Reader's Comments:        Add a Comment        Return to Article

Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email.

Comments:

1. Comment by Todd, 03 Feb, 2009

   Hi John. I feel annoyed with the Skeptics like you who claim to know everything about the phenomenon of UFOs. Your attitude is completely disrespectful to those who are trained as observers or credible levelheaded witnesses. There is a great deal of official documentation and serious research by even government authorities that state that at least some of the sightings are of unidentified phenomena.

   First off you put both UFOs and aliens into the same box, which I believe is a clever tactic in your argument. We all know that when you do that you bring the "fantastical" in to discredit a serious sighting....nice one. Aliens are a separate issue all together, but you know this anyway. What if they, (the ETs) had mastered intergalactic travel via means that are not apparent to science yet? It is a fair open-minded question, but alas as a Skeptic you cannot bring another mystery into the equation. So if they do traverse physical space over millions of light years exploring planets you and your fellow skeptics would say on meeting one (a google eyed eight legged creature), "It is impossible you are here so therefore you don't exist". My fellow "Average Joes" and I would stand back in disbelief also but at your reaction on this momentous of occasions.

   Speaking of the extra terrestrial argument you say that due to our understanding of physics it is impossible, so you are saying we know everything about physics? WOW they should stop the CERN project and stop wasting taxpayers money! It wasn't long ago that Newton had the last word on physics.

   So what does an average person like my father do when he and his wife spot an object that doesn't fit into the natural phenomena category do? He keeps his mouth shut! I don't blame him also with people who (like yourself) are not even willing to validate his experience. Intelligent people don't need a Skeptic to make them feel any more alone on the issue. By the way my father hasn't got a solid opinion as to what was operating the vehicle, (it was solid of appreciable size and flying in a controlled manner). It could very well have been of terrestrial origin but alas it displayed characteristics of flight and design that would make anything in Jane's Weekly look like the Wright Flyer 1903.

   I agree that every sighting needs to be looked at in detail before a claim is made, especially in the case of the UFO phenomenon, but please be prepared for the unexplainable too. People who see UFOs are not all crazies so please don't round them up with cult leaders, psychics, mediums and crystal ball gazers.

   Unexplainable UFOs could really come from out in space or they might be of Earth origin. If they were of Earth origin it would be reasonable to say that since they defy our common understanding of aerodynamics and physics, somewhere someone has developed some pretty amazing technology. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it would be an organisation that was connected to the military as new technology is usually developed and used there first. By the way Boeing has announced in the past (2004) that it was working on an electrogravitic drive to power a new generation of aircraft. This is not conspiracy talk.

   Of course there are more exotic explanations out there for the truly unexplainable sightings but even I struggle comprehending them.

   Anyway thank you for taking the time to read this.

2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Feb, 2009

   Thanks for your comments Todd, but we believe your annoyance with our article seems to be based on several false beliefs. First, your belief that skeptics claim to know everything is a flawed stereotype of true skeptics. We certainly don't know everything — by any stretch of the imagination — and have never claimed to. Please don't confuse a little knowledge and confidence in our view as arrogance.

   You go on to say that we are "completely disrespectful to those who are trained as observers or credible levelheaded witnesses". Actually most people that spot UFOs are not trained observers, in fact I know of no course or occupation that trains someone to identify UFOs or alien spacecraft. Even pilots and military personnel who are often touted as 'trained observers' are nothing of the sort. And as we said in our article, being a "credible levelheaded witness" counts for nothing if you have no experience in identifying UFOs. You wouldn't trust a lawyer to identify a malignant melanoma on your skin, even though they may be credible and levelheaded, simply because they are not trained to do this. Suggesting that someone is mistaken is not being disrespectful, it is simply debating the topic, whereas acquiescing to the flawed opinion of a "credible witness" will not lead us to the truth. Remember that most UFO sightings are made by credible witnesses, and yet nearly all are eventually accepted as reaching false conclusions as to what they saw. Credible witnesses have a really bad track record.

   We agree that there is "official documentation and serious research" that shows that "at least some of the sightings are of unidentified phenomena", but this means nothing. Unidentified means exactly that, unidentified. It is evidence of unresolved sightings, not evidence of strange craft or aliens etc. You can't say it supports alien craft etc if you don't know what it was. Most sightings that remain unidentified do so because there is simply insufficient information to reach a conclusion.

   Next you mistakenly say that we "put both UFOs and aliens into the same box, which I believe is a clever tactic in your argument… Aliens are a separate issue all together". We are very clear that UFOs and aliens shouldn't be viewed as one and the same thing. That is one of our main arguments, that people simply aren't justified after seeing a UFO of inferring aliens. We also that "We believe it's possible that an alien could land tomorrow, or may have already landed… So please don't write stating that we're arrogant to claim that aliens couldn't exist. Once again, aliens are definitely possible, what we're talking about here is alien visitation, we're saying that the evidence for them coming here and abducting hillbillies is non-existent."

   You ask "What if they, (the ETs) had mastered intergalactic travel via means that are not apparent to science yet? It is a fair open-minded question, but alas as a Skeptic you cannot bring another mystery into the equation." 'What if' questions are all very well, but at the end of the day you have to reject them if there is no evidence to support the question. What if witches really existed, what if the world was hollow and populated by lava people, what if prayer really worked. I don't know why you think skeptics have never thought about intergalactic travel — although it's far more likely to be interstellar travel — especially since all the credible information and theories we have about the universe come from skeptical scientists. We don't say alien space travel isn't happening, we just say there is no evidence that they're visiting us.

   You then go on to insist that if aliens did visit earth, "you and your fellow skeptics would say on meeting one… "It is impossible you are here so therefore you don't exist"." Again, (obviously predicting your comment) I clearly say in our essay that "contrary to what some may insist, the skeptical mind is not so biased against aliens that it unconsciously morphs them into clouds or sheep. If a flying saucer landed on my front lawn I'm convinced I would see it for what it was. I would be extremely surprised, delighted and apprehensive, but not in denial." You follow this line of thought with your claim that we insist that visiting aliens are impossible due to our understanding of physics. Again you have falsely attributed some bogus assertion to us. In fact we said, "In addition to the fact that intelligent alien life could be quite rare, there are many other cogent arguments that all suggest that aliens visiting us would be extremely unlikely. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely."

