UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Provide your evidence that anybody, including Figel, who was actually there (Salas wasn't) “confirms” UFOs were actually “involved” in the shutdown or retract you claim that Carlson is a liar.

Perhaps you did not read a previous post of mine which quoted from a taped interview with Figel:

“Then when the first [missile] went down, and I talked to the security [team] out there, they reported this UFO hovering over the site. I said, “Yeah, right. What have you guys been drinking out there?” And we [sent] Strike teams to both of the sites that had been occupied.”

…and:

“Well, I [reportedly] had them hovering over the sites, you know, and I said, “Right, I’m not a believer in that crap!” And that was reported over the secure line, and I told those guys to make no transmissions and, when the Strike Team got out there—they were on VHF back to me—and they had no idea in the world what I even told them to look for, and they reported them [too].”
(http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/09/echooscar-witch-hunt.html).​

And the Reality Uncovered blog (a debunking article) confirms the existence of that taped testimony:

“I admit to being a bit frustrated with Mr. Figel. Despite his recent comments clarifying the matter to James, it’s clear what he was saying to Hastings and Salas according to those recordings…” (http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/)​

Carlson obviously knows of the existence of Figel’s taped testimony (he was heavily involved with Reality Uncovered’s investigation) - so what are we then to make of his statement that:

“…the only actual evidence that’s ever been presented aside from Robert Salas’ personal word of honor dancing around the oral support of Robert Hastings, are the documents that led him to expose this supposedly intolerable interference by UFOs. These consist of a few pages from the 341st Strategic Missile Wing and 341st Combat Support Group HQ SAC DXIH 67-3922 Command History, Vol. 1, and attached copies of supporting message traffic.”( http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Americans-Credulous-by-James-Carlson)​

?

Also from an official investigative report dated 23 Mar 1967 (just one week after the event) we have the following statement:

“Rumours of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven.” (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/page38.htm)​

So at the time somebody must have been talking about UFOs in relation to the event.

Even discounting Salas and Hastings (in toto, as unreliable), these above facts are on the record.

However, all this amounts to is an indication that UFOs were reported at the time of the event, nothing more, nothing less - and anyone who claims there is direct evidence of the involvement of UFOs in the shutdown is reaching too far.

The case can nevertheless be legitimately considered as a nuclear/UFO related case and investigated on that basis. The question then becomes one of the strength of the evidence and one could argue back and forth about that (seemingly) endlessly – as some obviously have done. The bottom line is that it is a nuclear/UFO case and can therefore be listed as such.

Even Richard Dolan, a popular UFOlogist, doesn't agree with you as noted in his recent analysis of the case...

http://www.afterdisclosure.com/2010/...-analysis.html

The only thing that Dolan writes that contradicts any of the above is:

“Second, there is in fact no documentation indicating that a UFO ever was seen over Malmstrom in 1967.”

Now we know that the 1967 Engineers report (see above) did confirm that there were “rumours” of UFOs at the time. Perhaps Dolan missed the import of this statement: That is, where there are “rumours” of UFOs, somebody must have been talking about them in relation to the incident.

The only two bits of evidence provided that the rumours had been disproved (in the engineer’s report that raises the rumours) were first that the Strike Team (presumably one of the ones Figel mentions as being sent out) stated that “no unusual activity or sightings were observed”. Second that there was “…a negative report on any radar or atmospheric interference problems…” (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/page38.htm). But what does this actually mean? No “interference problems”?

So, the Strike Team (was there more than one? Figel stated there was) apparently indicated no UFOs and Figel later retracted (while being careful not to actually contradict his taped testimony…).

Dolan is of the opinion therefore that “The evidence on the table currently is reasonable enough to say that there was not a UFO event there…”, but that after all is his opinion and he is entitled to it – and possibly justified in it. For myself, the case is intriguing, but I do not think it is one that can be promoted as constituting “solid” evidence based on what we have – which is very little (if we remove Salas and Hastings we only have the enigmatic Figel and the official reports). Given also no-one else who was there (apart from Carlson Snr – and his statements are rather enigmatic also) has come forward, I then tend to agree with Dolan's sentiment - with the caveat that it is nevertheless intriguing that UFOs were mentioned in relation to the case at the time.

