UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Indeed, you cannot express it precisely as a single distance. If you've actually done the trigonometry to establish a minimum distance I'd like to see it. But even without that it seems obvious to me that something off in the distance towards the direction of the sun could have easily been quite close to earth and just reflecting sunlight. Geese would fit here, as pointed out by Stray Cat. That would also explain the "oscillations" you saw.

The Alba family of owls or migrating waders/shorebirds is more likely, seeing that it's in the middle of the night and they exhibit lighter plumage which can be quite reflective (waders only on on certain times of the year) . It's also more consistent with the small number of objects seen. Geese would likely be present in a bigger flock and can be heard from quite a high altitude.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...Yes, of course, my own fault, I should not have expected people here to understand the phrase "no longer going to"

If only you had said you were "no longer going to" post idiotic pseudoscientific nonsense again such as your null hypothesis which was demolished by a real scientist. Sigh.

And answered? Perhaps you simply missed it (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7438243#post7438243).

Then you must have missed this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7438330#post7438330

It totally destroys your "argument", which is the real reason that you aren't responding anymore. It's also the reason you refuse to answer wollery.

Here is the falsifiable null hypothesis that we'll use:

"All UFO sightings are mundane in origin."​

Now that your idiotically psuedoscientific one has been laid waste, what do you thnk of the one we'll be using from now on? How does it affect the sea gull sighting in your latest Sea Gull See Gullible case?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sure okay – go ahead then… what mundane objects can “appear to be” that way?

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin." You go ahead then, what do you think it is?

…in the absence of plausible mundane explanations, then it becomes legitimate to speculate about alternative explanations.

In the absence of any explanations, we'll go with the null hypothesis. See above.

Precisely. While the ETH is a plausible alternative, it remains for all that merely an hypothesis.

In the absence of any evidence for ET, we'll go with the null hypothesis. See above.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am merely contending (as always) that the case defies plausible mundane explanation. That is I am contending that the descriptive characteristics rule out all known natural or technological explanations.

Which ones have you ruled out?

Perhaps though YOU (or anyone you know) can come up with a plausible mundane explanation?

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin." Perhaps you can come up with a plausible non-mundane explanation or if you have evidence to falsify the null hypothesis? No?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do you have any multiple eyewitness evidence, radar evidence, photographic evidence, film evidence or physical trace evidence for your IPUH?

We do for Santa Claus. Remember NORAD tracking him on radar every year? And you forgot FLIR again. LOL! Only a dishonest pseudoscientist would continue to forget FLIR.

Does science suggest the existence of PUs (as it does for ET)?

Nothing in science rules out Santa Claus.

Has a SETI equivalent been set up for PUs?

Does ET bring millions of presents every year?

No? Then the ETH remains plausible while the IPUH does not.

No? Then ET is not plausible while Santa Claus is. Sucks for your pseudoscience UFOlogy.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The Navy and Air Force calculations were not available to him?

Not to the degree that Baker’s was. Baker performed measurements on the film that the Navy/AF apparently did not. However, Hartmann did reference using the other reports as well to verify Baker’s work.

Actually Bakaer did not ignore the “birds” hypothesis at all!

I did not state he ignored the hypothesis. I stated he ignored certain aspects that would affect his calculations and conclusions. For instance, the film was underexposed (this is mentioned in the Navy report) by newhouse in a hope to improve contrast. However, this meant that faint objects would not be recorded on the emulsion. Sure the bright parts of birds would show up but the darker wings would not. This would give the impression they were just dots. Therefore, when making computations, for bird size one need only assume that the brightest part of the bird’s body would show up on the film (this is what Hartmann did). Despite all of this Baker could not completely falsify the Sea Gull Hypothesis:

“At these distances, it is doubted if birds would give the appearance of round dots; also they would have been identifiable by the camera if not visually. However, actual movies of birds in flight would have to be taken to confirm this conclusion.”