   As for your father's UFO sighting, a few comments are in order. The most obvious being, if your father told no one for fear of ridicule, then how do you know of his sighting? You say your "father hasn't got a solid opinion" on what he saw, but the fact that he calls it a vehicle means it isn't a UFO. He has identified it as an artificially designed and constructed vehicle, he just doesn't know who built it or who was flying it. You say it was flying in a controlled manner, but then contradict yourself by saying it "displayed characteristics of flight" that obviously stood out because they didn't match what we expect from normal controlled flight. If your father was close enough to determine its size and consider its differences in design in comparison to all known aircraft, civilian or military, then he has gained considerably more information than most observers get. With this confidence, it's surprising that he wasn't willing to relate his experience to others. You say that he kept quiet because people like myself are "not even willing to validate his experience". It's true I wouldn't blindly validate his experience if by validate you mean corroborate or authenticate his claim of seeing an "alien" vehicle. However if by validate you simply mean accept that he saw something in the sky that he couldn't identify, then I have no problem accepting his experience. As I said in our article, I personally have seen two UFOs and experienced waking up paralysed etc. We make it perfectly clear that these experiences happen to sane, rational, normal people where they see things they can't identify or experience feelings they don't understand. Our gripe is that rather than ask experts if they can explain what they might have experienced, people like your father keep it to themselves, and rely on their limited knowledge to jump to an unwarranted conclusion. Unlike you or your father, many of my friends and acquaintances have happily described unusual experiences to me in the hope that I might have an answer. They didn't feel that I was going to ridicule them. Likewise I suspect your father would have no problem asking the local astronomical society what a particular star he saw in the sky was. He would be willing to admit his ignorance and ask for assistance. No one fears they'll be ridiculed for asking about unidentified stars or aircraft, people only fear ridicule asking about flying saucers. Your father's unwillingness to speak out means that he has put his sighting into the flying saucer category. He has already made up his mind as to what it was he saw. This refusal to discuss, debate or openly research UFOs and aliens means that people negate the chance that someone will rationally explain what it was they saw. Since the validity of their sighting is never challenged, they remain convinced that their conclusion is the correct one.

   As for suggesting that we say people who see UFOs are crazies, nothing could be further from the truth. Our argument is that people who see UFOs and have weird experiences are completely normal in most cases. What we tried to explain is that some people falsely, and with no real justification, go on to believe that these experiences were caused by flying saucers and aliens. If your father saw an unidentified object in the sky then this is completely normal, but if he then convinces himself, while refusing to discuss it with others, that he has seen an "alien" vehicle, then this is not normal, rational behaviour. Like the crazies you mention — cult leaders, psychics, mediums and crystal ball gazers — he is refusing to have his beliefs tested or examined.

   You say that UFOs might even be of earth origin, and if so, probably connected to the military. Again you make the false assumption that UFOs are actual vehicles of some sort, rather than some natural phenomenon, although I agree that many UFO sightings can probably be put down to conventional aircraft etc. However it is unbelievable that the military has this amazing technology — and has had it for decades if not centuries — and yet refuses to use it. They continue to go to war and spy on their neighbours with aircraft, weapons and technology that is positively antiquated compared to the craft and technologies reported by UFO observers. The other 'earth origin' view that some put forward, that some hidden, advanced race of humans — from Atlantis or what ever — is responsible for UFO sightings is as silly as saying Bigfoot is responsible for most of our graffiti.

   I'm sorry Todd but you will not convince us that aliens are visiting us by simple statements like, "Yeah, but what if aliens had mastered intergalactic travel, what if we were being visited?". This is nothing but wishful thinking. I for one would love to meet a friendly alien, but realise this is unlikely. Nor will accusing us of being closed-minded or the sincere convictions of your father be sufficient to sway our view. Robust evidence is the only thing that will convince us. Believers keep insisting that this evidence exists, so why won't it stand up to scrutiny?

   As long as people continue to suppress their sightings through fear of ridicule, then this belief in alien visitation will continue. If instead they just honestly inquired about something they couldn't identify in the sky then they would realise that their sighting most likely had a rational explanation, and they would most likely learn something amazing about the universe in the process. They saw something alright, bit it wasn't an alien in his spaceship, a witch on her broomstick or a god in his fiery chariot.

   Thanks again for your comments. While we have differing views, it's always interesting to consider opposing thoughts.

3. Comment by Todd, 17 Feb, 2009

   Hi John, thanks for replying… First off I would like to apologise for the tone I took in response to the UFO article… I do understand that skeptics are interested in using scientific reason and rational thought, which by the way I respect.

   I totally agree with you that the great majority of people are not reliable (trained) observers but to say a pilot is not trained in observation is not something I agree with. They are all too aware of natural phenomena, aerial traffic and visual landmarks. They see Venus not to mention the other planets, stars, cosmic dust and re-entry vehicles. It is therefore a fact that the majority of pilots are able to identify phenomena that doesn't conform to the usual. I wouldn't want to fly with a pilot that didn't have the ability to make accurate observations, would you? Military pilots have to rely on accurate observation skills (probably less these days) in order to carry out offensive strikes on targets. Their mistakes like their civilian counterparts can cost lives. But like you said they didn't get formal education on UFO identification. Well I say they don't need to really. A pilot would probably be only expected to file a report of his/her observation. What they (the pilot) speculate in their private life is up to them. The interesting thing about the pilot hypothesis is that both planes and the airports on terra firma have radar. On a rare occasion a sighting is made by a pilot and reported to control tower, observed by passengers, spotted on radar on both the aircraft and ground control. Is this classed as evidence? There have been reports of this kind that suggest a solid object, sometimes of a considerable size flying at incredible speeds performing seemly impossible manoeuvres, all caught on radar. Radar readings should be classed as evidence along with corroborating sightings because unless an object crashes (or the bumper falls off!) or they land and drop a cigarette lighter there will be no solid evidence forthcoming. As for trained UFO spotting per se governments have researched this topic (Project Blue Book, and the cynically named Grudge) so I'd say they would be the best positioned to identify craft but probably still remain in the dark as to the origin and composition of the phenomena, that is unless further knowledge hasn't been acquired.