Perhaps you would like to debate this with Carlson himself? That can be arranged…

If Carlson would like to comment on the case in this thread, then he is free to do so and I will obviously consider my response if or when he does so.

 

[tomi71]

A great new documentary about UFO phenomenon.
http://www.thedaybeforedisclosure.com/

It´s free to watch.

 

[Jocce]

A great new documentary about UFO phenomenon.
http://www.thedaybeforedisclosure.com/

In what way do you find it great? I've only watched part 1 and found it full of nothing.

Basically the argumentation goes:

1. We don't know everything, new knowledge/thoughts has always been ridiculed (like UFO stories now).

2. Huge numbers of reports are pouring in from everywhere. A big part can't be explained.

3. Speed of light is not a limiting factor for interstellar travel as shown by Hadronic Mechanics

4. Governments are trying to cover up the stories.

My comments on that:

1. So what? Are we to except every claim someone makes just because "we don't know everything". Give me some evidence.

2. A huge number of nothing is still nothing and as this very thread has shown, a big part of the "unexplained" sghtings remain unexplained because there is simply not enough validated data to draw any conclusions from.

3. "Hadronic mechanics, a novel fundamental theory of the universe which is not generally accepted by the physics community. (Wikipedia)". Another novel fundamental theory of the universe that hasn't been proven valid either is "goddidit".

4. If I was running a country I wouldn't want mass hysteria over nothing either.

So tomi, is the documentary getting any more substantial or is watching the rest a waste of time too?

 

[tomi71]

"The evidence is overwhelming". Need I say more. There is a lot of physical trace evidence for example. There is a lot of official reports of UFO phenomena that doesn´t fit into normal standards yet don´t fit into the ordinary/natural explanation either.

Particularyly interesting is the hear-say part of the 6th man on the moon about Roswell crash. Certainly sceptics can´t play their "village-idiot" card anymore. So many highly respected and highly reasonable people have come forward.

Certainly all this suggests there is something to it. This isn´t a game of who wins. This is all about reality and what is true even though something is not yet proofed 100%. (Possibly everything is not proofed 100%).

English is not my main language so I can´t discuss it with better terms so far but I want to thank Rramjet for his great efforts discussing this even though there are a militia of opponents against him.

 

[TjW]

Actually, when we actually look at the details of cases, the evidence is underwhelming. It doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
This whole thread is essentially based on the idea that "There's so much bad evidence out there, it must be based on something." AKA "With all this *********, there must be a pony around here somewhere!"

 

[wollery]

"The evidence is overwhelming". Need I say more.

If it was overwhelming we wouldn't be here discussing it.

There is a lot of physical trace evidence for example.

Please provide links to information on this evidence.

There is a lot of official reports of UFO phenomena that doesn´t fit into normal standards yet don´t fit into the ordinary/natural explanation either.

Links please. Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so.

Particularyly interesting is the hear-say part of the 6th man on the moon about Roswell crash. Certainly sceptics can´t play their "village-idiot" card anymore. So many highly respected and highly reasonable people have come forward.

Hear-say. As evidence goes it doesn't get much weaker.

Certainly all this suggests there is something to it. This isn´t a game of who wins. This is all about reality and what is true even though something is not yet proofed 100%. (Possibly everything is not proofed 100%).

Statement of the obvious.

English is not my main language so I can´t discuss it with better terms so far but I want to thank Rramjet for his great efforts discussing this even though there are a militia of opponents against him.

And yet, despite all the "evidence", Rramjet has completely failed to convince even one person that it has any merit at all.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

"The evidence is overwhelming". Need I say more. There is a lot of physical trace evidence for example. There is a lot of official reports of UFO phenomena that doesn´t fit into normal standards yet don´t fit into the ordinary/natural explanation either.

If you have been reading this thread you should know that's not true in the slightest.

Particularyly interesting is the hear-say part of the 6th man on the moon about Roswell crash. Certainly sceptics can´t play their "village-idiot" card anymore. So many highly respected and highly reasonable people have come forward.

Your thoughts on Campeche? Also have you read the original report on Roswell? Also no one apart from Rramjet is playing the "village-idiot" card it's more like people are "fallible card"

Certainly all this suggests there is something to it. This isn´t a game of who wins. This is all about reality and what is true even though something is not yet proofed 100%. (Possibly everything is not proofed 100%).

