UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Nah...let it die, already.

It's probably for the best.

 

[King of the Americas]

It's probably for the best.

I'm looking forward to my "Moderated Debate Thread", and the following poll.

I'm still looking accepting serious nominations and resolution suggestions via PM.

 

[amb]

Project Blue Book was supposedly the last official government 'investigation' of UFO's. The finding was that the phenomena didn't represent a national security threat.

Since then there have been no 'official' government investigations of the UFO phenomena.

There was another called the Condon report. It too also failed to find one single unexplainable sighting.
My I suggest a reading of Carl Sagan's excellent book, The Demon Haunted World. As far as I know it's still in print.

 

[tsig]

The only 'evidence' at hand is the account given. They said they "saw" a silent, solid triangle fly over.

Geese 'usually' fly in a noisy, 'empty', "V" formation which they DID see...in the "2nd" sighting.

This said, I'd like to herein include my cousin's "expert" opinion, as he is a wild life specialist, who is now an assistant professor at Texas Tech. He just told me that: Upon approach of a water hole, geese WILL go silent...and 'circle' the water before they land...UNLESS there are geese already on the water (or decoys), which will induce 'calling', which is intended to keep everybody together. When I asked about formation 'break-up' & V-formation U-turns, he said that since they are actually going tomorrow to observe and count geese, that he'd get back to me with some solid information.

How's that?

Sounds like a wild goose chase to me.

 

[tsig]

Nooo...

'I' have SEEN something I still can't identify. 'I' am the evidence.

'I' can accept me, you won't.

...know this, you do so at your own peril in your search for truth.

Glad I quit searching for Truth. Reality is good enough for me nowdays.

 

[Wolrab]

For the love of Pete. Okay, an alien spacecraft flew over my friends purposely on a course that a flock of geese would assume less than one minute later. Damned aliens messin' with my head.
Occam be damned.

 

[Ersby]

For the love of Pete. Okay, an alien spacecraft flew over my friends purposely on a course that a flock of geese would assume less than one minute later. Damned aliens messin' with my head.
Occam be damned.

Perhaps the geese were chasing the aliens away?

 

[Belz...]

I KNOW they exist. I have seen a set with mine own eyes.

First step of critical thinking: the more you think you know it, the more you should doubt it.

 

[Belz...]

'I' have SEEN something I still can't identify. 'I' am the evidence.

I've seen stuff I can't identify. That is no evidence.

 

[King of the Americas]

Your ignorance is noted, King of the Americas, but really, this isn't that tough. I asked you a simple yes or no question in Post 3200. Do you have objective evidence, something other than your arguments from ignorance and incredulity, to support Rramjet's and your claim that aliens exist?

Dude, chill...

"Objective evidence"...? Something you could test analyze, re-test and re-analyze, perhaps?

I DON'T have it, man! They are 'better' than we are, VERY good at avoiding 'capture', at least by civilian means. (*There's your next big blockbuster story, "Project Capture"- a human attempt to cage God/catch a UFO unharmed.)

You act like I peed in your Cheerios.

Look, regardless of what the jury 'found', O.J. stabbed Ron & Nichole Brown. Evidence was tossed because it wasn't of 'high enough quality', or those presenting it were thought to have a bias. ALL of which served to 'hide' the truth. O.J. is a murder.

 

[King of the Americas]

Sounds like a wild goose chase to me.

That's perfect, how often do you get to say that and mean it?

 

[EHocking]

Wow, that's profound...

Would you mind if I added that that to my tagline? I mean, that just blows me away, did you just make that up? It's almost poetic.

---

Geese DON'T form a 'solid' triangle. V's are 'similar' to triangles, but they aren't the same.

Please. You've already admitted you know next to nothing about Canada Geese - so stop with the uninformed assertions.

At low level, C.G. don't form spread out V, they tend to fly in less organised, closely grouped flocks.

ETA: - video

See this link for an example.
Here's another small triangle formation.