   I think the whole idea of utilising credible witness information is a requirement in any investigation. Our legal system requires it in solving crimes. A witness is usually cross-examined before their testimony is considered truthful or not. So if in the case of UFOs the witness, or better still witnesses, describe something truly unexplained, I think you would have to take it seriously. It is then up to the investigator to say that it is either natural phenomenon as it is in most cases, or that it is anomalous in which case it is a UFO. My question to anybody that has a sighting is who you go to anyway to report such things. An astronomical society could only confirm if Venus or some other natural event is behaving in the manner that the witness describes which is fine if the circumstances do fit the phenomena seen. I would go to an astronomer if I had a distant sighting of a "strange light". If I had a close sighting i.e. I saw a solid object of an appreciable size performing a display of aerobatic prowess I think my choices of people to tell, particularly in New Zealand are nil. For my own curiosity I would ring the airport and ask if they had anything on their radar or if their pilots had spotted anything in that vicinity at that time. I would also contact the police.

   I'm curious to know more about your two sightings, I've never seen anything in the sky that I can't put down to the usual. Who did you contact or speak to before you came to the decision that you indeed saw a UFO. Don't you ever speculate as to the origin and composition of "your UFOs"? Or as a Skeptic you just say that what you saw was anomalous and until you have further evidence the jury is out. What about trying to get to the bottom of it? It drives me crazy that people like you and my dad can see this stuff and there appears to be no answers forth coming. I'm an advocate for answers! Alas speculation lacks evidence.

   Now I'd like to go into detail about my father's experience regarding his sighting. In March of 1995 my father and stepmother were returning home from a 50th birthday party. Both were sober, my father cannot consume alcohol in quantity at all (he has fibromyalgia) and I've never seen my stepmum indulge either. My father had to drive from Christchurch to Waikari (in North Canterbury), roughly 45 minutes driving. It was in the early hours of the morning. When my parents reached Leithfield they saw a bright light in the direction of Amberley. They continued driving and observed the motionless green light throughout. As they neared the light they saw that it was multiple lights. My parents continued to get closer. As they got closer they realised that the lights were attached to a triangular solid object that according to my father was as "big as a house". My parents continued past the object. My dad though was curious and turned back! He brought the car to a stop and got out of the car in spite of my stepmothers protests. The object began to move slowly over the car and cross the road. My parents were right underneath the craft and was only tens of metres away. The object then stopped momentarily and then shot off in a south westerly direction (my dad described it disappearing into a dot in seconds!). The local newspaper also reported people seeing strange lights in the location of the Loburn district, the direction that my dad's object was heading. Do you think an astronomer can help here? One skeptic I spoke to said it could have been an airship…… man (Steven Novella) has never seen an airship fly! I think the Hindenburg could have done with such flight abilities at Lakehurst that day. So John has my dad seen a UFO or did he witness Venus, swamp gas, migrating Godwits, a crop duster doing the late shift. I'd be curious as to what you think, but if I follow your logic that there are no trained observers for this phenomenon you would be unable to provide answers. He describes the UFO as a vehicle because it was solid and moving in a controlled manner. It was flying in the sense that it was up in the air and moving but it did not move like a conventional aircraft which relies on airspeed or thrust to stay aloft. There was no sound what so ever which is amazing since it came to a complete stop then accelerated to an amazing speed within seconds. Usually there would have been a rushing sound of air resistance but none was heard, or for that matter felt. My dad related the story to me because he knows that I have an interest in the subject and because we are family. Like I said before there is no one in this country who is conducting investigations in to this subject that we are/were aware of. In this case an observatory would have been unable to provide an explanation. Air traffic control would have been a good place to ask about anomalous blips etc but then again he never thought to ring there. I would have done that myself if it had of come to mind back then. As far as him not having a solid opinion on what he saw, that was with regards to its origin, this is what he "mulls over" these days. What expert could give him an explanation after seeing what can only be described as extraordinary? I assert there is no such expert here. A UFO is "all" he saw. For the others who saw the moving lights that night and reported to the newspaper, they could have had their sighting explained by an astronomer even though it could well have been my dad's one seen at a distance "hitting warp factor 9". An astronomer might have told those people that they had seen Leonid meteoroids hitting the atmosphere, if they only saw it at my dad's proximity.

   I can understand why many people don't come forward with giving information surrounding a sighting. Most people who truly witness something amazing usually just want to get on with their lives. Based on our current understanding there is no one who can tell them what they witnessed if it truly was a UFO. They will be no better off if they do tell the wrong people ("helpful" fringe UFO cults or Woman's Day). If they tell an astronomer they will get told it was Venus or Saturn depending on the month or time of day or space junk, meteorites if they occurred at that time. Who are the experts John? Skeptics? I think most people want to just know what they saw.