Is it? if something isn't 100% then why explain it as Alien then? Isn't that just explaining an unknown with an unknown?

English is not my main language so I can´t discuss it with better terms so far but I want to thank Rramjet for his great efforts discussing this even though there are a militia of opponents against him.

Your English is fine.

 

[tomi71]

For those interested in the physical evidence concerning UFOs:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm
and
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

The evidence about UFO´s can be overwhelming even though we are discussing it. That´s because mass media and you people simply don´t look the evidence or accept it. There is a lot of evidence but if you insist that it doesn´t exist it doesn´t change the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence nevertheless.

Science has come to a conclusion that there are UFO cases that are truly unexplainable (not mundane and not explainable with manmade technology or weather phenomena or something known to mankind). This is a fact. However science has not made a conclusion about the origins of UFOs. It´s easy to see why. The ridicule etc. certainly doesn´t tempt for a scientist to jeopardize his career (even though there are some scientists who is brave enough to explore the phenomena even though there is a culture attacking it. Funnily the culture attacking scientific exploration reminds me of Catholic church or Inquisition in it´s strong agenda denying anything that doesn´t fit into their own standards of reality.)

The village-idiot card was played a lot in many years when discussing about UFOs. The most common phrase was something like:"UFOs are only seen by some country folks who live in isolation and probably are hallucinating etc. etc." You certainly know these claims which are not used anymore.

Scepticism is good when investigatin UFO´s. However the scepticism that I find in this forum looks more like a religionist talk. There is certainly a belief system here. A belief system that believes that there is nothing worth investigatin about UFOs or that there is absolutely nothing indicating their ET origins despite the many results of investigations that proof that there has been objects flying, which has a characteristics of 1) impossible maneuvers for a man made object 2) intelligently controlled object 3) confirmed with radar and multiple eyewitnesses who are reliable also 4) object has structures; not only a dot of light for example 5) possible physical trace evidence 6) even trauma injuries like radioactive burns in some eyewitnesses etc etc.

So there certainly is a lot of explaining to do if you try to explain this phenomena into the ordinary.

You certainly have had your chances to explain these issues into the mundane reality, yet you haven´t done so. I wonder why.

 

[TjW]

I'm sorry. Trying to talk with a UFO proponent about evidence always reminds me of the end of Raiders of The Lost Ark:



Skeptic/Indy: You need good evidence.
UFO Proponent/Major Eaton: We have lots of evidence!
Skeptic/Indy: What, specifically?
UFO Proponent/Major Eaton: Very... convincing evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

For those interested in the physical evidence concerning UFOs:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm
and
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

The evidence about UFO´s can be overwhelming even though we are discussing it. That´s because mass media and you people simply don´t look the evidence or accept it. There is a lot of evidence but if you insist that it doesn´t exist it doesn´t change the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence nevertheless.

There is also a huge amount of evidence for Santa Claus. Do you believe Santa Claus exists and lives at the North Pole?

Science has come to a conclusion that there are UFO cases that are truly unexplainable (not mundane and not explainable with manmade technology or weather phenomena or something known to mankind). This is a fact.

Good, it should be easy for you to provide a link to that.

However science has not made a conclusion about the origins of UFOs. It´s easy to see why. The ridicule etc. certainly doesn´t tempt for a scientist to jeopardize his career (even though there are some scientists who is brave enough to explore the phenomena even though there is a culture attacking it. Funnily the culture attacking scientific exploration reminds me of Catholic church or Inquisition in it´s strong agenda denying anything that doesn´t fit into their own standards of reality.)

Even more funnily, nobody here has attacked any scientific methods, only the UFO creduloid method of beginning with your conclusion.

The village-idiot card was played a lot in many years when discussing about UFOs. The most common phrase was something like:"UFOs are only seen by some country folks who live in isolation and probably are hallucinating etc. etc." You certainly know these claims which are not used anymore.

Ah good, we don't need to discuss that then.

Scepticism is good when investigatin UFO´s. However the scepticism that I find in this forum looks more like a religionist talk. There is certainly a belief system here.

