UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

I would not, and will not, claim I am an expert on UFO phenomena. There are others here who have spent over 20 years delving into the subject, and I respect their opinions.

From where I sit, the video of the August 6, 1997 Mexico City event has my attention.

I cannot explain it, and my searches on the web have heretofore been unable to provide me with any refutation of the video, or its contents.

So, my extraordinary claim would be that the flying object on the Mexico City video defies any known method of flight.

A link to some video of it?

ETA: Never mind, I found your link after going back thru the posts further.

 

[Paul2]

The use of the word 'extraordinary' was in reference to how isolated tribes in New Guinea may view the existence of those things.

To us, they're ordinary, but to them, extraordinary. As regards 'proof and methodology of providing same, if the New Guinea tribes do not have the faintest idea of instrumentation, how would you go about convincing a tribal skeptic they exist?

This is why the word "extraordinary" cannot be interpreted just as "amazing" in the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

An extraordinary claim can only mean, in this case, a claim that is contrary to another claim that has a great weight of evidence behind it. That's why extraordinary evidence is required, to counter all the evidence for the existing, well-established claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, my extraordinary claim would be that the flying object on the Mexico City video defies any known method of flight.

Well, if I'm looking at the correct video, I don't see what you mean by it defying known methods of flight. Ordinary objects fly through the air all the time. It doesn't appear to be moving faster than other objects I've seen, nor making movements that are extraordinary.

 

[SnidelyW]

This is why the word "extraordinary" cannot be interpreted just as "amazing" in the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

An extraordinary claim can only mean, in this case, a claim that is contrary to another claim that has a great weight of evidence behind it. That's why extraordinary evidence is required, to counter all the evidence for the existing, well-established claim.

I fully follow the concept, and I quite agree that something compelling would have to come forward to truly convince most folks.

I just have trouble with where the true standard of 'extraordinary' is. Is a standard in this context even attainable?

Where is that line between 'amazing' and extraordinary'? For me it may be different than for you. Do we rely on science to establish that line, or can we factor in other things as well?

I really do not wish to become mired in an exhaustive debate on definitions, so pardon my simplistic approach.

 

[SnidelyW]

Well, if I'm looking at the correct video, I don't see what you mean by it defying known methods of flight. Ordinary objects fly through the air all the time. It doesn't appear to be moving faster than other objects I've seen, nor making movements that are extraordinary.

I should have been more careful with my claim.

From what I can see, no visible means of propulsion, and from what I know of the basic physics of flight, no aerodynamic lift capability visible. That is what I was referring to in stating 'known methods of flight'.

 

[SnidelyW]

Posts #603 604 and 605 contain links to the video and subsequent investigation regarding provenance.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I fully follow the concept, and I quite agree that something compelling would have to come forward to truly convince most folks.

I just have trouble with where the true standard of 'extraordinary' is. Is a standard in this context even attainable?

Where is that line between 'amazing' and extraordinary'? For me it may be different than for you. Do we rely on science to establish that line, or can we factor in other things as well?

I really do not wish to become mired in an exhaustive debate on definitions, so pardon my simplistic approach.

If it helps, go back to my post about the yellow Denebian child slave vessel/school bus. Do you think that both possibilities are equal? Do I have a higher burden of proof if I posit that it is a Denebian child slave vessel versus a school bus or would the burden of proof be exactly equal? Would you think it more or less likely that I saw a Denebian child slave vessel as a school bus?

Rramjet is saying that it could be either a Denebian child slave vessel or a school bus. Both possibilities are equal. He wants it to be a Denebian child slave vessel and believes that it is but he won't say so (unless he slips up, like he did) because then he would have to provide some pretty strong evidence for it, wouldn't he?

So, would you accept my anecdotal evidence that it is a Denebian child slave vessel? You would have my eyewitness testimony. I can even draw a pretty good likeness of it and it might resemble a school bus without looking exactly like one. But it would look exactly like I think a Denebian child slave vessel would look.

 

[Tapio]

My research on the web has yet to discover any arguments whatsoever from skeptics regarding the 'Las Lomas' video.

