me, even if they're more than 100 feet away. The farther they are, the harder it becomes, that's true.

A satellite is in ORBIT, you IDIOT!!! It's HUNDREDS of miles away AT A MINIMUM!!!

So? It's still a luminous object, right? (well, reflecting light actually).

Haven't you ever seen two lights coming down the road, and they appeared to switch from being two motorcycles to one car?

Sure. But i've also seen trucks with lights and all blocking other lights.

WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!

Maybe YOU still have to do that, but the radar data already did that long ago

Fallacy of numbers. What's the proportion to the TOTAL number of astronomers? And how does that compare to the percentage of the population who has claimed to see UFOs?

Who cares? The point is that astronomers aren't excempt to seeing what can only be termed as UFO's. In fact they're seen by all walks of life, even by skeptics sometiumes (who then henceforth aren't skeptical about UFO's anymore).

Because it's a sign of gross incompetence.

That's what the church told Galileo as well.

You're still assuming that there ARE genuine UFOs! YOU SAID IT YOURSELF: they're "less likely to misperceive," but less likely is NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!

The fact that they're less likely to misperceive gives weight to their UFO-reports, and also explains why there's likely a lower percentage of them reporting UFO's. Average Joe isn't as familiar with celestial events, and is more likely to report a UFO, hence the fact that about 95% of reported UFO's turns out to be explainable in conventional terms.

[MrBogosity]

2: The high rate of speed seen by the witnesses from Selden, Chalk Mtn, and Lake Proctor is supported by the radar data, which calculates a minimum mvelocity of 2100 mph. The lack of high velocity in the object from the perspective of the Gorman witness may be due to the point of time that it was observed as the object was seen both stationary and moving at a high rate of speed

Or it means it was FURTHER AWAY THAN THEY THOUGHT!!!

3: The object is large. The smallest calculated value of the objects'size was 524 feet. This supports the impression of all witnesses

"Smallest" means IT COULD BE LARGER!!!

Well that's your opinion then. I sure hope pilots know what they're doing when they're up there, and that they don't get startled by balloons, swampgas, birds, meteorites, or what have you

Then DON'T go and read the reports of pilots who report UFOs that turn out to be explainable meteorological pheonomena. Better to just live in denial...

That's a possible explanation, but is that really what happened? What do you think those lights were anyway? Airplanes? F16s?

What is it about the answer "I don't know" that completely fails to enter some people's ears???

Well your claim was that we can't estimate any distance at all.. lol

Never said that. Now you're just lying.

So? It's still a luminous object, right? (well, reflecting light actually).

Ever heard of the Inverse Law? If an object is twice as far away, it's half as bright!

Sure.

Then my point is made.

Maybe YOU still have to do that, but the radar data already did that long ago

No, the radar data just says there was something there, which we already knew and no one is disputing. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it tells us NOTHING of the nature of the object OR OBJECTS.

Who cares?

Who cares? THAT POINT FITS MY CONTENTION, NOT YOURS!!! You can't just wish it away with "Who cares?"

The point is that astronomers aren't excempt to seeing what can only be termed as UFO's. In fact they're seen by all walks of life, even by skeptics sometiumes (who then henceforth aren't skeptical about UFO's anymore).

Yes! I'VE seen UFOs! What does it mean? NOTHING!!!

That's what the church told Galileo as well.

First of all, that's not at all true, and second, you're doing EXACTLY what you falsely accused ME of doing above!

The fact that they're less likely to misperceive gives weight to their UFO-reports,

NOT when those reports are proportionately FEWER!!! Learn some basic statistics.

[JaquesPlafond]

"Smallest" means IT COULD BE LARGER!!!

Very observant!

Then DON'T go and read the reports of pilots who report UFOs that turn out to be explainable meteorological pheonomena. Better to just live in denial...

Well yah, that happens too, and i'm not saying that pilots never misinterpret those things, i'm just saying that they're more trained to recognize them. Maybe you've experienced the phenomenon of when you see something you don't immediately recognize, and you notice your mind going trough the mental pictures of things it knows, trying to fit it in. I think a pilot has a bigger database, so to speak, and is also more familiar with them.

What is it about the answer "I don't know" that completely fails to enter some people's ears???

Well, that technically makes it a UFO then, which is my entire point. Something was observed by multiple witnesses and by radar, and we don't know what it is.

Ever heard of the Inverse Law? If an object is twice as far away, it's half as bright!

Well since i'm twice the half distance from you, i may not be so bright..

The object(s) had lights.. so does that mean the witnesses would have been unable to see a possible body to the object? I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

Then my point is made.

Except that that's not the whole story..

No, the radar data just says there was something there, which we already knew and no one is disputing. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it tells us NOTHING of the nature of the object OR OBJECTS.

Nope.. i'm not making any claims to the nature of the objects.. just that they were there, witnessed by the witnesses and tracked on radar, and showing extraordinary properties (size and speed). So technically it's a UFO.

Who cares? THAT POINT FITS MY CONTENTION, NOT YOURS!!! You can't just wish it away with "Who cares?"

I'm not sure how those percentages would affect the fact that astroners, like other people, sometimes observe phenomenae with properties they can't explain in conventional terms. I alreaqdy explained why there is likely to be a lower percentage of astronomers reporting UFO's than let's say 'regular' people.

Yes! I'VE seen UFOs! What does it mean? NOTHING!!!

The meaning depends on what made you conclude it was a UFO.

First of all, that's not at all true, and second, you're doing EXACTLY what you falsely accused ME of doing above!