   I'm glad you are not opposed to concept of aliens' actually visiting earth. I'm afraid there are scientists who completely rule this out according to our current understanding of physics. I find that attitude completely counterproductive in the debate. In my email I didn't state that UFOs are evidence for alien visitation, that would be ridiculous to jump to such an assumption, but aliens cannot be ruled out as a possibility no matter how unlikely in your estimation. Popular culture throws the alien hypothesis to the forefront in many people's minds, which is unfortunate (probably to sell advertising on TV). As for the terrestrial hypothesis, you also cannot rule this out no matter how uncomfortable you are with this also. Boeing has already admitted to researching in antigravity drives (links here and here). As for the military having in possession advanced technologies and not using them therefore they don't exist is a flawed argument. How many people knew of the Manhattan Project before they devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no one outside of the inner sanctum. They retired the SR71 after the 1st Gulf War so what took its place? Speaking of the first Gulf War the F117 nighthawk and B2 spirit bomber were rolled out for the first time, how many of us knew about these amazing new stealth aircraft? They were considered Black Projects until they turned up at air shows. Because they are on show it probably means that the next development is still under cover judging from the past history of releasing information to the Joe public. To be honest the average citizens do not have a "low down" on the current technology anyway. We see a stealth bomber amble into the air at sub sonic speeds but who knows what it can really do. Do you? Keeping secrets is what the military thrive on as it gives them the advantage over their perceived enemies so disclosure of everything they have is plain dumb. If the military had craft that emulated UFO flight characteristics would they bother using that if they could get away with using a B52 bomber? Against a more formidable enemy I would expect them to use the "good stuff". The US military is "fighting terrorists" so why bother sticking it to them with anything more than a few soldiers and an A10 aircraft. If you look at it in money terms it means that the US government can continue to expend some old Vietnam era ordinance on a pack of Fundamentalists and protect oil interests, but that's another story eh. Who knows how the military would use such a "weapon" that had the characteristics of a UFO, you seem to assume that they would use it to obliterate all that stand before it, why? I never asserted in my letter they (the military) had this so called technology for centuries either. By the way I use the term military but if they are of terrestrial origin it could be another branch of government (usually US) or outside that operates such craft.

   Of the whole extraterrestrial phenomenon I find the abduction phenomena the most hard to deal with. I don't think ridiculing these abductees is the answer though. If some of them did suffer from mental illness and were delusional they need a break! Of course with the contactee and abductee phenomenon you will get more emotive sensational and sometimes delusional testimony. That is not to say though that it could not happen. This area does smell of cult like activity more than anything.

   Please don't be too pedantic regarding distances in space, intergalactic just came out. Interstellar does present a better option…

   Again I'd like to think you for your reply, you seem like a nice enough person. I think after considering your reply I am not to far away from your position in many respects. But I differ in others. I agree that claims such as yours and my father's demand scrutiny but also demand continued research. What has to be understood also is that the witnesses of a "close encounter" to borrow from Hollywood should be treated with humility and respect because they could very well have witnessed something truly amazing.

   By the way I'm looking forward to when they finally turn on the Large Hadron Collider sometime soon. That's cutting edge stuff. Cheers.

4. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Mar, 2009

   Hi Todd. Thanks for your interesting comments, so get comforatable and I'll try and give you my take on some of them.

   I agree that you'd think that pilots would be better equipped to identify things in the sky than a layperson, but unfortunately this belief is a myth. You mentioned the Project Blue Book run by the USAF and the experts working for it as being the "best positioned to identify craft". However UFO researcher Philip J. Klass has revealed that "When the late Dr J Allen Hynek [the chief scientific consultant for Project Blue Book] reanalysed UFO reports in the USAF files, he found that pilots were as readily mislead by prosaic objects as persons in other professions." The fact is that while most pilots can easily identify a Boeing from an Airbus from a Cessna, most will have never seen a fireball or a re-entry vehicle blazing through the sky. Nor will they be trained to navigate by the stars. Ask the next pilot you meet if he can visually identify a planet from a star.

   You're right that radar data is evidence, but only evidence of "something". Radar is not as selective as people believe, recording everything from rain to seagulls. It is rare that a visual sighting of a UFO is matched with radar data, but even when it is, this is merely evidence of "something", perhaps a fireball or a top secret military test flight. The addition of radar evidence is better than just visual evidence, but it is still very inconclusive evidence and certainly not evidence of aliens or a controlled craft of some description.

   You talk about credible witnesses and the legal system. You will be aware of recent research that demonstrates the often-flawed nature of eyewitness testimony. A witness can be credible, honest and completely sincere in reporting what they believed they witnessed, but still be completely wrong. Most everyone agrees — except in cases of hoaxes — that people who see UFOs did observe something strange in the sky that they couldn't explain. I take it seriously that your father saw "something". But I won't take it a step further and seriously believe that he saw a controlled craft of some description unless more substantial evidence is produced. I have read many accounts of where people — including pilots — were convinced they had seen alien craft, which simply turned out to be them misidentifying some natural phenomena. Remember that over 90% of credible witnesses who believe they have observed a "real" UFO turn out to be mistaken. They weren't lying, they simply reached a flawed conclusion regarding what is often just a fleeting glimpse of an object at night.

   You ask who does one report these UFO sightings to, what expert do we turn to? First, as you allude to, there is no single expert that can always give a definitive answer. As you say, much depends on what the "UFO" really was. Sometimes an astronomer will be able to explain a sighting if it involves celestial objects such as planets, meteors, fireballs, satellites etc. Daytime sightings might require a meteorologist, for such things as cloud formations, weather balloons etc. Then you might want to consult airports as to local flight paths, flight arrivals and departures, and unplanned fight activity such as search and rescue, air ambulance and fire-fighting. Who do you ask about the activity of hot air balloons, hang gliders and micro-lights? What about hobbyists building and test firing rockets? What about advertising planes towing banners? Who in NZ do you call about the re-entry of space junk? Do you ask the local high school if their science classes have been performing any outdoors science experiments that are out of the ordinary? Was there an outdoor rock concert miles away using a laser light show? Do you ask the police if teenagers have been caught hoaxing "flying saucers"? Do you consult a physicist, chemist or biologist, especially if you're in strange country? Maybe it wasn't an alien but just a friendly fruit bat? Maybe you should even consult a psychologist, because perhaps your experience was a rare but perfectly natural illusion created in your mind, like seeing patterns in clouds that aren't really there.

   My point is, the first person you ask may have the answer, but most likely not. If one "expert" can't identify what you saw as belonging to their field of expertise, then you need to keep asking. I have sometimes found "experts" — amateur astronomers, scientists, doctors etc — to be grossly ignorant on matters outside their field of expertise. Surveys have also shown this, and with specialisation it is to be expected. You for example mention contacting the police, and while I have great confidence in the police to perform their policing duties, I have no confidence that your average police officer could reliably identify anything in the night sky. All they could be relied on is as a collection point for phone calls from concerned citizens.