I can only speak for myself. But as an audiovisual artist with over a decade of experience in different software, techniques and production, and vast experience of working with people who've been on the frontier of related technology for several decades, I can tell you the whole video could've been made by a teenager (in '97, now a 9 year-old with enough interest could do it). An incredibly crappy picture, no audio track, no actual reference to size and speed, not a continuous shot...to name a few initial points that come to mind.

All in all, as I've stated before. Even if photos and/or video would be of extraordinary quality (continuous shots from several different angles, with sound and clear reference to location, size, speed etc.) they wouldn't still be enough to rest a case solely upon. Adding eyewitness to the case might make the case more convincing (UFO-wise, not alien-wise).

I'll have to dig a bit deeper to reach a personal conclusion. But I must say the video and the discussion of how hard it would be to fake it (it's really worth reading if wanting a laugh) are quite a let down to begin with...

Remember, I'm not aiming any of this ridicule at you. So apologies in forward if it might seem like it. I think you're doing a great job in this thread, really.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I should have been more careful with my claim.

From what I can see, no visible means of propulsion, and from what I know of the basic physics of flight, no aerodynamic lift capability visible. That is what I was referring to in stating 'known methods of flight'.

So your extraordinary claim would be that you think it is a flying saucer? A spacecraft designed and piloted by alien visitors to our planet?

 

[De_Bunk]

...and still not a single, sharp focused picture of a UFO close up...as in 100ft, right above someones head...

DB

 

[AWPrime]

I should have been more careful with my claim.

From what I can see, no visible means of propulsion, and from what I know of the basic physics of flight, no aerodynamic lift capability visible. That is what I was referring to in stating 'known methods of flight'.

Even if you had good footage, you couldn't rule out a craft that relied on pure trust.

 

[AWPrime]

The use of the word 'extraordinary' was in reference to how isolated tribes in New Guinea may view the existence of those things.

To us, they're ordinary, but to them, extraordinary. As regards 'proof and methodology of providing same, if the New Guinea tribes do not have the faintest idea of instrumentation, how would you go about convincing a tribal skeptic they exist?

Such a small problem. We take two radios, and two groups of tribesmen from the same tribe and we have the groups use the radios to talk to each other from way beyond visual range.

 

[Astrophotographer]

A discussion of the pertinent details regarding the provenance of the videotape of the 'Las Lomas' Mexico City event, August 6, 1997.

Part 1

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=865

Part 2

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=866

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_54/

Go about halfway down

and

http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/1998/October_1998.pdf

Go to page 9

Hoax identified by Jeff Sainio of MUFON. It was computer generated.

 

[TjW]

A few comments regarding the Las Lomas video.

1. If that's its normal flight, it would be a pilot's nightmare. It doesn't seem to be stable.

2. If it's as far away as it looks, then there are massive, massive forces involved. A structure as large as that appears shouldn't be able to rock that fast.

3. If I were going to try to fake it, I'd make a model painted in muted gray colors, suspend it on a monofilament from a pole, and take a picture of it as someone lifted it and slowly moved it left to right.
Then I'd apply a little blur to the model and some sky to disappear the string, and make the model appear more distant. Hey, it's a smoggy day!
I'd matte out the model as it crosses in front of the buildings to make it appear it went behind. The buildings have nice straight lines, and pretty good contrast against the sky, so making a matte shouldn't be that hard.

4.T

That very same day we inquired from the local police if anything unusual had been reported to their headquarters on the first week of August. Even though they did not accept the interview, the stated that nothing strange had been reported for a very long time in that area of the city.

Then, a little further on:

Once more, during our weekly work session, we received news of eyewitnesses to the event. These persons had stepped forward due to the Tercer Milenio broadcast of the previous Sunday, recognizing the object they had seen in the afternoon of August 6th.

So, a busy metropolitan area. Millions of people. Clear, if somewhat smoggy skies.
A huge alien spacecraft flies over. A few people notice, but no one alerts authorities, or calls the police to ask "What the hell was that?" There's no mention in the newspapers. Rocket launches from Vandenberg AFB get more coverage than that in LA, and those are Identified Flying Objects.

Weeks later, a video from an anonymous source, with a cover letter that, as they paraphrase it on the site, seems to have used Penthouse Letters* as its template, is received by a TV station with instructions that it should be delivered, not to the news department, but a UFO entertainment TV show. The UFO TV show transcribes it to a professional format and "enhances" it for broadcast.

