astrophotographer wrote:As many know, I don't think there is anything to UFOs because I have never seen one in all my years of astronomical experience and there has never been a UFO event that was monitored by scientific instruments that could not be explained as something else. That being said, I am open to the possibility that I might need to change my position if GOOD SOLID VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE can be produced. So far, nothing of the sort has been done to my satisfaction. Lots of mysteries (that could have more mundane solutions than ET) but nothing conclusive.
Not to quibble over a trifling matter but there have been many UFO events that were monitored by scientific instruments that originally could not be explained or only have hypothetical explanations to this day. Currently over the last two decades there has been reported a small but nonetheless preponderance of evidence that most of the previously unexplained 'UFO' reports observed by both laypersons and scientific instruments seem to be energetic and highly organized atmospheric plasmas. For instance the Hessdalen phenomena that has been scientifically studied for over 25 years now shows that at least 95% of all observations that were deemed 'unknown' originally show/or fit the profile of atmospheric plasmas, and more significantly before this conclusion much more than 5% of these phenomena had prompted researchers to suggest hypotheses such as covert military craft or even the ETH which the preponderance of evidence now shows these were also just highly organized atmospheric plasmas that have high strangeness values.
http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My take is that the "UFO" Phenomena should be taken seriously despite the fact that "more mundane solutions than ET" are available. Clearly "E.T." isn't the only hypothesis and the data available shows the light spectrum involved in many sightings is consistent with plasmas.
It's very likely due to variations in regional distribution that many laypersons are likely seeing these plasmas, and they may be assuming that they are seeing "E.T." spacecraft, even while self proclaimed 'trained' observers such as Tim have never seen these atmospheric plasmas and are likely therefore dismissing them completely in error because no "E.T. Spacecraft" are observed but neither are atmospheric plasmas observed. e.g. Several people failed to observe Einstein's relativity correctly but once it was accurately observed it was shown not to be falsified.
The same should be true here. A failure to observe atmospheric plasmas does not mean atmospheric plasmas do not exist or can not be observed. The fact that some scientists have observed them falsifies the idea that they do not exist and the failure to observe one for yourself is and of itself is not a falsification. See the MOD's 2006 'Condign' report.