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-441

Rationalise it however you want AstroP, but what you are actually doing is calling into question the expertise of the professionals involved in the actual film analysis based on a mere impression of members of the Robertson Panel that the relative brightness of the objects was different.

I am doing what is correct. I am questioning if they had the proficiency at conducting such an analysis. Apparently, their densitometer readings were invalid indicating they did not have the proficiency you and Swords maintain.

Maybe, maybe not, however BOTH the Air Force and Baker conducted independent analyses and also did not think the “birds” hypothesis was correct.

And their reasons for rejecting birds was…..? You can’t seem to answer that question as if you did not know. Come back to me when you can answer the specifics of that question.

If however they are smaller birds and closer, you only have to look at the film of the two objects crossing behind the tower to realise that the perfectly flat, level flight and the precision of maintenance of the distance between the objects rules out small birds (here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page from about 1:30).

I should be insulted or maybe I should pity you. I am not sure which because what you are referencing is not even from the Tremonton film. It is from a Montana film shot by Nick Mariana. If you actually looked this information up, you would know this. Again, you are swinging wildly in the dark. Quit while you are behind.

Yes, why don’t you have a look at that film and tell me how the motion of the objects in any way resembles that of birds.

They aren’t. They are probably F-94s but that is a completely different case.

And you are (unsurprisingly) misrepresenting Dr Swords:

No, I am not. Like you, Swords is going to a position of ignoring the review by the scientists in favor of the flawed analysis by the PIL. It is the same way UFOlogists always like to say the skeptics are saying the witnesses are lying (even though they do not say that). It generates sympathy toward the observer and demonizes the skeptics. You are doing the same thing here. You are essentially saying, “Those Navy guys worked their slide rules and pencils and spent hundreds of man-hours on this and the mean old scientists said they made mistakes. The nerve of those scientists to find fault with their work!!!”

Yeah right! Critical analysis by popular vote! Now why haven’t scientists thought of that one before? After all, it could save them all a lot of fuss and bother... but perhaps there are even some current theories that your methodology could be applied to – perhaps Evolution for example? So let’s all go over to a Creationist forum and get all the Creationists to vote on that theory shall we? LOL. (Do still you wonder why I have ignored your suggestion?)

Well, I felt it was a better way to move the discussion along since you have had two years to present your case and it has basically gone back and forth on each case with no resolution/movement whatsoever. However, if you are talking about “critical analysis by popular vote”, what do you think all these UFO websites do? They certainly aren’t critical and it is a popularity contest on the cases they promote.
It was my intention that if you presented each case with research (and not a wall of links) and a well thought out presentation, we skeptics would try to be fair.
If you aren’t interested in what the skeptics think, what is the point of you even arguing here in this forum? What do you hope to achieve? Is it to impress everyone with your knowledge (or lack thereof)? Is it to promote UFO pseudoscience? I am just curious because you have accomplished nothing in two years from my point of view.

I have no idea what you mean by “best case”. All the cases I am presenting are (in my opinion) good cases. Is there any single case that is “better” than any other? I don’t really know. Only others can be the judge of that.

I asked, long ago, for your BEST CASE, which we could argue endlessly about. You said there was no such thing (or words to that effect).

I have told you before, I am not going to waste my time trawling through databases (do you know how many reports they receive in one day…?)

About 400-800 a month. Many are insignificant/insufficient information. It does not take long to go through them (I know because I have done it). However, there are a few in there that might meet your standards for further investigation. If you aren’t up to it, I understand. However, are you really stating that looking at these UFO reports are a “waste of time”? Then what is the purpose of collecting them? You spend a lot of time here in this forum. Why not spend some time doing some research. My guess is it might take a week or two but it might be worth it. Is it your opinion that there is no hope for a good report to reside in this database?

What I can offer you however is a personal sighting (for that is no different to plucking one out of such a database – with the added advantage that I can answer questions about it – ie; you have the opportunity to interrogate the witness).