It's only after that video is broadcast that a few people come forward and say, "Oh, yeah, I saw that."

Wednesday, October 1: We traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. to reach Jim Dilettoso, one of the best computerized image analysts in the United States. Dilettoso has devoted himself, on a part-time basis, to analyze UFO images from different part soft the world, reaching conclusions which have made an impression on the scientific establishment. From the first moment that he saw the August 6th images, Dilettoso evinced an interest in the possibility that the object could be a balloon suspended from a helicopter.
However, after feeding the images into a computer to conduct the initial analysis of the Las Lomas UFO, Dilettoso was surprised---as were others present in the laboratory---when the monitor displayed all of the images elements except for the UFO itself. After a few minutes of concern, arising from the belief that the equipment had been damaged, Jim Dilettoso discovered that within the same image in which the UFO could not be seen on the screen, it would appear in its proper place after passing infrared and ultraviolet filters. This led Dilettoso to adjust all of his analytical equipment to another frequency in order to analyze the object's characteristics, a situation which had practically never happened to him earlier in any other circumstance, and which on the other hand, confirmed the veracity of the video presented.

I'm sorry, this is just ludicrous. Pixels is pixels. You can't usefully "apply infrared and ultraviolet filters" to them.



* Penthouse Letters inevitably seem to start out: "I never thought this would happen to me, but...(unbelievable sexual fantasy ensues)."**
Regulars in Conspiracy Theory have come to classify initial posts with this sort of denial as having "The Mark of Woo".

** or so I've heard.

 

[Rramjet]

When is a UFO not a UFO?

I have just realised something. We actually are NOT ready to move beyond my first contention that “UFOs exist.”

Something has been bothering me about various people’s statements to the effect that “Everybody agrees that UFOs exist” or “Nobody is arguing that UFOs don’t exist”.

There was a certain sense in which these were false statements, yet if I stated directly it was not true that people held those views I would be shouted down so vigorously that it seemed that people really believed the statements to be true.

So, then how can a statement be both true and false at the same time?

Then I realised the answer lies in the objections I got to the UFO categorisations I presented. Thus:

UFO categorisation

1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown

Then the speculative hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian consciousness
4) add as you think of one...

There was a great kerfuffle about the first three. People wanted to get rid of the “insufficient information” category and move that another category be created titled something along the lines of “Previously classified unknown but now known” (considering I suppose a reassessment is done or new information comes to light).

But this is an illogical basis for a category…it is speculative…it is strictly not a category… and I suppose realising this, people THEN sought to place it in the SECOND lot right above 1) ET…

But WHY were they doing this? After all the categories had been accepted by many eminent research scientists in many valid scientific research projects – including those from the debunker side of the fence. So why?

Moreover some were even questioning the validity of the “Unknown” category… and to me this seemed to be pure nonsense, so what could have been the reasoning here?

Then it hit me. People were saying that UFOs existed, but they were really NOT believing it. What they WERE believing was that UFOs existed ONLY because a mundane explanation had not been thought of at the time of examination of the report!
That is the researchers were not thorough enough or simply did not have enough information at the time!

What people REALLY believed in was that UFOs are UNKOWN for now, but really all of then would have a mundane explanation if only all the information was available. And THIS is not the same as accepting UFOs as truly UNKNOWN.

And THIS is why people wanted to add their extra “Previously classified UNKNOWN but now KNOWN” speculative category and this is why people objected even to the UNKNOWN category outright.

People were saying “Oh yes, I believe UFOs exist – but only to the extent that they have yet to be classified as mundane"!

So where does that leave us. I contend we are still not able to move beyond my contention that UFOs exist as TRULY UNKNOWN.

And thus the question of why some use the term “True UFO” (TRUFO) in place of UFO. It is an effort to distinguish a “debunker” type UFO (as described above) from a scientifically categorised UFO (simply unidentified or UNKNOWN).

So, I can see now that I will have to spend some time to explain the illogic of this debunker position – to point out the fallacy of such a position in precise terms. Unfortunately I do not have time right now. In the meantime I would invite readers to think carefully about what I have just written – work through the logic. Look at the arguments I have made.

I’ll see you soon
Roger.

 

[StevenCalder]

Remember, I'm not aiming any of this ridicule at you. So apologies in forward if it might seem like it. I think you're doing a great job in this thread, really.