No, you're incorrect. You are looking at it from the perspective of someone who simply wants to believe in UFAOs. Try thinking about it objectively and you will also start to demand that UFOlogists start using the scientific method and you will no longer believe in UFAOs without actual compelling evidence. As Sagan correctly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

A belief system that believes that there is nothing worth investigatin about UFOs or that there is absolutely nothing indicating their ET origins despite the many results of investigations that proof that there has been objects flying, which has a characteristics of 1) impossible maneuvers for a man made object 2) intelligently controlled object 3) confirmed with radar and multiple eyewitnesses who are reliable also 4) object has structures; not only a dot of light for example 5) possible physical trace evidence 6) even trauma injuries like radioactive burns in some eyewitnesses etc etc.

Sounds like you're describing the Campeche incident.

So there certainly is a lot of explaining to do if you try to explain this phenomena into the ordinary.

You certainly have had your chances to explain these issues into the mundane reality, yet you haven´t done so. I wonder why.

Because you have the burden of proof. You are using the tired old creduloid tactic of trying to switch the burden of proof to critically minded people to prove your anecdotes aren't UFAOs.

 

[R.A.F.]

You certainly have had your chances to explain these issues into the mundane reality, yet you haven´t done so. I wonder why.

I wonder why you think that attempting to shift the burden of proof would go unnoticed. Those who are skeptical of alien flying saucers need not prove anything as the onus is on those who make the claim that they actually exist.

The village-idiot card was played a lot in many years when discussing about UFOs.

Perhaps, however no one here is "playing" that card, so I don't understand why you would bring it up.

 

[Belgian thought]

Re the mundane, have your read this thread yet? - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184657

 

[Jocce]

For those interested in the physical evidence concerning UFOs:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm

You obviously don't even look at the content in the links you provide as "evidence". Your first link is a list of links and I gave up after the first 7 links was broken. Why do you uncritically publish such things without checking it yourself?

The evidence about UFO´s can be overwhelming even though we are discussing it. That´s because mass media and you people simply don´t look the evidence or accept it. There is a lot of evidence but if you insist that it doesn´t exist it doesn´t change the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence nevertheless.

You are incorrect in every way as this very thread shows. A number of cases has been discussed and the general consensus is that the evidence is underwhelming and in even the "best" case inconclusive.

Science has come to a conclusion that there are UFO cases that are truly unexplainable (not mundane and not explainable with manmade technology or weather phenomena or something known to mankind). This is a fact.

Yes, some cases remain unexplained. That doesn't mean they are alien objects. In each such case we have bee discussing here, the problem has been that there is not enough validated data to work with when trying to find an explanation. If you know of any other case with solid evidence, feel free to post it.

However science has not made a conclusion about the origins of UFOs. It´s easy to see why. The ridicule etc. certainly doesn´t tempt for a scientist to jeopardize his career (even though there are some scientists who is brave enough to explore the phenomena even though there is a culture attacking it. Funnily the culture attacking scientific exploration reminds me of Catholic church or Inquisition in it´s strong agenda denying anything that doesn´t fit into their own standards of reality.)

No, don't blame your failure to approach the identification of UFOs on a cultural stigma. Whenever someone publish an analysis with the rigour of real science, people will listen. What's stopping you?

The village-idiot card was played a lot in many years when discussing about UFOs. The most common phrase was something like:"UFOs are only seen by some country folks who live in isolation and probably are hallucinating etc. etc." You certainly know these claims which are not used anymore.

This is the only paragraph I agree with. And your point is?

Scepticism is good when investigatin UFO´s. However the scepticism that I find in this forum looks more like a religionist talk. There is certainly a belief system here. A belief system that believes that there is nothing worth investigatin about UFOs or that there is absolutely nothing indicating their ET origins despite the many results of investigations that proof that there has been objects flying, which has a characteristics of 1) impossible maneuvers for a man made object 2) intelligently controlled object 3) confirmed with radar and multiple eyewitnesses who are reliable also 4) object has structures; not only a dot of light for example 5) possible physical trace evidence 6) even trauma injuries like radioactive burns in some eyewitnesses etc etc.

Did you notice how long this thread has been going on? That's because people have been discussing and evaluating the evidence put forth by UFO proponents so your claim that sceptics are not willing to investigate is patently untrue.