   Should you ask a skeptic? Skeptical organisations and some skeptics can be a good place to seek answers. Of course many skeptics, while they may not personally believe in aliens and UFOs, have no real interest in or knowledge of UFO sightings. Their skeptical interests may be in ghosts or psychics or Bigfoot. Asking these particular skeptics about UFOs is no more reliable than asking your plumber. However, some skeptics are interested in UFOs and have amassed a broad knowledge from astronomy, physics, meteorology, aviation, psychology, physiology etc. Rather than specialising in one field — although some may be professionals — they seek answers from numerous fields. They perform the task of interviewing the UFO observer and visiting the site of the event. They consult the astronomers, the physicists, the pilots, the air traffic controllers, the psychologists, the police etc and analysing all this information they try and explain what the UFO observer saw. And in at least nine out of ten cases rational, prosaic, natural explanations are reached. Skeptics interested in the UFO phenomena have the advantage of pooling knowledge from many different fields, whereas the local astronomical society — while they can tell you where planets are in the sky etc — often have no interest in UFOs. Likewise the local air traffic controllers can tell you what planes are around but again usually have no interest in or knowledge of UFOs. And neither astronomer nor air traffic controller knows anything about the delusions the mind can create, for that you need a psychologist, who in turn knows nothing about the movements of planets, meteors or local aircraft. Because UFOs can be caused by many completely unrelated things, for example astronomical, meteorological, aviation, psychological etc, no one "expert" has the required expertise to say that all UFO enquiries should be directed to them. No particular expert — an astronomer for example — will solve a UFO sighting if they insist on explaining it using their field of knowledge — like astronomy — when it might have been caused by an aircraft or, as you say, swamp gas. This is where skeptics have an advantage, being prepared to give numerous "experts" the chance to offer a solution and selecting the most likely or rejecting them all. But not all skeptics are created equal, some will be fonts of knowledge regarding UFOs, others know next to nothing and some shouldn't even call themselves skeptics. You need to choose wisely.

   As we noted in our article, there is a place in NZ that claims to be able to help people with their UFO sightings. That organisation is UFOCUS NZ, but as we also explained they are made up of committed believers who see aliens everywhere. They lack the knowledge or objectivity to investigate UFO sightings or counsel UFO observers as to what they may have seen.

   As regards the two UFO sightings I've had, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I said that I managed to observe them long enough to determine exactly what they were. They ceased being a UFO — an unidentified thing in the sky — and became an IFO — an identified, perfectly natural thing in the sky. For a short time though both sightings were highly unusual, resembled nothing I'd seen before — except in alien movies — and didn't match up with how things normally behave. Briefly, the first was an oval shape, solid in appearance, silvery with coloured flashing lights along the bottom, which was hovering about 100 metres up. It appeared to be about the size of a bus about a kilometre away, and I saw it in broad daylight.

   As I watched it hover in the sky I suddenly discovered what it was — a Boeing 737 approaching the nearby airport. Slowing down to land, it was coming directly towards me, and thus appeared to be hovering. The angle of sunlight caused its body to almost glow, while its tail and wings were completely invisible. It was only when it turned slightly that suddenly the plane's body, wings and tail all became clearly visible and it stopped appearing to hover and started to fly like planes do.

   My second UFO sighting was in an unfamiliar place just after dark and I noticed a bright light at some distance above the horizon. It was moving erratically, one minute travelling horizontally, then it would stop momentary and then travel in the opposite direction, loosing height slightly as it went. Sometimes the light would switch off then back on, and as I watched it stop and hover it was suddenly joined by a second light, then it became one light again and darted off to the left or right. It didn't seem that far away, but there was no sound. It continued this zigzag pattern, as if it was scanning the ground for something, occasionally hovering, momentarily splitting into two lights and back to one, then near the horizon it just suddenly vanished.

   So what was this strange light in the sky? Simple really, it was a car driving a zigzag road down the side of a steep nearby hill. The darkness meant the hill blended into the sky and was invisible, as was the car, but as it travelled left and right one headlight could be seen. As has it went behind various obstacles the light appeared to switch off. When it turned a sharp corner to reverse direction, it would be coming directly towards me and appeared to hover. This is when its two headlights became visible, becoming one again when it travelled perpendicular to me. When the car got near what I thought was the horizon it disappeared because the road was no longer in my line of sight. Because I'd "forgotten" that there was a hill where I was looking, and because I had no idea that there was a road on the face of it anyway, the thought that what I was seeing might be a car didn't make any sense and wasn't initially considered. Cars live on the ground not in the sky. However, eventually I discovered (and confirmed in the daylight) that there was a hill there and a road and the explanation of car headlights fitted my sighting perfectly.

   In hindsight it's obvious what I was looking at and a little embarrassing that I was unable to recognise the objects immediately. It seems so simple now, and no doubt many UFO believers will say what I saw wasn't a "real" UFO sighting since it was just a plane and a car. Also some might argue that I only confused the plane for a UFO because the sighting only lasted a brief time, around ten seconds, and that you can't describe everything that you don't immediately recognise as a UFO. Yet let's remember that most UFO sightings are very brief, and then they're over. The air traffic controller who is part of UFOCUS NZ only saw the object that made him an alien and UFO believer for 1.5 seconds!!! The main difference with my sighting and most others is that after my brief amazement and confusion, the object that I was watching didn't suddenly vanish and I was given the opportunity to observe it further. If I had gone to get a camera or a friend it would have seemed to have "vanished" when I returned, and all I would have been left with is the image of a hovering, flashing, "flying saucer" like object. An object that must have departed at some phenomenal speed while emitting no sound. A real mystery.

