Existence Of Ufo's

Do UFO's Exist or Not

For half a century the subject of UFO has been discussed by scientists, ecologists, politicians, and common people around the world. It seems paradoxical, but the main question of their discussion concerns existence or non-existence of UFO itself, so many people is not sure that the very subject of their debate really exists. I share the opinion of those who do not believe in UFO saying that this phenomenon has not been scientifically proved, and everything its adherents operates is conjecture and fantasy, and disconnected stories of those who allegedly have seen UFO are far from scientific explanation of the event.

On the one hand, the very name UFO, which stands for Unidentified Flying Object uncovers the truth. Eyewitnesses do not know what exactly they have seen. In most cases they cannot identify the object on the sky and call it UFO. It was proved that many such false "witnesses" see nothing but a plane or a planet on the sky. All of us know that UFO means, but we tend to forget that all that means is that the observers do not understand what they are looking at.

The scientists explain that atmospheric phenomena like sun dogs, storm phenomena like ball lightning and stratospheric discharge, astronomical phenomena like auroras, meteorite storms and bolloids are all things that many of common people are not familiar with. The use of man made objects like weather balloons, test aircraft, reentry vehicles from space not to mention practical jokes also deceive many people (Vallee, 1990). For instance, between 1950 and 1971, there were 14,813 sightings reported to authorities, and 10,625 of them (95%) have been identified and explained by natural phenomena or man-made influences. The fact that people do not know what something is that they see in the sky, does not automatically mean that there is an alien involved, and in fact it is obvious that most of the time it is a case of the observer simply not being informed about the world around them (Floyd, 1993).

Another important fact against trust to all evidence is that most people who "contacted" UFO had a loss of memory in the aftermath. These are cases in which a person reports some ostensibly paranormal experience outside the confines of a controlled, laboratory situation. These include "telepathic and precognitive impressions, out-of-body experiences, memories of past lives, poltergeist cases, and apparitions" (Bullard, 1987). Some scientists and psychologists specialized in the study of past-life memories in children, and carefully studied the use of interviews with witnesses as the main method of researching these cases, deny the true nature of such evidences. Taking into account the psychological explanation of this problem, it is possible to summarize that many of the persons who "witnesses" UFO live in the world of dreams and have some psychological problems, and the desire to be an extraordinary one push them to believe that witnessed UFO (Thompson, 2005).

In reality, many scientists were skeptical of both UFOs and of alien life in general; they contended that interstellar travel would be easy for advanced civilizations, so the lack of overt contact disproved alien existence. Yet most UFO opponents do believe alien life exists out in the universe, just not here. So they defend the near impossibility of interstellar travel, which contradicts a considerable portion of the scientific community (Thompson, 1990).

"This fact allows reject evidence that would otherwise confirm the presence of a solid object under intelligent control with propulsion irreproducible by human technology" (Thompson, 1990). For instance, when a certain degree of physical substance for an airplane is obtained for an unconventional disk-shaped vehicle, this degree of evidence is accepted for the airplane but rejected for the anomalous vehicle (National UFO reported Center, 2005).

The problem is that people don't have enough information to defend a low probability, and second of all, this approach guarantees automatic rejection of normal avenues of evidence. Effectively, what the scientists are saying is that radar evidence is too "ordinary" to suffice for an "extraordinary" claim. They succeed in eliminating from review all types of indirect