I've been a birdwatcher most of my life and in the UK for the past decade and can assure you, from first hand experience, that
a. Canada Geese don't always honk when in flight
b. they often move daily from one water source or roosting site to another
c. these daily flights are quite normally a dozen or two birds (or less)
d. they are agile fliers and quite capable of changing direction in the air...

 

[King of the Americas]

For the love of Pete. Okay, an alien spacecraft flew over my friends purposely on a course that a flock of geese would assume less than one minute later. Damned aliens messin' with my head.
Occam be damned.

It is possible.

As noted, each of the witnesses saw or described a slightly different thing, but that a general solid silent triangle shape... This is because they were witnessing an "unknown". They HAD seen geese before, and WERE familiar with their formations and sounds. When faced with another sighting, they managed to positively identify them as "geese". If it was geese the first time, why weren't the sightings all consistent? 'I' know what an ant is, I've seen them. If I saw another one, I wouldn't 'think' it was suddenly a grasshopper, likewise you probably know what ants look like too, you probably wouldn't see one and proclaim "Earthworm!"

When we see something known or familiar, we can usually make positive ID's rather easy, and remark consistently about features. But when faced with something truly unknown, we struggle for any identifying feature(s), and this is 'could' be why the group in question had slightly different versions of the same event.

 

[King of the Americas]

Please. You've already admitted you know next to nothing about Canada Geese - so stop with the uninformed assertions.

At low level, C.G. don't form spread out V, they tend to fly in less organised, closely grouped flocks.

ETA: - video

See this link for an example.
Here's another small triangle formation.

I've been a birdwatcher most of my life and in the UK for the past decade and can assure you, from first hand experience, that
a. Canada Geese don't always honk when in flight
b. they often move daily from one water source or roosting site to another
c. these daily flights are quite normally a dozen or two birds (or less)
d. they are agile fliers and quite capable of changing direction in the air...

I'll concede to all of that.

It COULD very well HAVE been geese.

I'll even give you that there is a 51% that it WAS just geese, but there's a chance that it wasn't. It is possible that they DID witness something else.

*No video in your link.

 

[EHocking]

It is possible.

As noted, each of the witnesses saw or described a slightly different thing, but that a general solid silent triangle shape... This is because they were witnessing an "unknown". They HAD seen geese before, and WERE familiar with their formations and sounds. When faced with another sighting, they managed to positively identify them as "geese". If it was geese the first time, why weren't the sightings all consistent? 'I' know what an ant is, I've seen them. If I saw another one, I wouldn't 'think' it was suddenly a grasshopper, likewise you probably know what ants look like too, you probably wouldn't see one and proclaim "Earthworm!"

When we see something known or familiar, we can usually make positive ID's rather easy, and remark consistently about features.

Incorrect. I can recall a number of instances where I have had difficulty resolving what my eyes were seeing into the object that I "knew" it to be.

1. A low flying jet at night. I knew it was an airliner, but because of it's attitude in the air and the odd lighting on it's tailplane, I could not reconcile the shape I was seeing with what I "knew" to be an airliner. I even considered going indoors for binoculars because the sight was so peculiar. After watching for some 5mins, it finally resolved itself into the shape of an airliner, but until then I was confused by what I was seeing.

2. Looking out from my balcony in Cairo our first night looking for the pyramids that we could supposedly see from the hotel. I was looking for three largish triangles on the horizon, not realising I was closer to them than I thought. Finally the large, dark diagonal obscuring half of my field of sight resolved itself into one edge of the largest - only a few hundred yards away. It was a small shock when that perspective snapped in my head.

But when faced with something truly unknown, we struggle for any identifying feature(s), and this is 'could' be why the group in question had slightly different versions of the same event.

Also untrue. My wife and I witnessed a road accident ahead of (and coming towards) us. I was concentrating on avoiding a head-on collision and was anticipating the 4x4 that had left the road at high speed to our left to come flying back across the road and T-boning us. As it did and by anticipating this I was able to avoid it hitting us. My wife's recollection of the direction and swerving of the vehicle, when we made our respective statements to the police varied considerably in detail.

That doesn't mean that we witnessed two different accidents - merely that our recollections were quite different.