   But this is the nature of all UFOs, they are only mysterious when you don't know what they are. If you don't find out then they remain mysterious, but if like me and nearly all UFO observers, once you discover what the cause really was, it is often quite mundane. Unfortunately some people only get to experience the mysterious part of a sighting, and for whatever reason, they never discover the real cause of their sighting. It's like reading a murder mystery and then discovering that the last chapter of the book is missing. You never get to find out who done it. You spend the rest of your life guessing who the murderer might have been, just as UFO believers spend their days guessing who might have flown the craft they saw — aliens, ghosts, Jesus, black ops military, beings from another dimension, citizens from Atlantis?

   Had I not discovered what I had seen, you are correct in saying that as a skeptic I would simply insist that strange as it was, I couldn't identify what I saw "and until I have further evidence the jury is out". I would not insist I had seen an alien spacecraft or some unknown controlled craft. No one is justified in jumping to this conclusion. Both my UFO sightings were — initially — as weird and mysterious as any other UFO sighting. The first was the typical flying saucer shape, hovering with flashing lights. The second was a bright light in the sky performing strange aerial manoeuvres and "ejecting" another light, perhaps an alien probe, before instantly disappearing, perhaps due to fantastic acceleration. I'm sure I could get my sightings published in any UFO magazine — as long as I don't tell people what they really were. I was lucky enough to discover the source of my confusion, but unfortunately many UFO observers aren't. Another UFO sighting I "experienced" involved a friend who alerted me to a bright light in the sky just above the horizon. He said it was just hovering there, and that it wasn't a star or anything like that because it was too bright and even though it was dusk, there were no other stars in the sky. Following him outside I immediately recognised it as a planet, probably Venus I said. To prove this to him, we noted where it was in the sky and I took him inside and showed him on my computer's starchart program that Venus should be exactly where the bright, hovering light was. I also showed him where it would move to during the night, and we regularly went out and confirmed that it was following the path Venus would take. My friend was initially convinced that he was seeing a UFO, something out of the ordinary, and certainly not an astronomical object. I wonder how he would have described his UFO sighting to others if I hadn't set him straight? Evidence shows that nearly all UFO sightings take the form of my friend's, that is, that the UFO observer is initially convinced that he or she has seen something that is out of the ordinary. Then on discussing it with others, someone provides the explanation of what they actually saw, and it was perfectly normal after all. No exotic explanation involving mysterious forces or secretive government agencies or advanced aliens is required. From thousands of sightings, the handful that defy natural explanations remain unsolved because the available evidence — a blurry photo or a vague recollection or a description of a fleeting image — is simply insufficient to a make reliable judgement. Without exception, every UFO sighting, no matter how mysterious and seemingly unsolvable its description appears, when enough information has been provided and sufficient research performed, they all produce rational, prosaic explanations. Even honest UFO believers acknowledge that most sightings have ordinary explanations and that many that were touted for years as genuine mysteries have now been solved or exposed as hoaxes. However I recently watched a program on TV called "The World's Ten Best UFO Sightings" (or something similar), and yet the viewer wasn't informed that most had been explained or exposed as hoaxes, and the one or two that remain mysteries do so because the evidence is just so slim. Bogus programs like this convince the uninformed that there is good evidence for alien craft, when in fact they are just as devious as programs that say ghosts are real or that psychics can solve murders. They are made for people who want their fantasies confirmed rather than examined.

   Now to your father's sighting. You ask "So John has my dad seen a UFO or did he witness Venus, swamp gas, migrating Godwits, a crop duster doing the late shift". To start with, yes your father definitely saw a UFO. By this I mean he honestly saw something in the sky that he couldn't identify. Regardless of what it was — Venus, Godwits or a flying saucer — as long as your father is unable to identify it, it remains a UFO. If however by UFO you or he really mean alien spacecraft or secretive, controlled, highly advanced craft of some description, then no, he hasn't seen a UFO, since he has identified the object he saw as a secretive, controlled, highly advanced craft of some description. This is no different than a UFO being identified as a planet or fireball or helicopter or weather balloon. As soon as someone makes this judgement, then the UFO title disappears. If your father has identified his UFO as some physical craft — albeit of unknown design and origin — then the UFO title disappears. But like the astronomer who must provide convincing reasons and evidence as to why a UFO sighting was actually Venus, your father must likewise provide convincing reasons and evidence as to why it was a controlled craft.

   You say "He describes the UFO as a vehicle because it was solid and moving in a controlled manner. It was flying in the sense that it was up in the air and moving but it did not move like a conventional aircraft which relies on airspeed or thrust to stay aloft."

   I fail to see how people can assert that flight patterns that don't resemble what we normally consider controlled flight are actually good evidence for controlled flight. Surely it should be just the opposite? Flight patterns that appear erratic, random and/or death inducing should suggest the whims of nature rather than conscious control. Is a leaf as it flutters down from a branch moving in a controlled manner? Is its left right gently descending zigzag motion controlled flight? And remember that a leaf's quick reversal of direction is often what is described for UFOs. What about a weather balloon ascending into the atmosphere, a meteor blazing across the night sky or a child's runaway balloon flitting left then right and up and down in a seemingly haphazard manner? A manner again reminiscent of many UFO flight patterns. Weird flight patterns observed in nature generally suggest just the opposite to controlled flight.

   And all your father can really say is that it "appeared" solid, in a similar way that the moon "appears" like a disc rather than a sphere. I know this might seem pedantic, but since we are talking about an unidentified "object" we shouldn't use words that suggest we know more about it than we actually do.