As for your list:

1. Got any solid evidence for such maneuvers?

2. Got any solid evidence for intelligent control and that it was not human intelligence behind the wheel?

3. There is no radar confirmation of visual sightings. Some cases has been discussed where radar echos has come from the general direction of a visual sighting. That is not the same thing. Claims such as these require a great weight of evidence and this weighs too light.

4. Got any solid evidence or just hearsay/eyewitness?

5. "Possible" physical evidence?. Come back when it's confirmed.

6. Got any evidence that aliens caused the burn?

So there certainly is a lot of explaining to do if you try to explain this phenomena into the ordinary.

Yes, some cases remain unexplained because there's not enough solid evidence to examine.

You certainly have had your chances to explain these issues into the mundane reality, yet you haven´t done so. I wonder why.

You certainly had your chance to explain these issues as alien visits but has failed to do so. I wonder why.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The first five papers in the first page you link to give "404 errors": I don't feel like going on.

Perhaps someone, or something, doesn't want us to know?

 

[Rramjet]

I have made some measurements from the video here ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) and plotted the results in the following charts.

There is a lot to take in so I will leave these charts without too much comment for now.

I have not included error bars on the charts. There are two reasons for this. First it would clutter the charts so much as to make them virtually unreadable but critically, the Second reason is that for each of the time points measured I can be pretty sure that I measured the from same position on each of the objects (the same pixel each time). To obtain such accuracy I took each (5 sec. interval) snapshot from the video and within Photoshop zoomed in to 1600% and then placed the cursor in the middle of the pixel of interest to take the X/Y coordinate measurement (in cm). However, the resolution of the video is such that it is possible that there is a margin of error. Nevertheless, this margin of error would be less than one pixel - at most half a pixel either way. Thus if one was so inclined one could “smooth” the respective motions out by taking this into account. One pixel = 0.04x 0.04, so an error bar would extend 0.02 either side of a measured point. Obviously this has most relevance in the Stars and MIR velocity chart below where such an error margin would negate most of the velocity changes observed. It has little effect on the other charts. I invite readers to use their judgement accordingly.

Fig. Fig. 1: Object direction and motion

Fig. Fig. 2: Object direction and motion Detail

Fig. 3: Stars direction and motion

Fig. 4: MIR direction and motion

Fig. 6: Velocity – Stars and MIR

Fig. 7: Velocity Object Detail

It becomes obvious from the above charts that there is more going on than meets the eye from just watching the video. First the shuttle is obviously in constant adjustment of its position. Second the differential of these adjustments between MIR and the background stars must mean that at least a portion of the star movement must come from a “system wide” (Shuttle and MIR) orbital movement around the earth.

Interpretation of the positional charts is straightforward. For the velocity charts, an upward sloping line means an increase in velocity over the time period and a downward sloping line means a decrease in velocity over the period. Strictly speaking the lines in these velocity charts are a little misleading because the measurements are just point measurements – that is, the velocity IS the point measurement and what happened in between over the 5 second interval is merely assumed by the line.

One must assume that – all other things being equal) a velocity change means the shuttle fired its RCS to alter our perspective on things. However, if the object itself reacted to the shuttle RCS firing (ie; it is a piece of debri that was “pushed” by such a firing) one should be able to correlate a velocity change with a direction change on the object. This becomes rather complex and I don’t comment here further because I have not worked it all through yet.

Finally, one may wonder why such detail is necessary. It is to determine if we CAN correlate object directional changes with potential RCS firings, thus indicating the object is a piece of debri changing direction in reaction to RCS firings. If the object is independent (such as a satellite) then the changes associated with shuttle RCS firings would have to be mapped onto the object’s motion. These charts provide some of the basics to go at least part way to answering those questions.

I will continue to work on this when I get time.

I am also interested in the direction tomi71 is taking. There is a lot to discuss within the points he raises and I will comment soon, however one comment by Jocce struck me:

“3. There is no radar confirmation of visual sightings. Some cases has been discussed where radar echos has come from the general direction of a visual sighting. That is not the same thing. Claims such as these require a great weight of evidence and this weighs too light.​

The NZ case (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
was discussed where we have a visual/radar/film conjunction and the Tehran case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
was discussed where we have a visual/radar conjunction.

