I haven’t seen anything yet that I’m sure about being an “UFO”, well I have seen UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) but I can not tell that they were what people often mean by UFO that is merely ETFO (Extra Terrestrial Flying Object). Those UFOs I have seen, which I have suceeded to take some photos of, but of quite low quality, hardly interesting for anyone can certainly be explained in other ways.
In one case I noticed that a few objects, looking like planets were moving versus the background stars. However, in the photos I took, I see that it was actually the opposite, these objects I had seen wasn’t moving at all, it was all the stars in the background which were moving, that is, these objects were stationary, and compensated for the turn of the Earth. Now, someone may claim those are just geostationary satelites, but geostationary satellites (like all GPS satellites) actually move as well, apart from one specific kind placed exactly over the equator.
However, having read about and listened to many people who have seen or experienced things related to seemingly extra terrestrial activity, it would be wonderful to see all such reports to be jointly analyzed for common denominators. Often UFO reports are handled the completely opposite way… that is, people try with all kinds of means to explain observed phenomenon with “natural” explanations. This is not a very scientific way to deal with such data…
Take a specific observation, it may have a 30% chance being a natural phenomenon. Does this mean that is is a natural phenomenon? No! It means that it has a 30% chance of being a natural phenomenon and a 70% chance of being a supernatural phenomenon.
This is a mistake I see over and over, everywhere. It’s only by meta analysis (using e.g. different data mining techniques) it is possible to a make a better judgement of the observation, otherwise it becomes non productive pseudo science.