   I suspect that you take none of those explanations you mention seriously, and I agree that none are likely to have caused the sighting. For the record, Venus, the planet most often confused as a UFO was not visible in the sky in March 1995. Swamp gas doesn't fit your description, Godwits to my knowledge don't glow or have onboard lights, and neither Godwits or crop dusters remain stationary in the sky. However there was a bright planet in the sky in March that was low in the sky and was located in the very direction you indicated. If it was a clear night Mars would have been quite noticeable directly through the windscreen as they drove towards Amberley. It would have remained motionless but it wouldn't have appeared green. However some cars do have a green tinted strip across the top of their windscreens which are invisible at night but do make objects viewed through them green. Did your father's car have such a strip? Of course Mars couldn't be confused with multiple lights and a large object that moved across the road. However it has been demonstrated in many explained sightings that people's attention often moves from one light source to another completely different one without them realising it. Contrary to what people say, they normally do not watch a light continuously, especially when driving. The light may go behind a cloud or disappear completely and when people look up again, they then search for the missing light, and often settle on another light in a slightly different direction that is higher, or larger or a different colour. They simply believe this means the light — or craft — has moved closer. Some would admit that Mars might explain the first part of the sighting but not the second, so obviously Mars can be discounted. Likewise some might agree that a night flying helicopter might explain parts of the close encounter but not the stationary green light in the sky, so the helicopter suggestion can be ruled out. But often there is not one simple answer but a combination of things that make up a sighting, especially one that lasts for some time. You don't say how bright the original light was or how big, say compared to the stars. Nor do you say how far away they thought it was when they first spotted it, or how long they drove before it turned into multiple lights and then appeared to be triangular. Seemingly, when they first spotted it, it was reasonably high in the sky yet when they got close it was only tens of metres above the ground. I know you're only giving me a quick description of what happened, but this means that I have a host of unanswered questions that prevent me from saying what your father might have seen. A true investigation would retrace the route looking for artificial lights, determine exactly where the sighting began and ended, research helicopter flights for that time, eg air ambulance, get your stepmother's view of the event, interview those in the Loburn district for their view etc etc. However few people talk about these events when they occur. When and if they are eventually recounted there are so many missing details that are needed to solve the case that they usually remain a mystery. Which is a shame.

   Many people believe that no one will take them seriously if they report a UFO sighting, and so they keep quiet, and then they get annoyed years later because no one has explained their UFO sighting. Unfortunately some people bring this potential of derision upon themselves. Rather than just honestly say they saw some thing that they can't explain, detail want they saw objectively, and ask for opinions, all some people want is confirmation that they have seen aliens in a flying saucer. It is this firm belief that they know what they saw and that any explanation had better include aliens or at the very least a super top secret aircraft that resembles a flying saucer. UFO sightings can happen anywhere and to anyone, but it's some people's desire to automatically associate them with aliens that causes others to giggle. It's like those morons on the TV news that keep proclaiming, "It's a miracle. Praise God. Thank you Jesus", every time someone survives an accident or recovers from a serious illness. They continue to see God's involvement in perfectly natural events, just as UFO believers continue to see alien involvement in any sighting in the sky that they can't personally explain. If UFO observers want to be taken seriously then they have to demonstrate that they are simply looking for an explanation, and that they will be perfectly willing to accept a prosaic, rational, natural explanation if it fits the available evidence. However too many UFO observers take the stance that if they believe the evidence is inconclusive then they're going to side with the alien answer rather than take a stance of neutrality. Their default position is that it was aliens until proven otherwise. Rational people do not look on this attitude kindly.

   You mention that one possible explanation for UFOs is the "terrestrial hypothesis", that the military or some covert branch of government has developed and is secretly operating what the public might describe as "flying saucer" type craft. I believe there are number of problems with this scenario.

   Firstly I do agree that the military will have all manner of things that we are not aware of and that they only release innovations when they are already working on the next version. And I know you didn't assert that the military has had this advanced technology for centuries, but this is the first problem.

   If the UFO sightings can be explained by human developed "flying saucer" type craft rather than aliens, then we have had them for centuries. UFO believers claim that these craft are mentioned in the Bible and throughout history, and were already highly advanced during WWII at the very least. UFO sightings haven't just started in the last few years. This means that the military or government developed highly advanced "flying saucer" type craft long before they developed radar, the transistor, the jet engine, the computer, nuclear power, spy satellites, GPS or lasers, all of which they were willing to divulge the existence of to the public as they developed them. But for some reason they refused to tell us about their new aircraft propulsion system. Note that this is the only revolutionary thing that these craft seem to possess — a new type of engine. Stories from alien abductees aside, there is nothing to suggest that these manmade "flying saucers" have better weapons, navigation systems, toilets or more legroom.

   Not only that, they refused to even use them secretly, even in war. Not in WWII, not in Korea, not in Vietnam or Somalia where they were forced to make embarrassing retreats and not in Iraq or Afghanistan where they are again losing the battle. UFOs would be a formidable weapon since they nearly always mange to avoid radar detection — this is what they're trying to achieve with their stealth aircraft (obviously a different branch of the military) — and are capable of phenomenal speeds and manoeuvres. Only very rarely are they ever sighted carrying out whatever it is that they are doing. Thus a military UFO could swoop in and destroy a target without ever being detected. A building or enemy fighter jet would just suddenly explode without any obvious cause. As you say, the military love keeping their best weapons secret, and they could easily use this weapon and still keep it secret. If pushed they could just say it was a new version of cruise missile, which again they are happy to tell us about. Yet there is no history of this happening, of targets exploding for no reason. There are many things they could use these "flying saucer" craft for, yet there is no indication that they are. They are, as you say, using "Vietnam era ordinance" and getting their asses kicked. Why have UFO craft and not use them? They could still keep them secret and just say the surveillance information was obtained from spy satellites and drones and the destruction caused by cruise missiles and stealth bombers. They could win the war without having to reveal their secret technology. Also believers claim that they are testing these craft at the secret military base Area 51, but if they've been flying since Biblical times, or at least the 1940s, then you'd think they would be perfected by now rather than still in development mode. And one wonders how they fly so well without computers when our primitive fighter jets require them?

   Anyone that claims that the "military" has only developed these craft in the last decade or so, must also believe that all historic UFO sightings and those deemed by UFO believers to be genuine, are all bogus, since they all occurred prior to the craft's development. Yet the modern day UFO sightings all resemble the historic UFO sightings, so if historic sightings are bogus, then their similar modern day sightings are most likely bogus too. Whatever natural phenomena caused the historic sightings most likely caused the recent ones as well.

   Of course to take the opposite stance, if one believes that the famous historic UFO cases are actually genuine, then it must be explained how some group — military, government, mad scientist — could develop such an advanced technology prior to the development of our present science and technology. And it must be explained why they keep this relatively simple and unimportant thing — a vehicle propulsion system — secret while divulging other more earth-shattering discoveries. Like nuclear bombs and biological weapons.