How about location, date, approximate elevation angles, and azimuths. I would consider that information pertinent in making this a “reliable” sighting. Otherwise, it is just another UFO story. Is this “reliable” simply because it is your personal sighting? Where are all those principles of perception you claim to use to evaluate these sightings?

I am not sure if we will get any where with this because it is a “personal sighting”, you will take it personally. If a solution is presented (and I can think of one or two) that is reasonable, you will say that is not what you saw because of your own personal involvement. You can’t be objective.


This little tidbit caught my eye:

Ah and more misleading obfuscation – I was not talking about Ruppelt! Clearly I was talking about your “panel of world class scientists” – the Robertson Panel. LOL.

Hmmmm…..Let’s see the list of scientists, their position at the time, and their areas of expertise:

Dr. H.P. Robertson - California Institute of technology - Physics, weapons systems (Chairman)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Percy_Robertson
Not a bad resume’ and his ties with the CIA made him an obvious choice.
Dr. Luis W. Alverez - University of California - Physics, radar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Walter_Alvarez Note: Pretty impressive resume here with a nobel prize and all. His pioneering work on radar is especially noteworthy in regards to evaluating such radar cases.
Dr. Lloyd V. Berkner- Associated Universities, Inc. –Geophysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Berkner
Knowledge of the earth’s atmosphere seemed to be appropriate for a discussion of UFOs operating in that environment.
Dr. Samuel Goudsmit - Brookhaven National Laboratories -Atomic structure, statistical problems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Goudsmit
His work in physics is noteworthy and his ties to the Manhattan project cleared him to participate in a classified meeting of this nature.
Dr. Thornton Page - Office of Research Operations, Johns Hopkins University- Astronomy, Astro-physics
It was important to include one astronomer (Hynek only was an associate member). He probably had the necessary security clearance.

The bottom line here is, I think this could qualify as a panel of “world class scientists”. Many had expertise in the necessary areas and were accomplished in their fields. If you are laughing at this label then you can maybe give us a list of scientists, in 1953, who were CLEARLY better scientists than these gentlemen?

 

[RoboTimbo]

YesThat is simply an unfounded assertion. What you need to do to draw that conclusion is define the factors that make the observations unreliable – otherwise we simply work on the principle that perception is basically accurate unless there are factors present that would detrimentally affect it.

Well, no. We work on the principle that anecdotes are unfalsifiable. Everyone but a pseudoscientist would understand that. Because they are unfalsifiable, we begin with a falsifiable null hypothesis and that is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."​

You are free to falsify it with only just one confirmed ET. Why would you not want to do that? Only a dishonest pseudoscientist would not want to.

 

[TjW]

Ah, I wondered how soon the attempted obfuscations would take to appear - not long it seems. "dim dots" they most certainly were not!

They were star bright - just not twinkling. Moreover, in the part of the world we were, there simply are no geese - neither in location nor passing in migration.

Besides, the location was on a cape with no land for thousands of kilometers to either to the south, east or north. Now that should narrow the location down to but a small possible handful in the world for you. LOL

Moreover, whence their light - it was nearly midnight - the sun was practically on the opposite side of the world - and even 22,000 feet would not expose it. Indeed, that is yet another indicator of great height and most certainly puts the "geese hypothesis" out of the question.

So the bottom line is - not geese.

To view most satellites, I have to go to a very dark location, because otherwise they're simply lost in the light pollution. If they looked just like satellites, they were dim, because otherwise they would have been remarkably bright satellites.
In your story, though, they're only remarkable for looking exactly like satellites (that's how you knew their altitude, remember?) and flying in formation.
And as with all UFO stories, any possible explanations will be denied by a dribble of facts you didn't see fit to mention, or make up on the spot because you know you're right, no matter what anybody else says.
"Couldn't be geese -- they were too bright."
As with satellite's altitudes, stars have a remarkable variety of magnitudes. Be specific. Bright as which stars? Do you know how bright geese might appear at night under all conditions? How do you know this?