 

[EHocking]

I'll concede to all of that.

It COULD very well HAVE been geese.

I'll even give you that there is a 51% that it WAS just geese, but there's a chance that it wasn't. It is possible that they DID witness something else.

Given the other evidence your 51% is just laughable. You merely WANT to believe and, like Rramjet, dislike the a prosaic explanation because it squashes your romantic yearning for ET to be visiting us.

*No video in your link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_HZGBmXOLg

 

[Astrophotographer]

2. Sound DOES travel, it just takes a while, depending on obstructions solid and gaseous (temperature variations), but it WILL get there eventually if only faintly. 'I' have lived within 3-4 miles of an airport (THE longest 3 months EVER), I couldn't ignore it, so I did what any bored weirdo does and I tried to map out the sounds, so that I could begin to estimate what was coming and how fast it would get here. Flyovers really mess with you, without a visual. If you 'see' a plane do YOU stop to listen for it? If you saw an 'unusual' one would you listen more intently for it? I would. And if 'I' saw something 'unidentified', I'd certainly attempt to collect any audio (which I did, my sighting lacked 'noise' of any kind). ALL of these people reported NO SOUND, even the 'slow' flying one... This is key. The 'slow' one made no noise, and none of the others did either. We don't 'hear' what we don't listen for. Did you 'try' to ignore the airtraffic?.

Were these witnesses attempting to hear anything? Or were they just so excited about what they saw that they ignored the sound which would take some time to reach them (about 20-30 seconds by my estimate). Hearing sounds is also affected by other factors. As I stated, I live about 4 miles from our local airport and we only hear the jets when they pass over the house. Their normal flight path for landing take off is only a few miles from the house (it varies day to day). Maybe you could produce the sound data that you created from your time near the airport to demonstrate they would have to have heard these jets?

3. The radar data showed the planes were 'chasing' nothing. But didn't you argue in your article that one of the F-16's was missing from the radar data? My point is that the people saw "2" different things, NOT just military jets. What you are suggesting is that it takes an expert to tell if two objects are the same...

I argued that one of the F-16s could not be seen consistently in the radar data simply because the flaws in the radar data/system. It was tracked well enough to identify it as the fourth in the formation. However, it demonstrates the flawed nature of the data. Taking two random points and creating a supersonic UFO path is not proof of anything.

As for the witnesses seeing two different things, they could have seen anything they thought was an alien spaceship. However, their interpretation of F-16s chasing it at full throttle was flawed as evidenced in the data. The craft were simply returning to base per normal routine. There was nothing unusual about their path and they did not deviate in any way as if they were chasing something. My guess is this was a misperception of civilian aircraft that was in the vicinity at the time. However, that is a guess.

I may not be able to tell what everything IS for certain, but I can certainly tell you what it isn't. But even the least trained layman ever could look at some and see if it is the 'same' as something right next to it. 'I' don't want to believe anything. I finding 'knowing' much more comforting. Seek the evidence, and you will arrive at the same conclusion that Rramjet and I have- "There's stuff under intelligent control that isn't ours, up there."

Then you have not payed attention to the arguments over this thread. You CAN NOT state what something isn't based on anecdotal data. In this case we have witnesses describing a UFO with four strobe lights. Is it any surprise that four F-16s were flying in formation in the area each with a strobe light? Knowing the issues associated with eyewitness reliability and misperception (see Allan Hendry's "UFO handbook" and "Bluebook" records), it is not that difficult to figure this was the case here.

As for your statement about "under intelligent control", I thought you stated you did not accept the ETH as the source of UFOs. So who's "intelligent control" are you suggesting?

 

[Belz...]

I'll even give you that there is a 51% that it WAS just geese

No, that's not how it works. Your 1% concession is ridiculous.

but there's a chance that it wasn't.

There's also a chance that it was flying carpets. So, should we assign a 34% chance to Geese, and 33 to both UFOs and carpets ?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'll even give you that there is a 51% that it WAS just geese

How did you calculate this percentage?

 

[wollery]

How did you calculate this percentage?

He pulled it out of his UFO.