Unexplained lights/objects filmed in Ladner,Canada.

Any ideas as to what these lights/objects are ?
They appear to be flying around in different and opposite directions to each other (and therefore the wind):
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=km6yHj2K9G8
As yet,I don't think anybody has offered a rational,mundane explanation as to what the objects are or could be.
Cheers Karl

Some interesting quotes about UFO debunkery.

"Any scientist who did not read some serious books and articles presenting the real indications of the phenomenon should have intellectual honesty to abstain from making declarations presented as scientists"
Dr. Bernard HAISCH-Astronomer


"What constitutes a proof? Is it necessary that an UFO lands at the entry of the Pentagon, near the chiefs of Staff? Or is this a proof when a station of radar on the ground detects UFOs, sends a flotilla of interception, that the pilots see the UFO, take it with the radar and see it to move away at a fantastic speed? Is this a proof only when the pilot draws to him above and maintains its version before a martial court? Doesn't this constitute a proof"
E.J. Ruppelt (major chief of the project Blue Book)


"One refuses to study the facts because they are not included/understood, but to include/understand them, they would have initially to be studied"
A. MEESSEN-Physicist.


"There does not exist currently any machine manufactured by the man, plane or missile, which is capable of such performances, in particular to fly at supersonic speed without making bang? ?It cannot be something creates by the man and our defense system is impotent vis-a-vis these machines"
Colonel de Brouwer (Belgian air force) in 1990


"I believe that the attitude of spirit that one must adopt with respect to these phenomena is a completely open attitude of spirit, i.e. who does not consist in denying a priori as besides our ancestors of the previous centuries had to deny things which appear perfectly elementary to us today"
(Mr. Robert Galley, Minister for the Armies) ?


"The best means of not finding an evidence, it is not to seek some".
Pierre Guerin (astrophysicist, research director at
CNRS)



Taken from Stanton Friedman's Seti challenge:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfufovsseti.html

1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

2. What the public doesn't know, I won't tell them.

3. If one can't attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway


How to debunk just about anything:
http://www.bibleufo.com/debunk.htm

. Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

· Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshiping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.

· Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

· Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the “process” of science with the “content” of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative process can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")

· Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

· Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts " which are "stated."

· Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)

· If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back "there is nothing new here." If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

· Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with “all” of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective, or metaphysical terms.

· Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals “reductionism”. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

· Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

· At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is “familiar’ is necessarily “rational”. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

· State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

· Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw or misstep invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

· "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," suggests that the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most “familiar” explanation is by definition the “simplest”.

· Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical and philosophical parallels between science and democracy.

· Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.

· If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue, "Evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not “supposed” to “prove ”anything*.

· In any case, imply that proof “precedes” evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

· Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!

· Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any Point in time.

· Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand
has been (or is popularly “assumed” to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and simply say, "I rest my case."

· Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's “not” there, and not to denying what “is” there.

· Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

· By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

· Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Demand all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

· Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of unusual phenomena so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff' or "freak," or as "self-styled" -- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

· Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit part of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; find something prosaic that hypothetically “could” explain it; c) declare that, therefore, this one element “has been” explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the “entire case” has been explained.

· Find a prosaic phenomenon that superficially resembles the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

· Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical sciences have always dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity, electromagnetism, etc. . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."

· Label any poorly understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds.

· Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all such questions: "If extraterrestrials exist, why haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"

· Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis-replicate their experiments or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be "ridiculous" or "fruitless." To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

· Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

· When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this statement as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her behavior cannot possibly be scientifically correct.

· If you are unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants or the journalists who reported the case. “Ad-hominem” arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators or chroniclers of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them
of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition of their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers." Take care not to inadvertently apply such judgments to those pursuing, in similar fashion, orthodox activities.

· Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as experts on the ET question, although course credits in ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

· Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!'' Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims. or, for that matter, even exist.

Debunking Extraterrestrials

· Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already “in” outer space, has abundant life.

· Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place.

· Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label the concept of interstellar travel a mere "flight of fancy," "because obviously it would violate nature's laws.'

· Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

· Point out that the government-sponsored SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this “a-priori’ assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.

· Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government cover-up of the ET question . . . but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national security!

· Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only “accidentalist” theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.

· In the event of a worst-case scenario -- for example, one in which the ET question is suddenly acknowledged as a major mystery of millennial proportions -- just remember that the public has a short memory. Simply say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally significant issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I have been remarking on it for years!"