Jocce attempts to make out that if an object (or light) is observed by the witnesses at a particular position and radar confirms an object in that position then that somehow does not constitute evidence of a radar confirmation of a visual sighting. I think that it is stretching the bounds of credibility too far for Jocce to claim that such a conjunction does not indicate precisely what it appears to – after all, if it did not, then it would be impossible to operate the safe, modern air-traffic system that we do. Of course one can always claim that in this particular case the usual situation does not hold, but then one could equally do that with every radar observation and that would open a can of worms from which no escape was possible and render radar useless to mankind. No, Occam’s razor must be brought down and unless there is positive evidence of a radar malfunction, then we must assume that these visual sightings were confirmed on radar.

 

[wollery]

Ignoring the errors is a huge mistake Rramjet. We've been through this before, remember White Sands? Errors are extremely important.

First off the camera used to film this is not a precision instrument, it's just a video camera. It isn't designed to take accurate images, and consequently the pixels may not be properly aligned. But we'll ignore that one, and for the sake of argument assume that it is. So, as you correctly state, there is a possible error on your measurement due to the resolution. However, you miss the fact that there are actually two separate errors in play at this stage. Firstly there's the pixelation, which means that the apparent centre may be as much as half a pixel off, but there's also the problem that without a properly centroided measurement it's impossible to know if you actually have the central pixel. The human eye is very easy to fool, and the central pixel isn't necessarily the brightest, or even the one at the apparent centre. This adds another whole pixel of error, so your initial value on every position you measure has an error of at least +/-1.5 pixels.

And the error problem doesn't stop there because the errors have to be propagated correctly. Now, since the position of MIR needs to be measured relative to the position of the stars this means that the final error on MIR's position will be larger than the simple measurement errors. Next, you have to measure the position of the object relative to both MIR and the stars, which means you have an even higher error. By the time you've propagated the errors for all of these the error on the position of the object will be on the order of at least 4 pixels, and I think that's probably conservative.

Then we come to the velocities you've plotted. To measure a velocity you have to measure the distance between two points and divide by the time between them. Here we run into the timing error for each positional measurement. This comes from the fact that you don't know exactly what time each image was taken. Let's suppose that the image says it was taken at 1:35. Well, that could be 1:35.01, or it could be 1:35.99. How could you tell? This means that the error on the timing is almost +/-1 sec. If the object moves (for instance) 5 pixels (which they do in the later part of the video, the area of real interest) then the object is moving at about 1 pixel per second, so your error from the timing is probably about +/-2 pixels. And with all the errors associated with each of those measurements combined into one error you get an error on the change in position that's on the order of 6 or 7 pixels.

Now I have no idea what units you're using in your graphs, but it certainly isn't pixels. my guess would be 100 pixels per unit on the axes, but that's just a guess. That would make the error about +/-0.07 units, but as I said, that's based on a guess. It would help in the evaluation if you could use properly calibrated axes.

However, that's all moot, because all you have shown is raw data, without any calibration, and no errors. You are welcome to draw all the conclusions you want from that, but none of your conclusions will be safe.

 

[Jocce]

for each of the time points measured I can be pretty sure that I measured the from same position on each of the objects (the same pixel each time). To obtain such accuracy I took each (5 sec. interval) snapshot from the video and within Photoshop zoomed in to 1600% and then placed the cursor in the middle of the pixel of interest to take the X/Y coordinate measurement (in cm). However, the resolution of the video is such that it is possible that there is a margin of error. Nevertheless, this margin of error would be less than one pixel - at most half a pixel either way. Thus if one was so inclined one could “smooth” the respective motions out by taking this into account. One pixel = 0.04x 0.04, so an error bar would extend 0.02 either side of a measured point. Obviously this has most relevance in the Stars and MIR velocity chart below where such an error margin would negate most of the velocity changes observed. It has little effect on the other charts. I invite readers to use their judgement accordingly.