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, A few questions and observations about your Goose UFO report a few pages back:

Ah, so I see the obfuscation continues. LOL. Just once I would like to see someone enter into the debate without thinking they must immediately attempt to “score points” or otherwise muddy the waters…

Firstly regarding the appearance of the objects:

Indeed, the reference to "satellites" itself arose from the fact that their character most closely resembled that of a passing satellite.

And then it changes to

They were star bright - just not twinkling.

Now which is it?
Satellites are rarely if ever "star bright"... unless we're talking about those dim stars of course, but in this case we can't be because your refutation clearly states:

Why should the two statements be mutually exclusive? The objects were “star bright” but were not twinkling – hence the comparison to (ie; “most closely resembled”) satellites. If you have ever looked into the night sky (away from city lights) you will see that stars come in all manner of brightness, from brilliant to barely visible.

At first, when they objects were noted by Mr Y, I simply could not see them from the background stars. It was only when he and I both stood up and I followed the line of his pointed finger that I noticed them. Once I saw them however, they were then of course immediately distinguishable because of their motion and the fact they did not twinkle.

And “dim dots" they most certainly were not!”

Even though at first in your original report you say they were like "Four tiny star-like points of light" and you needed them pointing out to you.

Indeed, if you have ever seen the night sky away from city lights you will find the sky absolutely packed with stars. The four objects were simply among the myriad. Practically indistinguishable - unless you noticed them – and then they were unmistakable.

Just trying to get a handle on exactly what they looked like.

Sure, I hope I have helped picture it more clearly for you.

Now the viewing conditions, you state in your original report here:

“I looked up but could see nothing except a huge number of stars (it was a very clear night and we were well away from city lights)”

But by the end of that paragraph you mention:

“They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north.”

So it's a "very clear night" except for the "misty haziness" "to the North"?

Sure, but you may have noted that I stated in later explanation we were on a cape – there was flat ground where we were but hills to the north (and west too). We were also very close to the sea – perhaps 500 meters and the hills came practically down to the sea. They had attracted a sea mist – which over the next hour or so grew to cover half the sky, but at that point was restricted to just a slight haziness up their slopes and reaching over the top of them.

And about those hills where the misty haziness was, above you clearly describe misty hazy hills to the North, but curiously in a later post those hills have gone:

“Besides, the location was on a cape with no land for thousands of kilometers to either to the south, east or north.

Actually that “north” is not correct. It should have been south, east and west. The geography of the area is such that when you look west from where we were, there is a strong perception that you are actually looking north.

Unless of course, the misty hazy hills were thousands of kilometers away in which case, you wouldn't be able to see them at all anyway let alone discern that they had a "slight misty haziness"

The base of the hills were less than one kilometre away (about 700 metres). In fact there were hills to both the west and north, with open sea directly to the east and a kilometre or so of undulating flatland before the sea to the south - and then nothing until Antarctica.

I'm sure you'll realise the importance of getting details correct and accurate so I hope you don't mind me pointing these apparent inconsistencies out and hopefully we'll be able to clear them up without adding further complications to your story.

Sure, details are important. I do hope however that you now see there were no inconsistencies – but I did make one error with that “north” there (which should have been west).

 

[Access Denied]

Dr. H.P. Robertson - California Institute of technology - Physics, weapons systems (Chairman)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Percy_Robertson
Not a bad resume’ and his ties with the CIA made him an obvious choice.

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker_metric

The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity; it describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe that may be simply connected or multiply connected.

[…]

This model is sometimes called the Standard Model of modern cosmology. It was developed independently by the named authors in the 1920s and 1930s.

Not bad indeed.

 

[carlitos]

It's almost as if his brain misinterpreted what his eyes were telling him, because he was predisposed not to register that word. By ignoring it he was able to give a response which missed the entire point of the post: that there are mundane explanations of UFO sightings that neither he nor anybody else would think of in a million years.