NOT when those reports are proportionately FEWER!!! Learn some basic statistics.
[/quote]

So if like 5% of the genral population reports UFO's, then that percentage should be the same for astronomers? Or else?

[JaquesPlafond]

btw:

WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!

No, the radar data just says there was something there, which we already knew and no one is disputing. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it tells us NOTHING of the nature of the object OR OBJECTS.

Which is it?

[MrBogosity]

Very observant!

And yet you fail to see how it destroys your (and their) point.

Well yah, that happens too, and i'm not saying that pilots never misinterpret those things, i'm just saying that they're more trained to recognize them.

But they aren't! They're trained to fly planes.

Well, that technically makes it a UFO then, which is my entire point. Something was observed by multiple witnesses and by radar, and we don't know what it is.

Right. And they're making all sorts of claims about it that are not called for by the evidence.

The object(s) had lights.. so does that mean the witnesses would have been unable to see a possible body to the object?

That's the most likely outcome. Occam's Razor.

Except that that's not the whole story.

But it DOES mean that this point CANNOT be used to corroborate their story.

Nope.. i'm not making any claims to the nature of the objects.

THEY are. They're making very certain claims about size, distance, and nature that they quite simply cannot know.

So technically it's a UFO.

But UFOs are no big deal!

I'm not sure how those percentages would affect the fact that astroners, like other people, sometimes observe phenomenae with properties they can't explain in conventional terms.

More likely to understand phenomena = less likely to misinterpret them. I would have thought that was obvious. Especially since you're trying to make the exact same point with pilots...

I alreaqdy explained why there is likely to be a lower percentage of astronomers reporting UFO's than let's say 'regular' people.

And I'm saying your explanation is bogus unless you account for this effect first.

The meaning depends on what made you conclude it was a UFO.

It was in the sky, and I didn't know what it was. That's a UFO. That's ALL it is. If you've ever seen something in the sky, and didn't know what it was, congratulations--you've seen a UFO!

So if like 5% of the genral population reports UFO's, then that percentage should be the same for astronomers?

No, the percentage should be LOWER for astronomers! Please pay attention...

[JaquesPlafond]

First of all, thanks for the interesting discussion.. Hopefully we can keep it civil, and perhaps even learn something along the way

And yet you fail to see how it destroys your (and their) point.

Apparently.. please enlighten me

But they aren't! They're trained to fly planes.

And as they fly around, they see stuff.. a whole lot more than us streetdwellers would, since they're up there in the sky all the time.. hence they are more familiar with them.

Right. And they're making all sorts of claims about it that are not called for by the evidence.

Either that, OR they're just reporting what they witnessed.. which happens to be corroborated by Radar.

That's the most likely outcome. Occam's Razor.

The outcome of OR depends on the circumstances. How many lights were there? How bright were they? How far apart were they? How dark was it? etc. To simply claim that because there were lights mentioned, the most likely explanation for blocking the stars were the lights isn't the whole story.

But it DOES mean that this point CANNOT be used to corroborate their story.

See previous

THEY are. They're making very certain claims about size, distance, and nature that they quite simply cannot know.

But they observed it nevertheless, and it didn't fit any known paradigm they had, so they made a report of it.. and it turns out that MORE people had observed it, and that it was tracked on radar.. now isn't that interesting?

But UFOs are no big deal!

Depends on what they actually represent.

More likely to understand phenomena = less likely to misinterpret them. I would have thought that was obvious. Especially since you're trying to make the exact same point with pilots...

And with astronomers, which was the reason i brought them in the mix, and which i thought i explained

And I'm saying your explanation is bogus unless you account for this effect first.

Didn't i explain that already? Not sure if i understand your question.

It was in the sky, and I didn't know what it was. That's a UFO. That's ALL it is. If you've ever seen something in the sky, and didn't know what it was, congratulations--you've seen a UFO!

Well, i've seen a few interesting things myself too, but i'm not saying it's alien spaceships either. Theoretically UFOlogy should be about objectively researching such phenomena.

No, the percentage should be LOWER for astronomers! Please pay attention...

Well, i agree, for reasons i stated earlier

[JaquesPlafond]

Is the idea that there might possibly be aliens that are more advanced than us bogosity? How about them being able to travel great distances?

[MrBogosity]

It's extremely unlikely that they'd be able to travel here routinely, given relativity and the great distances involved. And if they did, it's even MORE extremely unlikely that they'd only be seen by the odd hayseeds and not definitively imaged by now. And it's CERTAINLY more extremely unlikely that they'd try to communicate by mashing down patterns in wheat fields!

[JaquesPlafond]

It's extremely unlikely that they'd be able to travel here routinely, given relativity and the great distances involved.

Because you can't think of way for them to do it?

And if they did, it's even MORE extremely unlikely that they'd only be seen by the odd hayseeds and not definitively imaged by now.

Well, if UFO's represent aliens, then you'd have to say we've moved out of the obscurity of the 'odd hayseeds'. Presidents see them, astronauts, pilots, astronomers, pretty much all walks of life. And they may have a different agenda than whatever it is we expect them to have.

And it's CERTAINLY more extremely unlikely that they'd try to communicate by mashing down patterns in wheat fields!

lol.. i'll give you that

Mind you, this is all a bit hypothetical

[MrBogosity]

We've got video cameras EVERYWHERE. If there were an ACTUAL alien spaceship or ANYTHING of the kind, then why hasn't it been video recorded--IN FOCUS--from 87 different angles and put on YouTube?