I enjoy reading about UFOs, but sometimes I’ve been disappointed to find a lack of consistency. The information is too scattered.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a centralized wiki for UFO reports, big foot reports, etc. where people could go to see all the evidence and debate pro and con? I think it would help make the debate more responsible.
(Sorry this post is so short.)
Never apologize for a short post. The more succinctly you can make your points, the better. 
Occam
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a centralized wiki for UFO reports, big foot reports, etc. where people could go to see all the evidence and debate pro and con? I think it would help make the debate more responsible.As long as people stick to verifiable evidence it would be OK. But with that caveat UFOs and Bigfoot reports have exactly the amount of wikis they deserve.
Thanks, I’ve never heard of the UFO Congress (now I can buy my tickets early )
What brought this topic to mind was a UFO case where something was apparently spotted visually near Bush’s ranch and also tracked on radar in restricted air space. This case was described in “UFOs and Government” by Swords and Powell which generally seemed to be a very responsible UFO book. However I later read “Texas UFO Tales” by Cox and Roderick which said the radar data was simply cherry-picked noise. (I may be getting the Bush ranch case mixed with the Stephensville case - sorry if that is the case.) Regardless, I believe Swords and Powell were genuinely trying to be factual yet they did not know the radar evidence was bunk. A central wiki for UFO debate would make it easier for people who want the truth to find it.
There is a website I came across called UFO watchdog that exposes some of the UFO hoaxers.
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/
Imagine a wiki of debunking research on many different UFO cases where UFO believers could also include their best counter arguments. Wikipedia has a listing of UFOs, but they are just summaries.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I remember seeing an interview with some retired Air Force guys who had a UFO claim based on some slowed-down footage of missile debris. The show aired it; it was a piece of a missile, and at one point a second object entered the frame, circled the missile piece a couple of times, and discharged a white line at the missile piece. Neat little video. When asked if their claim may not be what it appeared to be, the claimants became very emotionally defensive very quickly. I think that it is a fairly common theme in UFO sightings, and in people in general for that matter, that people choose to make an emotional connection before they have the chance to make the proper inquiries. Once that emotional connection is made, it’s extremely hard to continue with objective investigation. With those retired Air Force guys, they probably never considered the possibility that the second object was simply another piece of the missile debris being influenced by static electricity.
I’ve heard about the missile video you mentioned several times on UFO documentaries, but I don’t remember hearing the debunking explanation - even in passing. Some producers may deliberately ignore the debunking to make their “documentary” more appealing, but others might simply not know about the debunking.
Sometimes the debunking explanations turn out to be bunk too. The Marfa Lights is an example. I read that some people demonstrated a connection between the Marfa Lights and headlights on a nearby highway. Later when I read “Texas UFO Tales” I learned that there are apparently some lights that can’t be explained by car headlights. There is a retired engineer who has been recording them with camera equipment because he thinks the lights are an unknown natural phenomena that scientists need to study.
But it’s like whack-a-mole if there isn’t a centralized place for UFO information.
I've heard about the missile video you mentioned several times on UFO documentaries, but I don't remember hearing the debunking explanation - even in passing. Some producers may deliberately ignore the debunking to make their "documentary" more appealing, but others might simply not know about the debunking. Sometimes the debunking explanations turn out to be bunk too. The Marfa Lights is an example. I read that some people demonstrated a connection between the Marfa Lights and headlights on a nearby highway. Later when I read "Texas UFO Tales" I learned that there are apparently some lights that can't be explained by car headlights. There is a retired engineer who has been recording them with camera equipment because he thinks the lights are an unknown natural phenomena that scientists need to study. But it's like whack-a-mole if there isn't a centralized place for UFO information.I don't think that particular story is debunkable because the event is rather hard to reproduce. It's more just a matter of seeing something extremely rare happen and jumping to causal conclusions too quickly. If you've ever seen shows like Ancient Aliens, I think that the same phenomenon happens with people who find unusual things in the ground and attribute them to aliens or bigfoots or things like that - making the emotional connection before looking over all of the possibilities. Ancient Aliens, in particular, I find to be an absolutely horrible program because it seems to be designed to be legally correct (using phrases like "isn't it possible that . . . ") while depending on it's viewers to conveniently overlook those kinds of legal phrases in favor of the "juicy" alien conspiracies. I've caught my father watching that show occasionally. We both agree that it's horrible, but he derives entertainment value from it anyway. Mostly because they do go to some cool locations.
An Experimental Analysis of the Marfa Lights] (pdf) by The Society of Physics Students at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Their conclusion:
All of the mystery lights observed by this group on the nights of 11 and 13 May 2005 can be reliably attributed to automobile headlights traveling along US 67 between Marfa and Presidio, TX.
An Experimental Analysis of the Marfa Lights] (pdf) by The Society of Physics Students at the University of Texas at Dallas. Their conclusion:Thanks for the link. I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting. My own theory is that most people who report seeing Marfa lights are simply seeing some optical effect from car headlights and the local people are using this illusion to attract some tourism. But according to "Texas UFO Tales" a retired engineer (James Bunnell) has been recording Marfa lights over many years and some of the recordings don't fit the headlight explanation. Apparently Bunnell has written some books, but I haven't read them. There are also the Hessdalen lights.All of the mystery lights observed by this group on the nights of 11 and 13 May 2005 can be reliably attributed to automobile headlights traveling along US 67 between Marfa and Presidio, TX.