How can you claim that the error is "at most half a pixel either way" when you're looking at a compressed video on youtube where a point can't even move less than 1 pixel at the time? Once again you're in a situation where the data available doesn't have the quality required to perform such analysis as you are trying here. Yet you try to pretend as if the resolution is perfect.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I am now absolutely* sure this is a small piece of debris. I just noticed that around the 7.17 mark, another (rotating) object appears in the lower left corner, and moves by under MIR. This object also changes direction several times, but the important part is, every change in its apparent velocity is simultaneous with a change in the velocity of the object under discussion, and always in the same direction. And this includes the "motionless" period of your object, that corresponds with an upward acceleration of the second.
In other words, precisely as I predicted would be consistent with small objects close by.

So in regard to this:

Now even though the “ice crystal” scenario is your claim – and thus strictly speaking you have the burden of proof to support that claim with evidence - I have indicated I am willing to conduct an analysis to see if there is evidence that can support your claim.

I can say this:

• Several similar objects can be seen that are clearly not stars.
  It is likely that these objects are all of similar nature.
  
• Some of these objects can be seen crossing in front of the MIR space station, indicating that they are closer than MIR, and also much smaller than MIR or the shuttle.
  
• At the start of the second part of the video, one larger (or likely closer) such object can be clearly recognized as a rotating irregular chunk of something.
  
• Some of the objects can be seen to flash regularly, indicating that they are likely also flattened objects with various rotational velocities, which is consistent with broken off flakes of ice that were part of an ice layer deposited on a surface.

Now, accepting that there are several small objects present between MIR and the shuttle, and knowing that station keeping in orbit requires constant subtle manoeuvring, which is done by small impulses of the thrusters, we can say the following:

The stars seem to move pretty much constantly, so there is not much change in the rate of rotation of the shuttle.
Given this, any change in motion of the objects must be the result of translational motion of the shuttle.
This in turn means that changes in apparent velocity should occur in jumps, and must always be in the same direction and simultaneously.

Now, this is a critical hypothesis: Providing an example where two objects accelerate in opposite directions falsifies this hypothesis.
And, on the other hand, seeing several such synchronised accelerations occur is evidence in favour of my theory insofar that it is very unlikely that actively controlled craft would happen to decide to move in this fashion, more so because it would then only seem so from certain vantage points.

So, Rramjet, I appreciate your efforts, but I think we can move on to the next UFO sighting now.



*philosophical hairsplitting aside

 

[Jocce]

Jocce attempts to make out that if an object (or light) is observed by the witnesses at a particular position and radar confirms an object in that position then that somehow does not constitute evidence of a radar confirmation of a visual sighting.

Yes, that is correct. If an object is located at a particular position on both radar and visually then it would constitute evidence that there is actually a physical object there. Maybe you could point me to a particular sighting where this is the case? As far as I remember from when we were discussing these cases you mention, that kind of evidence could not be confirmed to exist?

 

[Rramjet]

Ignoring the errors is a huge mistake Rramjet. We've been through this before, remember White Sands? Errors are extremely important.

First, I do not “ignore” the “errors”. Second, you simply make more of potential “errors” than is warranted (and in the White Sands case it was pointed out to you that if highly qualified military analysts and mathematicians, used to accurately plotting the position (and other critical parameters) of test rockets, ignored the error margins during such tests they would soon be out of a job on the back of failed tests and crashed rockets and thus it beggars belief to suppose that in producing their summary report such errors as may have existed would not have been accounted for – we after all do not have access to the raw data and analyses they conducted, only their summary report – but the fact that they did not mention the error margins in that summary report does not mean they were not accounted for during analysis – indeed it would be utterly implausible for them not to account for error margins)

First off the camera used to film this is not a precision instrument, it's just a video camera. It isn't designed to take accurate images, and consequently the pixels may not be properly aligned. But we'll ignore that one, and for the sake of argument assume that it is. So, as you correctly state, there is a possible error on your measurement due to the resolution. However, you miss the fact that there are actually two separate errors in play at this stage. Firstly there's the pixelation, which means that the apparent centre may be as much as half a pixel off, but there's also the problem that without a properly centroided measurement it's impossible to know if you actually have the central pixel. The human eye is very easy to fool, and the central pixel isn't necessarily the brightest, or even the one at the apparent centre. This adds another whole pixel of error, so your initial value on every position you measure has an error of at least +/-1.5 pixels.