   Another problem is with where UFOs are seen — everywhere. Let's assume that, the Americans for example, have developed flying saucers, why then are UFOs spotted not just in the USA but in Russia, Japan, Mexico, Australia, India — in fact all over the world — even in Kaikoura and Amberley, NZ? You state that the military keeps its new weapons secret, but it seems every country on the planet gets to view the UFOs. Are American UFO pilots taking their top secret craft for joyrides around the world? What might they have found so fascinating in a paddock near Amberley? For a group that is desperately trying to keep the existence of their flying saucer technology secret, they are certainly going about it in a strange way. Like why do they like to chase aircraft and cars and risk being seen? Our planes have onboard radar and can detect approaching objects, so why could the secret craft your father saw not detect his car approaching and move away before he got there or simply switch off it lights? And why do these highly advanced craft even need bright lights? I thought they were trying to remain hidden? Our "primitive" planes don't need lights to fly and our military pilots have night vision goggles, so why are these advanced UFOs stuck with shining spotlights around? And why did this craft fly leisurely right over the top of your father instead of immediately fleeing in the opposite direction in seconds as he said it later did, but only after it gave your father a good view? It's as if they want to be exposed.

   Another problem with a convert group having "flying saucers" is that from which all conspiracy theories suffer. It is unbelievable that an endeavour that would require enormous resources, manpower and intellectual input to develop and maintain could be kept secret. Not one of the scientists or pilots or the hundreds of thousands of lowly technicians, workers or security guards on the secret bases have blabbed to the media. Yes there have been people who claimed to work at the likes of Area 51 on alien flying saucers, but they have all be exposed as cranks. And yes the military did keep their stealth aircraft like the F117 relatively secret for a while, but only because they kept it isolated to one or two secret bases. They didn't risk flying it over downtown Moscow, Washington DC or Kaikoura. And quite frankly, there's nothing all that revolutionary about the stealth aircraft. All they've done is reduce — not eliminate like alien cloaking devices evidently do — the radar signature of the plane. The engines, weapons, navigation computers, construction materials etc are just natural innovations from previous designs. You mention that the likes of Boeing are researching antigravity drives, but why would they bother if the Americans already have something similar? Again it is unbelievable that all the scientists and aerospace engineers that work for Boeing have no knowledge or hint of the work being done by their colleagues in the military, some of which will be friends or ex-college roommates. Some may have even worked for the military. Even at the height of the Cold War American and Soviet civilian scientists were still exchanging scientific research. It is unbelievable that the world's top physicists have no inkling on how to make an antigravity drive yet military physicists worked it all out years ago. It's unbelievable that these military physicists have worked out a way to circumvent gravity and inertia yet can't make it fly without putting bright flashing lights all over it.

   I'm glad you find the alien abduction phenomena "hard to deal with". Many that claim they've met aliens or have been abducted are delusional I believe. You're right that ridiculing these people is not the answer, although listening to their stories can provide many a good laugh. I don't think they should be given a break though, and by this I mean allowed to write articles and books, speak on TV talk shows and generally spread their delusion without being challenged to front up with some evidence. It is these people that are providing future UFO observers with the bogus information that might lead them to falsely conclude that their sighting involved aliens. These people should be treated no differently than those that stand on street corners with a sandwich board that proclaims, "Repent! The End of the World is Nigh".

   If you described to a friend an unusual bird you saw and asked if they knew what it was, no one would ridicule you, or at least shouldn't. Likewise no one should ridicule someone for asking about something unusual they saw in the night sky. I believe many people fail to take UFO observers seriously when the observers bypass the investigation of what they might have seen and go straight to interpreting their sighting as aliens or secret controlled craft. It's a bit like the above bird spotter expressing the belief that the unusual bird he saw might have been the mythical Phoenix or the extinct moa. When people opt for explanations that have no evidential or rational support, then they can't expect to be taken seriously. No UFO observer should be surprised that listeners giggled if he suggested the cause of his sighting was Santa out test flying his sleigh. But many believe that aliens, unlike Santa, are almost as likely an explanation as meteors, bright planets and night flying helicopters. They're wrong.

   You say that UFO observers "could very well have witnessed something truly amazing", but then so too could have people driving along Loch Ness (monster), or tramping in California (Bigfoot), or having a near death experience (Jesus), or staying in an old castle (ghosts), or shopping in a mall in Kentucky (Elvis). The belief that aliens "could" be the explanation for UFO sightings has taken on a respectability it doesn't deserve. It's no good saying it "could" be true. This stance is similar to creationists arguing with evolutionists that either explanation "could" be true so both should be treated as equals, both should be taught in science classes. Astrologists could argue that either astrology or astronomy "could" be true, people could argue that maybe the Holocaust deniers "could" be right about the Holocaust never happening. A million and one things "could" be true, but we have to ignore that and concentrate on what the evidence suggests "is" true. And at present all the best scientific evidence indicates that we are not being visited by aliens, that UFO sightings are not alien craft and nor are they human developed "flying saucers" built independently or reverse-engineered from crashed alien craft.

   At the end of the day nearly all UFO sightings are eventually revealed as prosaic, natural phenomena, and the handful of unexplained ones most likely have similar causes, if only we had more information about them. Believing they are caused by alien spaceships with faulty cloaking devices or covert military craft lacking the ability to turn their lights off, both of which enjoy buzzing isolated people in rural settings, is I believe grasping at explanations that can't be supported.

   It seems that both of us Todd are looking for explanations as to what UFOs are. It's a shame that the general dismissive attitude towards sightings and the reluctance of people to talk about them means that sightings go uninvestigated. More open minded investigation could explain many sightings, educate the public, for example by revealing astronomy facts, and may even reveal some unknown natural phenomena.

   Thanks again for your comments, and hopefully my reply has revealed why I take UFO sightings seriously, but not some of their explanations.

Return to Article

Add a Comment