For an example of what I am referring to, and to avoid the Santa Claus Gambit Gambit, I shall draw an example.
Some people here may have heard of "red sprites", which are high-altitude lightning that creates large red shapes above thunderclouds. They are not visible from the ground and are usually only seen by pilots in high-altitude planes.
The human eye can see red sprites just fine, but they only last a few milliseconds so photographing them is quite difficult. In 1994 pictures were finally taken with high-speed cameras, and now we have documentary evidence of them rather than anecdotal evidence.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951111.html
http://ibis.nmt.edu/sprites/sprites.html
Pilots had apparently been seeing these things for years, and their anecdotal evidence was eventually verified with instruments.
The important thing in this case is that:
1) Although they are a spectacular effect, they did not incite the kind of wild speculation that other effects sometimes have. Certainly red sprites did not fire the public imagination the way flying saucers do.
2) An effort was made to gather legitimate documentary evidence, and research in the field is considered ongoing.
This was the proper way to handle things. (Sorry about the NASA pics Vrob, I know you don't like those guys.) The examination of UFOs as a field has been plagued by poor documentary evidence, as well as a group of people who create and display fake evidence.
Some people here may have heard of "red sprites", which are high-altitude lightning that creates large red shapes above thunderclouds. They are not visible from the ground and are usually only seen by pilots in high-altitude planes.
The human eye can see red sprites just fine, but they only last a few milliseconds so photographing them is quite difficult. In 1994 pictures were finally taken with high-speed cameras, and now we have documentary evidence of them rather than anecdotal evidence.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951111.html
http://ibis.nmt.edu/sprites/sprites.html
Pilots had apparently been seeing these things for years, and their anecdotal evidence was eventually verified with instruments.
The important thing in this case is that:
1) Although they are a spectacular effect, they did not incite the kind of wild speculation that other effects sometimes have. Certainly red sprites did not fire the public imagination the way flying saucers do.
2) An effort was made to gather legitimate documentary evidence, and research in the field is considered ongoing.
This was the proper way to handle things. (Sorry about the NASA pics Vrob, I know you don't like those guys.) The examination of UFOs as a field has been plagued by poor documentary evidence, as well as a group of people who create and display fake evidence.