Before I say anything else I'd like to echo this sentiment. I have been so far impressed with Snidely's conduct in this and the previous thread, we may not always agree but he has not ever reduced the tone or honesty of discussion.

And I have bucket loads of respect for someone who can retain a flexible and open position in a room of dissenting positions than those who turn to stone. I hope I could do the same, but I'm obviously always right about everything so I will never get to know

Do we rely on science to establish that line, or can we factor in other things as well?

When Carl Sagan said 'Extraordinary' it is referring specifically to the Scientific view point, which is what I presume you are trying to get validated by. Whether or not a tribe in New Guinea think UFO's are likely to be of Alien origin or that radios work by Black Magic or Radio Waves is besides the point, unless they operate those inquiry's by scientific scepticism.

Obviously if your not looking to get validated by the sceptical methods of science, then we don't even need to talk about evidence. Just book some slots on day time TV and go wild

Just to be clear, if you have validating evidence, and people are still not accepting your theory that is not scepticism, we call those people pseudo-sceptics: ie GW Deniers, Holocaust Deniers etc These people often need a bump on the noggin in my honest opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6sEbDLb1o

Getting to your main subject the Mexican Video. I've now had a chance and watched the video through a good many times, and read the articles you linked. I'm sorry to say I have to join the chorus and say I found it very unconvincing and the discussion you linked seemed almost mad. Setting aside the story for the moment as TjW has expanded on the obvious red flags there. I will quote Astrophotographer's links which will be able to describe the technical problems which pretty much make it a forgone conclusion that this was a fake far more eloquently than I. And for those who don't want to dig through the entire of that page

Jeff Sainio, a former Wisconsin state director of MUFON, has applied his expertise in computer graphics to the analysis of UFO photos and videos—often in collaboration with Bruce Maccabee. Although Sainio’s analysis of the many Polaroid UFO photos taken by Ed Walters in the late 1980s, like that of Maccabee, failed to find any evidence of a hoax, Sainio’s analysis of the Carp, Canada, UFO video challenged Maccabee’s endorsement [SUN #20/Mar. 1993]. Both men had tackled the Mexico City UFO video, but only Sainio “hit paydirt.”

Sainio details the results of his painstaking analysis which revealed that the Mexico City video is a clever "double exposure” hoax created by computer, in an article published in the October issue of the MUFON UFO Journal. One indication of a hoax: because the camera was hand-held, as the cameraman panned (seemingly) to follow the motion of the UFO there was expected smearing of the imagery of the apartment buildings in the foreground. But there was no corresponding smearing of the UFO imagery. “This indicates the UFO wasn’t in the video when the camera was shaking, but was added later,” according to Sainio. Another indication: as the camera pans, the viewing (aspect) angle to the buildings changes slightly (1.6 deg.) and should change similarly with respect to the UFO, but it does not, according to Sainio. This is difficult to detect because of the wobbling motion of the UFO. A third indication of a hoax: the altitude of the UFO, measured relative to protuberances of the nearby building, changes differently than it should if caused solely by camera “bounce” during panning.

ainio acknowledges that considerable effort was required by the hoaxer to superimpose the UFO imagery on the background. The hoaxer may have expected the UFO’s pronounced wobbling motion would obscure the subtle flaws detected by Sainio. His article concludes with the following sage advice for UFO investigators: “Be suspicious of anonymous reports. Note oddities in the case; here, a daylight sighting of a huge craft in one of the most crowded cities in the world, but no witnesses until after televising the video. ‘Expert’ opinions are meaningless unless they can give repeatable, measurable procedures by which they reached their opinions." (Maussan said the authenticity of the Mexico City video had been endorsed by Jim Diletosso, Phoenix, Az., who claims expertise in photo analysis.)

The PDF Astrophotographer links is what the article above references and goes into far more detail. Including how the above inconsistencies were confirmed by specifically written software. The results seem relatively unambiguous.

 

[StevenCalder]

So where does that leave us. I contend we are still not able to move beyond my contention that UFOs exist as TRULY UNKNOWN.

And thus the question of why some use the term “True UFO” (TRUFO) in place of UFO. It is an effort to distinguish a “debunker” type UFO (as described above) from a scientifically categorised UFO (simply unidentified or UNKNOWN).