Incorrect. I obtained the object centre by zooming each image to 1600%. This provided a clear view if the number of pixels covered by each “object” under analysis. In finding the central point I accounted for “pixilation” and did not simply pick the “brightest” as my data point - in fact more often than not the data was not obtained from the brightest pixel – nor indeed from the central point (your “centroid”) of any particular pixel at all – rather I assed the extent of the whole image and accounting for pixilation obtained the data point. In most cases the image of the object was clearly enough defined as to make this quite an accurate process. However, given pixilation it is true that the data point could be half a pixel off (+/- .02 on the scale used) and I then asked readers to take this into account when examining the charts.

And the error problem doesn't stop there because the errors have to be propagated correctly. Now, since the position of MIR needs to be measured relative to the position of the stars this means that the final error on MIR's position will be larger than the simple measurement errors. Next, you have to measure the position of the object relative to both MIR and the stars, which means you have an even higher error. By the time you've propagated the errors for all of these the error on the position of the object will be on the order of at least 4 pixels, and I think that's probably conservative.

Sure, the process of propagation of errors in this way is as you describe it. Which is a reason I have not commented further or drawn any conclusions from the raw data I presented. The process as you describe is time consuming and requires patience and dedication and I have simply not had the time to conduct such analysis as you describe.

However, I will say that you “estimate” of a final error margin is groundless and probably in error itself.

Then we come to the velocities you've plotted. To measure a velocity you have to measure the distance between two points and divide by the time between them. Here we run into the timing error for each positional measurement. This comes from the fact that you don't know exactly what time each image was taken. Let's suppose that the image says it was taken at 1:35. Well, that could be 1:35.01, or it could be 1:35.99. How could you tell? This means that the error on the timing is almost +/-1 sec.

Incorrect. I downloaded the video and used a media player that is able to pause the video precisely on the second. Yes there is a margin of error here too. But it is on the order of +/- 0.2 sec. (at most!). Once again you make more of the error margins than is warranted.

If the object moves (for instance) 5 pixels (which they do in the later part of the video, the area of real interest) then the object is moving at about 1 pixel per second, so your error from the timing is probably about +/-2 pixels. And with all the errors associated with each of those measurements combined into one error you get an error on the change in position that's on the order of 6 or 7 pixels.

Thus your assessment here is utterly erroneous.

Now I have no idea what units you're using in your graphs, …

This merely indicates you did not actually read my comments!

I stated:
“ …coordinate measurement (in cm).”
And
“One pixel = 0.04x 0.04…”

…but it certainly isn't pixels. my guess would be 100 pixels per unit on the axes, but that's just a guess. That would make the error about +/-0.07 units, but as I said, that's based on a guess. It would help in the evaluation if you could use properly calibrated axes.

The actual scale used is irrelevant (pixels, inches, cm). As long as all charts are produced using the same scale it could be cubits for all the difference it makes.

However, that's all moot, because all you have shown is raw data, without any calibration, and no errors. You are welcome to draw all the conclusions you want from that, but none of your conclusions will be safe.

First you are correct, I have shown the raw data.
Second, I have also provided the relevant scale on the charts so comparisons between them are able to be legitimately assessed.
Third, I have drawn no specific conclusions at this point, just some general observations that need no precision measurement to confirm.
Fourth, and most critically, it is clear, even from a casual observation of the video in situ ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) that your error margins are too large by far.

I think what you need to do Wollery is take a step back to an unbiased position and begin your assessment again. I have come to no conclusions based on the raw data I have presented (and that is all I have done!).

There are some interesting things to note about that raw data – and YES – error margins must be accounted for – but you are illegitimately trying to make the most out of those margins - probably labouring under the assumption that the data will not support your hypotheses if you do not do this.

You yourself have indicated that you do not have access to the actual video – only the snapshots I sent you. I think this places you in a difficult position in regard to assessing error margins because you cannot see the video run as a whole to assess where various objects are moving and what their relative positions are frame by frame. But even so, you should be able to zoom in on those snapshots I have provided to see if you can determine whether the measurements I have taken are as prone to error as you are suggesting – and if you don’t have access to software that enables you to do this, then you are merely conducting speculative exercises in the absence of any real data to support those speculations.