Fatima UFO case,Portugal~very interesting

http://www.ufoseek.org/fatimajv.htm
The Fatima UFO/OVNI incident in Portugal is a very interesting one~according to this 1969 U.S. Government Rand report,theres quite a revealing account by a Portuguese Professor who witnessed the incident:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD...oc=GetTRDoc.pdf
"A recent example is the repeated appearance of a typical UFO phenomenology at Fatima,Portugal on six succesive months in 1917.
The October 13th phenomenon was the best reported and was witnessed by a crowd of about 70,000 persons,including a number of scientists,reporters,atheists and agnostics as well as faithfull catholics.
One of the scientifically curious was Dr A. Garrett of the University of Coimbra.
Rain which had been falling that day ceased and the crowd looked up to see the 'sun' now visible through the heavy clouds.
Professor Garrett wrote
"I turned towards this (sun) which was attracting all eyes and could see it was like a disc with a clear cut edge,with a vivd rim,luminous and shining but without hurting one.
The comparison I have heard at Fatima with a disc of dull silver does not seem to me exact.It was a clear,more vivid richer colour and with shifting tints like the lustre of pearl.
It was not at all like the moon on a clear transparent night for one saw and felt it like a living star.
Nor was it spherical like the moon,nor did it have the same quality of lighter and less light.
It looked like a burnished wheel cut out of mother of pearl.
Nor could it be confused with the sun seen through a fog...there was no fog.
This disc spun dizzly round.It was not the twinkiling of a star,it whirled round upon itslef with mad rapidity".

Rare Photograph of disc/object:


http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/WORLDS.htm
"The sky was completely overcast. Some spectators saw a column of blue smoke in the vicinity of the children that appeared and disappeared three times. Then suddenly the rain ceased and through the clouds was seen a radiant disk, not the sun, spinning, and throwing off fantastic streamers of light-a constantly changing montage of red, violet, blue, yellow, and white. This continued for about four minutes.
Then the disk advanced toward the earth until it was just over the crowd. The heat was enormous and many were terrified the end of the world had come. When it finally retreated into the sky, the shaken masses realized that their clothes and the ground were completely dry--although they had been soaked to the skin a few minutes before."

The area is still quite a famous hotspot for sightings right up to the present day,heres an interesting clip from a Portuguese news broadcast of two anomalous objects filmed in the North of the country,the first one is of one object seemingly ejecting another object found at 3:41 and the second is a very strange looking thing found at 3:18.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d6-0QvX9hic

Its an interesting corellation that unexplained/anomalous aerial phenomena instantly gets classified as a 'religious event' in certain countries-perhaps this is not the first time this possible misinterpretation has occurred and people are just (un)consciously projecting their own preconceptions onto the UFO/OVNI subject.
Cheers Karl

Further reading/information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_fatima.htm
http://www.ufoseek.org/fatimajv.htm

Highly credible Alaska flight JA 1628 UFO incident

Senior FAA official John Callahan recounts a major UFO encounter over Alaska in 1986,telling how a huge object was captured and plotted on F.A.A. radar,military height finding radar,long range radar,short range radar and by the radar located in the aeroplane's nose-the object was also visualy corellated by both pilots.
He also goes on to say how men from the CIA swore his Federal Aviation Authority team to secrecy about the case and how they removed certain data and information pertaining to the case:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pdT_5eCZaRo

Also, The History Channel's excellent documentary 'UFO Files-Black box secrets' -the Flight JAL 1628 incident can be found at 2:00:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RVWKRUCM9s8

Artist's rendition of object:


Related links:
F.A.A. Timeline
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/japan86.htm

The History Channel's Account:
http://www.ufodata.co.uk/pdf/UFO_FILES_bla...ufo_secrets.pdf

F.A.A. division Manager Testimony:
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/Callahansummary.pdf

I think this is one of the most credible UFO cases of recent times and ,if a person actualy views the links listed above, the information is quite comprehensive.
It seems debunker explanations on this one are conspicuous by their absence.
Any ideas as to what this flying object "twice the size of an aircraft carrier" could have been?

Bakersfield UFO footage.

The ladies filming are somewhat excitable ...therefore theres a lot of swearing.

Unidentified triangular craft at 4:15

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4565163212222256077