I thought you had given up posting ...

You supplied a "runaway balloon" case and contended that it would potentially result in UFO reports.

I merely pointed out that the evidence from the aviation authorities showed that it did not.

Not sure what you missed about that...
<snip>

You did nothing of the sort. You noted that "aviation authorities" had no sightings of the lost art project.

Once again you completely ignore the evidence.

"The Civil Aviation Authority and the local airports were informed, but have not reported any sightings."​

The point (please pay attention closely) was that:

ANY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COULD HAVE SEEN THIS THING FLOATING HIGH UP IN THE SKY AND SAID 'WHOA, WHAT THE HELL IS THAT THING IN THE SKY' AND THAT WOULD BE A 'UFO SIGHTING.' ​

Most regular folks like me don't contact the freaking "aviation authorities" or local airports ... but we do tell our little story to others, and that story is a "UFO sighting." That's how this mythology and folklore work - storytelling.

Capisce? Verstehen-sie?

 

[Paul2]

No, the fact is that the brain always interprets what its senses are telling it, and that that interpretation is always influenced by what instinct and experience have predisposed it to see. So these pilots' estimates of the shape, size, distance and manuevering ability of these objects (even the assumption that they were solid objects) cannot be relied on. In the absence of any additional information speculation is fun but pointless and conclusions - including the conclusion that there is no mundane explanation for this sighting - cannot be justified.

This is crucial, I wondered why this wasn't jumped on more quickly.

Rramjet: can you document your idea that

perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.

is a legitimate part of the scientific method?

Can anyone else document the reverse?

Note I have asked for documentation, not explanation.

 

[Paul2]

Yes, but the factors that go into that predisposition are well documented and not all factors apply in all contexts. One simply has to understand which factors, if any, are operative at the time and place of the observation. If there are no factors that detrimentally bias the observation then we can assume the observation to be reasonably reliable.

Do you have any such factors?

This shifts the burden of proof.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sure, I hope I have helped picture it more clearly for you.

Absolutely.

I'm picturing geese, or possibly Martians.


TY

 

[TjW]

Absolutely.

I'm picturing geese, or possibly Martians.


TY

False dichotomy -- it could have been Martian geese, known throughout the universe for the overunity albedo of their feathers.

 

[Rramjet]

Indeed, you cannot express it precisely as a single distance. If you've actually done the trigonometry to establish a minimum distance I'd like to see it. But even without that it seems obvious to me that something off in the distance towards the direction of the sun could have easily been quite close to earth and just reflecting sunlight. Geese would fit here, as pointed out by Stray Cat. That would also explain the "oscillations" you saw.

It was nearly midnight. The sun was on the opposite side of the world. Given the radius of the earth is about 6400km then from where we were the minimum distance possible to reflect sunlight (given an angle of 70 degrees) is more than 19,000km from our position and 18,000km above the earth… surely not possible, so actually, come to think of it, these things must have been self-illuminated! (wow, never crossed my mind before - I’ll have to work it out properly!) …but there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will. For that matter, there is nowhere for any migrating bird to have come from but the open ocean… unless perhaps they were Emperor Penguins. LOL.

 

[Rramjet]

All of which assumes that the light was caused by reflected sunlight.

On what basis do you assume that they weren't self illuminated?

Actually - they may (perhaps must) have been!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually - they may (perhaps must) have been!

Really? What do you think they might have been?

 

[Rramjet]

TIn your story, though, they're only remarkable for looking exactly like satellites (that's how you knew their altitude, remember?) and flying in formation.

Well, no, the front two were also oscillating about a central point between them… and four satellites in a row with the front two oscillating? Besides, I am now beginning to come to the conclusion that they were (must have been) self-illuminated!

 

[Akhenaten]

False dichotomy -- it could have been Martian geese, known throughout the universe for the overunity albedo of their feathers.

Of course! It was that business about getting North and West mixed up that caused my confusion.