British To Release UFO Files

Sean Stidman writes "Looks like the Brits are planning to release their secret files on many UFO sightings, including the famous Rendlesham Forest incident. These files should be ready for download by the end of this week, which I guess means by tomorrow. Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?"

Comments

Interested but skeptical

[aaronhurd]

This will definitely be interesting to see, but as always with governments releasing "secret files," I am skeptical. Certainly these files, if they are legitimate, are not the complete collection, but rather very carefully selected tidbits from the massive archives of British intelligence.

UFO != Alien Life

[peterprior]

I wish people would stop thinking "UFO! OMG! Aliens!"..

A UFO is exactly that... an Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't mean it's from another planet, it just means there was an object in the air, and some bystander with a fuzzy camcorder at best couldn't work out what it was.

cool

[zogger]

--glad to see the brits *maybe* releasing some info. will remain to be seen how hokey or how real it is. Spain and some other nations have released a little as well.

Link url to blackvault, the largest UFO site on the web, among other things contains thousands of US freedom of information act documents, and yes, there's a boatload of redacted out content, as in "nothing to see here, we just blacked this out because... uhhh... ya see.. I mean..., well because we can!" This site is BIG, well done, and thorough, I recommend it to serious researchers and enthusiasts AND skeptics.

http://www.bvalphaserver.com/

the Black Vault

The web master started this site I *think* when he was 16, I've been visiting off and on for years.

Here's my disclaimer. Some of ya'all might have noted my frequent reference to "government" as more or less a pack of liars. One of the two primary reasons (initially that is) I have held this position most of my life is because of "ufos". when I was a teenager some friends and I saw one very close up, very close. Nope, no drugs or booze involved to dispel any trolling. It was not swamp gas, nmoon on a ducks back, some helicopter, or any other explanation other than -no explanation. Some seriously advanced flying "something'. To describe it , it was a large glowing oval shaped whatever, it flew down the block just above the houses, stopped over a house closeby, hung out, then slowly went down the block, toward the end it started to climb then WHAM took off like mach bignumber and was gone. Tell ya whut you just do NOT forget things like this. So, I start reading about UFOs,and I notice the government more or less says they don't exist except as various lame reasons. Well, too bad, 'cuz I know this is a whopper. Score one for destroying a yong man's trust in government, already shaken by the kennedy whack, then oswalds rubout which was obvious to anyone with an iq above 50 as "eliminating some embarassing evidence".

government=liars when it comes to certain things. This is IMO of course, but in the decades since I have seen no evidence to persuade me otherwise, in fact,I'd say the evidence FOR ufo's as being something "other" is better than for "honesty in government".

Exactly what they are, no idea, demons to secret nazi craft, time travellers to interstellar visitors, angels to secret gov blackops-no idea, none. I tend to more think the correct answer is "all of the above".

Re:cool

[geek]

" Exactly what they are, no idea, demons to secret nazi craft, time travellers to interstellar visitors, angels to secret gov blackops-no idea, none. I tend to more think the correct answer is "all of the above"."

Or it's none of the above and YOU'RE the liar. I trust elected officials with college educations and clean background checks with top level security clearance a lot more than 16 year old kids running websites.

No offense, maybe you are right, maybe they are right, maybe I am wrong. I know it doesn't matter since you can't prove any of it. When you can I'll eat my words.

Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO

[Wraithlyn]

Thank you for responding. Yes, I've read the lighthouse theory. It's good, and raises some questions, but it simply can't explain all the observations, and it dismisses any observations that cannot be explained by its hypothesis as being "a marvellous product of human imagination."

Here is a very logical and well written essay on UFO skepticism. In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the section entitled, "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics", roughly two thirds of the way down. I shall quote it here:

"Occam's Razor and the Skeptics

The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and then declare that it was really Venus."

Do you see what I'm getting at? The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath". It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy." It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."

It can account for the presence of radiation, the depressions on the ground, and the tree markings, but it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions." Is it just a coincidence that the radiation levels from cosmic rays and whatnot are measurably strongest in the depressions and centre of the 'landing zone', and the side of the tree facing it? Perhaps. Unlikely though.

It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)

So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'. This is NOT the Scientific Method.