So, I can see now that I will have to spend some time to explain the illogic of this debunker position – to point out the fallacy of such a position in precise terms. Unfortunately I do not have time right now. In the meantime I would invite readers to think carefully about what I have just written – work through the logic. Look at the arguments I have made.

Its funny how your definitions allow you make it entirely plausible that Exotic things such as ET or Trans-Dimensional Beings are the answer without any verifying evidence or falsifying all other possibilities.

But that's probably just because I'm so illogical, because to me it looks just like an argument from ignorance. And the exact one I warned you against on the first page of this thread.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have just realised something. We actually are NOT ready to move beyond my first contention that “UFOs exist.”

Something has been bothering me about various people’s statements to the effect that “Everybody agrees that UFOs exist” or “Nobody is arguing that UFOs don’t exist”.

There was a certain sense in which these were false statements, yet if I stated directly it was not true that people held those views I would be shouted down so vigorously that it seemed that people really believed the statements to be true.

So, then how can a statement be both true and false at the same time?

Then I realised the answer lies in the objections I got to the UFO categorisations I presented. Thus:

UFO categorisation

1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown

Then the speculative hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian consciousness
4) add as you think of one...

There was a great kerfuffle about the first three. People wanted to get rid of the “insufficient information” category and move that another category be created titled something along the lines of “Previously classified unknown but now known” (considering I suppose a reassessment is done or new information comes to light).

But this is an illogical basis for a category…it is speculative…it is strictly not a category… and I suppose realising this, people THEN sought to place it in the SECOND lot right above 1) ET…

But WHY were they doing this? After all the categories had been accepted by many eminent research scientists in many valid scientific research projects – including those from the debunker side of the fence. So why?

Moreover some were even questioning the validity of the “Unknown” category… and to me this seemed to be pure nonsense, so what could have been the reasoning here?

Then it hit me. People were saying that UFOs existed, but they were really NOT believing it. What they WERE believing was that UFOs existed ONLY because a mundane explanation had not been thought of at the time of examination of the report!
That is the researchers were not thorough enough or simply did not have enough information at the time!

What people REALLY believed in was that UFOs are UNKOWN for now, but really all of then would have a mundane explanation if only all the information was available. And THIS is not the same as accepting UFOs as truly UNKNOWN.

And THIS is why people wanted to add their extra “Previously classified UNKNOWN but now KNOWN” speculative category and this is why people objected even to the UNKNOWN category outright.

People were saying “Oh yes, I believe UFOs exist – but only to the extent that they have yet to be classified as mundane"!

So where does that leave us. I contend we are still not able to move beyond my contention that UFOs exist as TRULY UNKNOWN.

And thus the question of why some use the term “True UFO” (TRUFO) in place of UFO. It is an effort to distinguish a “debunker” type UFO (as described above) from a scientifically categorised UFO (simply unidentified or UNKNOWN).

So, I can see now that I will have to spend some time to explain the illogic of this debunker position – to point out the fallacy of such a position in precise terms. Unfortunately I do not have time right now. In the meantime I would invite readers to think carefully about what I have just written – work through the logic. Look at the arguments I have made.

I’ll see you soon
Roger.

If you are going to build strawmen this big, be careful not to go near any open flame. The resulting fire would be visible from space and could attract the Trafalmadorians.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story...

It's the bit people focus on because it's the only bit that's got actual checkable evidence, rather than just stories. And what do you know, when you check the evidence you find... a perfectly rational non-UFO explanation. Surprise surprise.

 

[Hindmost]

I would not, and will not, claim I am an expert on UFO phenomena. There are others here who have spent over 20 years delving into the subject, and I respect their opinions.

From where I sit, the video of the August 6, 1997 Mexico City event has my attention.

I cannot explain it, and my searches on the web have heretofore been unable to provide me with any refutation of the video, or its contents.

So, my extraordinary claim would be that the flying object on the Mexico City video defies any known method of flight.

From a brief analysis, the craft wobbles around its center of mass. It makes it look like a model on a string. I would expect a better control system. It is possibly spinning--which make no sense--and seems to lack propulsion system. That is doubt enough to eliminate the extraordinary.

I would be interesting in where it went after its brief appearance.

glenn