It sounds like an oxymoron but it's true. Channel 5's 'Britain's Closest Encounters' series (wednesday's 8pm) certainly started with a remarkably balanced account of the Berwyn Mountain incident (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_...n_UFO_incident).
In essence, an earthquake prompted people in a Welsh village to go outside at night where they saw green lights in the sky. How this became a 'crashed UFO' incident is difficult to say but it did.
The lights were probably earthquake lights or bolides. Despite an excellent analysis by Andy Roberts, Jenny Randles and others, some ufologists and conspiracy theorists maintain that bodies werewe retrieved from a saucer crash.
There were also some good cameo bits, like a video showing what looked like an out of focus street light which never changed much despite the commentary by the photographer insisting contemporaneously that it did!
I just hope it wasn't a once off and that the same high standard will be maintained for next week's investigation of the Broad Haven Triangle.
PS: The Berwyn case was compared with Roswell. There was an interesting parallel they didn't mention on the TV show. In both cases, the incidents only became a UFO cause celebre after years of indifference! By then, of course, witness stories had time to ...
This series continues to impress with such guests as David Clarke, John Rimmer and Ian Ridpath. Last night's episode included the Orford Ness lighthouse incident, better known as the Rendlesham case. This case attracted so many 'side incidents' that it became lengendary. However, the basic central incidents are quite easy to explain. It is a classic example of how the publicity, rumours and the resulting flood of UFO watchers to an area inflated the perception oif the original incident.
Blast. I keep missing this one.
Must try harder: 5/10
I watched a little bit but wasn't giving it my full attention. Reports of flashing lights without any actual evidence (video, photographs) doesn't really interest me I'm afraid.
That's a rather narrow view of evidence. If you exclude witness evidence there would be very little left to consider when investigating UFOs (and indeed ghosts and other paranormal phenomena).Originally Posted by FarSideOfTheMoon
I think that one person seeing something odd, on one occasion doesn't carry much weight as evidence (though try telling them that!). However, several people seeing the same thing, either at the same time or separately, does. Most of the sightings mentioned on the programme involved multiple witnesses.
That does not mean, obviously, that there was anything otherworldly about what they saw. It does, however, make it worth trying to find an explanation. In most cases, a perfectly plausible natural explanation WAS found through investigation.
Interestingly, videos, photographs, etc, where they exist for such cases, are often just as ambiguous as evidence as eye witness accounts. I guess if you saw a UFO, took a photo of it, took it home and zoomed on it to see a balloon, you wouldn't give it to an investigator. Generally, the photos are of poor quality, which why they are ambiguous.
Last edited by Mulder; 11th July 2008 at 10:59 AM.
Exactly my point, I think there is a limit we have reached with eye witness evidence on UFOs. It's just he same vague reports again and again.
It's the fact that there are normally the same type of plausible explanations that makes it less interesting for me.
I think you're just giving me more ammo to be even less interested in future
I do genuinely feel underwhelmed by UFO reports these days. I get the feeling so are most people.
What I find fascinating is the question - WHY do people report UFOs? This leads to other key questions like: why do people report Venus as an alien space craft? Does it genuinely appear to them as a space craft? And why do they think it's a space craft and not a star, balloon, helicopter or a flying carpet?
It's all to do with perception which is a fascinating subject. As in so much science, it is looking at the extreme examples that demonstrates the general principles.
Actually the nature of the reports has changed over time.
A vast number of people claimed to have seen an alien space craft with flashing red and green lights on the underside in the '50s and '60s. This has almost died out.
The recent availability and use of "chinese lanterns" (flying paper lanterns with a small flame inside) has created a new type of "unexplainable" sighting.
In the '80s and into the '90s there was the massive increase in abduction fantasies which have almost gone away again now.
Venus and The Moon remain popular.
I know... I'm still agreeing with your basic point.
I agree that this is fascinating. I see things moving around in the shrubs at the end of my garden; usually identifiable as birds or a cat, occasionally a fox. Why, in the 10% of cases when I can't tell what it is I'm looking at, would I assume it is a pixie? And yet that is basically what these people do, they see a light in the sky that they can't positively identify as a star or helicopter, and assume that it is an alien spacecraft.
Other 'new stuff' causing UFO sightings in recent decades includes: hang gliders, microlights, paragliders, kite surfers, toy balloons (some shaped like flying saucers), laser light displays, Iridium flares, UAVs, radio controlled model planes and even 'model' flying saucers! In addition, there are many photos of UFOs that show insects and birds, lens flare, etc. It is little wonder there are lots of UFOs being reported. And then there is YouTube! The question that fascinates me is, why do they get reported as alien space craft?
It's more exciting than saying "I don't know what it was".
A lot of people would say they saw an alien craft even if deep down they really thought otherwise.
Ignorance. If it's not a plane or bird it must be a spaceship.
How many reports are not even based on any sighting at all. I'm sure some people would make the whole thing up just so they have a story to tell.
I think common to all is they want to see a UFO. Otherwise Croydon Bob's garden creature example would prevail, why assume the most unlikely?
In Croydon.... I'd probably go with "Wild Chav"
Cool! I'm a UFO!
The original point of this post, which seems to have got lost a bit along the way, is that this programme appears practically unique in having a balanced view of UFOs. Sure there are ET believers on it but the overall impression left is that UFOs are explainable as natural phenomena - which, in my experience, is a fair summary of the available evidence.
I know several people who have studied ufology for decades and they have all come to the conclusion that there is no solid evidence of ET involvement. I expect most of you are thinking 'so what?' but there are lots of programmes and films out there which give the distinct impression that ET is involved (look at YouTube). If only TV producers would take this brave approach, based on the evidence rather than popular belief, in other anomalous subjects, the world would be a better informed place.
You might not find the programme compelling to watch but be pleased that it even exists.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks