UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

The objects in my sighting were travelling at a great height directly south to north. Where to the north of Cape Otway are the goose habitats?

The objects in my sighting were indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites. What possible light source at midnight could make geese (or any bird) shine in such a manner?

Alternatively, if the satellite hypothesis is to be taken as plausible, then there will be a record of those satellites. None have been produced by the resident expert on the topic - and rest assured - if he could have - he would have.

Besides, how does "geese" or “satellite” even begin to plausibly explain four objects, indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites, travelling directly south to north, at a great height, all following precisely the same trajectory, with the leading two oscillating about a midpoint between them?

1. You have changed your location from Cape Otway to someplace else yet you continue to use that reference point in regards to the geese.

2. The objects did not fly directly south to north. If you plot what you described (70 degrees elevation due west to north), you will discover it was traveling in a northeast direction.

3. I have already explained the difficulty in pulling up the old TLEs and amount of effort involved to compute all the satellite positions from over two years ago. I just don't see it worth the effort simply because of your close-minded approach to this whole event.

Of course, this is nothing new here.You came into the forum with this UFO story in order to demonstrate a reliable UFO report that had no explanation. In the spirit of such a challenge, several of us offerred explanations that seemed reasonable to us. In order to preserve your sighting (your "precious"), you immediately declared them implausible giving various reasons, which included falsely stating that Geese NEVER fly over the area and that you are impervious to error in observation or recollecting the story correctly. It has become a joke like the "argument sketch" in Monty Python, where the gentleman behind the desk just says "no it isn't" to everything the customer argues about.

When I suggested satellites and even showed how satellites can appear to be in formation and traveling in the same direction, you dismissed it with a wave of the hand as implausible. After explaining to you how it was plausible, you then challenged me to dig up all the old TLEs and run them through the computer to prove that I am correct. At this point, I see that it would be a wasted effort because, even if I did find such a configuration, you would dismiss it because they did not "oscillate around a central point" or some other ridiculous reason. Since you did not investigate "Precious" the very moment you made this sighting, it is clear that you never wanted to find a potential source of your "Precious". This indicates to me that "Precious" is something in your mind and may never have existed at all (or not in the way you have described "Precious"). It is even plausible that you may have even dreamed up "Precious" in order to play "gotcha" with the forum to come up with an explanation for something that never occurred. Had I come up with a series of satellites, you could then declare "aha...it never happened and you are just making this all up!". These are all perfectly plausible explanations now that we have seen to what extent you are going to preserve "Precious". "Precious" is an unreliable sighting made or made up by an individual, who has a demonstated that he never was really interested in scientific research on the subject but was more interested in validating his belief that UFOs are alien spaceships flying around the skies. You can deny it all you want but that is how it appears.

Maybe the forum should take up the position of blindly saying "no it isn't". Nah....that would be too easy. The individuals in here at least demonstrate the curiousity and skills to actually look things up before saying "no it isn't".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey there Ramjet, I've also been through the spanish inquisition here regarding my own sighting. It ultimately came down to being told I don't deserve anything but ridicule.

It ultimately came down to being presented with the huge discrepancies in your story after exclaiming how infallible your memory was of the event.

Great way to earn the respect of those seeking answers eh?

Great way to lose the respect of those you're trying to convince eh?

 

[EHocking]

I was “warned”? What with… a continuation of the ridicule, the abuse, or the utter implausibility of the “geese” hypothesis?

This warning about the "utter implausibility" of CBGeese.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
...There are no geese in the area, nor have any ever been seen flying overhead. It just does not happen. Geese are simply not a plausible explanation...

Evidence?

pause first and read my sig before replying.

The hint was my participation and "moderating" of the JREF birdwatching threads and webpage.

I have never claimed Cape Barren Geese were not present at Cape Otway. I claimed that where my sighting occurred there are no Cape Barren Geese, nor do they fly over in migration - it simply does not happen. Those are the facts of the matter. Full stop.

You know you are wrong. Why do you continue to deny facts after I posted as SIGHTING atlas of Australian birds that puts CBGeese at that location?

I also stated the location of Cape Otway as a reference point for the satellite hypothesis and claimed that it was "near enough" to the actual location of my sighting for that purpose.

What you stated is plain for all to see.

I have also made a number of references to the effect that geese do not fly over the Otways (the forested mountain range) and indeed the habitat of the geese maps support that. This should have indicated to anyone paying attention that the actual location was in the Otways and not precisely at the Cape.

No. OTHERS provided a general distribution map that places CBGeese in the area and to the north of it. I provided a link to and image from the Australia Bird Atlas that listed SIGHTINGS of CBGeese at the Cape and in the area around it.

But of course you will keep believing what you want to and I cannot help that.

You really don't have any concept of irony do you?

Now: A very simple question for you:

Where to the north of the Otways are the Cape Barren geese?

If you had actaully read my links and carefully viewed the Atlas results I posted, you'd realise that the Lat/Long box's dimensions are 88km/111km. So to answer your question, as far as 95km north of the Otways (and about 45 kms east and west).

My sighting was of four objects, indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites,

Only by you. This does NOT imply that they might have been ACTUALLY indistiguishable in character - just that you wish to continue to assert this while providing no evidence that this is so.

travelling in train at a great height, at 11:45 PM, travelling due south to north, with the first two objects oscillating about a central point between them.

A possible, real, explanation for that phenomenon has been provided by a number of posters.

Another simple question for you:

What possible light source could illuminate birds so that they are indistinguishable from stars or satellites?

Oh, uh, got me there - NOT. A full moon in a clear sky would be sufficient, plausibly.

These answers to these two questions are critical for the plausibility of the “geese” hypothesis.

Glad to hear it - it seems that Geese ARE a plausible alternative to ET then.

The answers to those questions (in order) are of course: There are none and there is none. The “geese” hypothesis is implausible.

Nu uh.

Move on ...unless you want to “warn” me with something else…LOL.

I guess ignoring the evidence for alternative hypothesis to ET is one way of moving on...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Recall that my point was a hypothetical to show that GeeMack's statement...



...is false. It is false because we can think of a possible hypothetical where the logic of his statement is contradicted. It doesn't matter that the hypothetical didn't happen, only that its not impossible.

But it isn't false. Look back through this thread and count how many times Rramjet has been proven wrong when he has unilaterally declared something to "positively defy plausible mundane explanation" and then a mundane explanation turns out to be the most likely answer. The HOAX at Delphos, his Debri^WP Debacle, Campeche, the Blimp at Rogue River, and now his Getting Goosed at Cape Otway.

If you want to imagine a non-mundane event (which you oddly claim floating through a wall is not impossible) and use that as evidence of the non-mundane, you're going to have a lot of uphill spade work ahead.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As you know I am loathe to put the ET interpretation onto UFOs. I know that for many the explanation is plausible – indeed compelling. But speaking strictly from a scientific perspective, we simply don’t have the direct evidence to have proof of the conclusion (some may argue that we do – I have presented only one case where the DNA evidence showed something out of the ordinary – but still, ET? Who knows?)

I really don't believe you when you say this since you have continuously tried to make just about every case in your list appear as objects that could not be described as "known to this earth". Rogue River was just one example. Your "Precious" here is another. You don't say they are alien spaceships but you have stated that explanation was more plausible than the explanations offerred. Therefore, claiming that you "loathe" to us the ETH is inaccurate.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, for an organisation that pretends to public outreach and education they have a very peculiar way of going about it. I could have sworn that ridicule, abuse, misrepresentation and obfuscation were not particularly effective teaching methods – but of course that just my opinion. LOL.

You've certainly learned nothing from it. LOL.

That’s interesting and so far a lot more thoughtful as a response that anything the debunkers have been throwing at me. I have not had time to look into it more closely but I wonder if any of those could have been orbiting south to north?


Indeed. As you say. But of course no satellites have so far been found that would fit the time and location…

You're the pseudoscientist. Didn't you research to see if it could be?

That’s perfectly correct. Not only that, there was simply no light source that could have illuminated birds. It was nearly midnight, so the sun was practically on the direct opposite side of the planet. If it were a powerful spotlight (just for the sake of argument…) then its beam would certainly have been visible cutting through the sea mist over the mountains…

Other than the moon. Unless you've going to add in more detail about the moon now?

I have absolutely no idea what they were.

Abundantly true.

They simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

Almost certainly a lie, as already proven.

As you know I am loathe to put the ET interpretation onto UFOs. I know that for many the explanation is plausible – indeed compelling. But speaking strictly from a scientific perspective, we simply don’t have the direct evidence to have proof of the conclusion (some may argue that we do – I have presented only one case where the DNA evidence showed something out of the ordinary – but still, ET? Who knows?)

But ET isn't plausible. I've asked you several times and you continue to scurry away from answering:

Rramjet, can you think of any plausible non-mundane explanations?

 

[Access Denied]

One of these is not like the other…

Ruppelt was an actual head of the Project Blue Book. He was credible and he was there, which makes his words believable and yours worthless and disrespectful.

Whatever the case may have been for the stance Ruppelt took on his abridged version, ultimately he is entitled to his opinion and it still doesn't change any of what has been said up to this point.

So is his claim as the “actual head of the Project Blue Book” that UFOs are a “space age myth” believable or is it worthless because I agree with him?

Interestingly, Ruppelt also writes about the destruction of other documents as ordered by USAF heirarchy elsewhere in his book.

And has it never occurred to you to think “how convenient” or is this plausible deniability in your opinion?

What's absurd is that Ufologists claim that such a mystery equals "aliens" until proven otherwise.

And that they dismiss all "mundane" explanations out of hand in a misguided bid to justify their fantastic explanations.

The above are simply more unfounded proclaimations. There are thousands of cases where mundane possibilities were explored. Most ufology books don't go into mundane cases because they aren't what people are interested in reading about.

I believe Jocce was referring to this thread in general and John to your dismissal of all mundane explanations for your sighting, as well as Rramjet for his, in particular, however, this is also true for UFOlogy as a whole when applied to the 701 out of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book that remained "unidentified" at it’s close in 1969.

Care to pick one and prove us wrong?

 

[TjW]

A full moon in a clear sky would be sufficient, plausibly.

Actually, my first thought was a half-moon just before moonrise or just after moonset.
The local ground area would be dark, but birds at altitude would be illuminated.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oh, uh, got me there - NOT. A full moon in a clear sky would be sufficient, plausibly.

Just to set the record straight, the moon had set by the time this event supposedly happened. It was a young crescent moon. However, Rramjet's ever moving location description seems to indicate it was a coastal area. Examining light pollution maps for Australia indicates there is a growing light pollution problem along the coastal areas near Cape Otway. Even though he may have had no lights in his immediate area, the ambient lighting within a few miles may have been enough to illuminate the geese.

 

[EHocking]

Just to set the record straight, the moon had set by the time this event supposedly happened. It was a young crescent moon. .

? Missed that he'd actually given us a date.

However, Rramjet's ever moving location description seems to indicate it was a coastal area. Examining light pollution maps for Australia indicates there is a growing light pollution problem along the coastal areas near Cape Otway. Even though he may have had no lights in his immediate area, the ambient lighting within a few miles may have been enough to illuminate the geese.

 

[GeeMack]

Just to set the record straight, the moon had set by the time this event supposedly happened. It was a young crescent moon. However, Rramjet's ever moving location description seems to indicate it was a coastal area. Examining light pollution maps for Australia indicates there is a growing light pollution problem along the coastal areas near Cape Otway. Even though he may have had no lights in his immediate area, the ambient lighting within a few miles may have been enough to illuminate the geese.

Apollo Bay has a population of roughly 1300. Although it's a small town by most standards, we can easily find photos of the community at night which show it's pretty well lit up. And it's only 12 miles up the coast from Cape Otway as the goose flies.

Considering the constant denial that the alleged sighting was in fact at Cape Otway and the refusal to offer a more specific location, it's not unreasonable to speculate that the sighting, if it occurred at all, may have taken place much closer to Apollo Bay.

 

[carlitos]

Re: "What possible light source could illuminate birds"

I am not an astronomer, and can't waste any more time on moon phases this AM. I think that on Rramjet's alleged sighting, it was a young moon, visible low on the horizon to the ENE WNW.

I'd also be curious what that lighthouse does at night.

Do people blow off fireworks on New Year's Eve in Australia?

New Year's Eve
Few places know how to party like Melbourne, and New Year’s Eve 2010 was no exception. There was so much to see and do that there was literally something for everyone. Free public transport brought thousands of people to see not one, but TWO dazzling fireworks displays.

(On edit - that was Melbourne, which could be a stretch @ ~200km or whatever distance. - - here's a tourist review of their stay in Apollo Bay for New Year's Eve 2008)

Jan08 - Had a lovely new years eve on the deck....Fireworks came early in Apollo Bay - lovely to watch too. Have had the king parrots hand feeding in the morning. Lots of swimming with good surf. So easy to sit on the deck and watch the weather roll in and the glorious view. Found the cottage extremely child friendly".

Or release chinese lanterns? (Back in 2008, that is - apparently Australia banned sky lanterns this February)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Next-New-Years-Eve-At-1205pm-Let-Off-A-Chinese-Lantern/229473701291

Or do bar owners and party promoters sometimes have spotlights panning the sky outside at cool clubs on big nights, like, oh, New Year's Eve?

Night Eater Searchlights - Ripplebrook VIC

Searchlights Sales and Rental - address: 2595 Westernport Road - (3818) Ripplebrook VIC Gippsland Area - phone: 03 56276325

I know that these are all so boring and, well, mundane, but really - moonlight, satellites, geese, lighthouse, fireworks, spotlights, lanterns and military aircraft all exist.

 

[Rramjet]

Ughh –you people…

It matters not what you all think (or would like to believe). The goose hypothesis is a simply a red herring. The objects I and the two other witnesses observed were not geese. That’s the bottom line here.

However I will admit to one mistake in my approach. I did start with the assumption that because I knew that the objects we sighted were not geese, then I defended the sighting against the geese hypothesis on that basis. One might call it starting with the conclusion. This obviously was a mistake and has lead to some confusion.

In the 1950s the Cape Barren Goose was thought to be close to extinction, so low were their numbers. Even today they are rare in the Otways.

One reference above was to the geese in the Colac lakes area. If you look here (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...vtmtfs&sig=AHIEtbSEPjoZYt75D6d1_DP7XOhTfL6BqA) you will see a bird count on page four for 2009. You will see that far from the geese being present in the lakes suggested by the poster above, there was just 12 of them in Lake Weering.

There is also another factor that must be taken into account. In the summer of 2008/2009, many of the lakes in the area were completely dry (eg; http://www.otway.biz/lakecolac.html).

Moreover, if you go here (http://www.birdata.com.au/maps.vm) and type in “Cape Barren Goose” you will obtain the distribution data for the bird. Cape Otway and the coastal Otway region is not in that habitat region.

It is just not a place the birds go to or fly over. In all my life I have never seen a cape Barren goose in the area. Now of course, while nothing can ever be counted as impossible – it is totally implausible to explain my sighting as Cape Barren Geese.

You have changed your location from Cape Otway to someplace else yet you continue to use that reference point in regards to the geese.

I used it as a reference point for the satellite hypothesis.

The objects did not fly directly south to north. If you plot what you described (70 degrees elevation due west to north), you will discover it was traveling in a northeast direction.

The four object’s trajectory was directly south to north. When first sighted they were about 70 degrees in elevation from the western horizon.

I have already explained the difficulty in pulling up the old TLEs and amount of effort involved to compute all the satellite positions from over two years ago. I just don't see it worth the effort simply because of your close-minded approach to this whole event.

If you cannot support your satellite hypothesis with evidence it then remains mere speculation.

Of course, this is nothing new here.You came into the forum with this UFO story in order to demonstrate a reliable UFO report that had no explanation. In the spirit of such a challenge, several of us offerred explanations that seemed reasonable to us. In order to preserve your sighting (your "precious"), you immediately declared them implausible giving various reasons, which included falsely stating that Geese NEVER fly over the area and that you are impervious to error in observation or recollecting the story correctly. It has become a joke like the "argument sketch" in Monty Python, where the gentleman behind the desk just says "no it isn't" to everything the customer argues about.

While stranger things may have happened - the Cape Barren Goose has never been known to fly over the area in recent memory.

The sighting cannot be explained as birds of any variety. There was no light source to make birds (even if it were possible by some means to do so) appear indistinguishable from stars or satellites. Spotlights would have been seen in the sea mist. The moon is just not bright enough – indeed I don’t think it was in the sky at the time given the number of stars visible

When I suggested satellites and even showed how satellites can appear to be in formation and traveling in the same direction, you dismissed it with a wave of the hand as implausible.

The satellite hypothesis cannot be supported by evidence. Moreover, have you ever observed any satellites fitting the sighting description anywhere at all?

After explaining to you how it was plausible, you then challenged me to dig up all the old TLEs and run them through the computer to prove that I am correct.

No, you described some satellites that travelled as a threesome (the NOSS I believe). I challenged you to demonstrate they were at the location at the time. There were four objects in my sighting.

I might accept the satellite explanation as potentially plausible except for two things: the leading pair of objects was oscillating about a central point between them and where would their illumination have come from (given it was midnight – and given the transit time)?

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

 

[carlitos]

There were four objects in my sighting.

No, this posting is your online description of a memory that you had, which you say that you have written down and then "transcribed," regarding what your eyes (and your friend) told your brain on New Year's Eve a few years ago. No "objects" have been proven, or even admitted to as being likely by yourself.

 

[GeeMack]

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative [...]

The less specific the description of the alleged event, the more plausible mundane possibilities exist to explain it. Satellites and geese are still both fully plausible possibilities that fit the anecdote, or at least some versions of it.

[...] (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

There is no data. This appears to be another dishonest attempt to redefine terms to suit the "ufology" agenda of clinging to a belief in aliens.

 

[Access Denied]

If you cannot support your satellite "aliens" hypothesis with evidence it then remains mere speculation.

Fixed.

/thread

 

[Resume]

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

What could be more speculative than your ufo/et hypothesis? It's entirely without merit.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ughh –you people…

It matters not what you all think (or would like to believe). The goose hypothesis is a simply a red herring. The objects I and the two other witnesses observed were not geese. That’s the bottom line here.

No, the bottom line is you've shared an anecdote that is unfalsifiable. Can you not think of any plausible non-mundane explanations for it?

However I will admit to one mistake in my approach. I did start with the assumption that because I knew that the objects we sighted were not geese, then I defended the sighting against the geese hypothesis on that basis. One might call it starting with the conclusion. This obviously was a mistake and has lead to some confusion.

In fact, one might call your entire history here as that.

In the 1950s the Cape Barren Goose was thought to be close to extinction, so low were their numbers. Even today they are rare in the Otways.

This is as funny as it is predictable. Other people have to educate you on something, you look up more information on it, and pretend to be the one educating them.

One reference above was to the geese in the Colac lakes area. If you look here (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...vtmtfs&sig=AHIEtbSEPjoZYt75D6d1_DP7XOhTfL6BqA) you will see a bird count on page four for 2009. You will see that far from the geese being present in the lakes suggested by the poster above, there was just 12 of them in Lake Weering.

As it turns out, I consulted a mathematics primer and 12 is indeed greater than 4.

There is also another factor that must be taken into account. In the summer of 2008/2009, many of the lakes in the area were completely dry (eg; http://www.otway.biz/lakecolac.html).

Lending credence to the goose hypothesis since they didn't land.

Moreover, if you go here (http://www.birdata.com.au/maps.vm) and type in “Cape Barren Goose” you will obtain the distribution data for the bird. Cape Otway and the coastal Otway region is not in that habitat region.

It is just not a place the birds go to or fly over. In all my life I have never seen a cape Barren goose in the area. Now of course, while nothing can ever be counted as impossible – it is totally implausible to explain my sighting as Cape Barren Geese.

You are doing good admitting that you are arguing from a position of ignorance and personal incredulity again.

I used it as a reference point for the satellite hypothesis.

In other words, lying about it.

The four object’s trajectory was directly south to north. When first sighted they were about 70 degrees in elevation from the western horizon.


If you cannot support your satellite hypothesis with evidence it then remains mere speculation.

Well, DUH! Do let me know if you can think of any plausible non-mundane explanations.

While stranger things may have happened - the Cape Barren Goose has never been known to fly over the area in recent memory.

It's good that you can further admit to your arguing from a position of ignorance and personal incredulity.

The sighting cannot be explained as birds of any variety. There was no light source to make birds (even if it were possible by some means to do so) appear indistinguishable from stars or satellites. Spotlights would have been seen in the sea mist. The moon is just not bright enough – indeed I don’t think it was in the sky at the time given the number of stars visible.

It's good that you can further admit to arguing from a positin of ignorance and personal incredulity. Any chance that you have thought of any plausible non-mundane explanations yet? If not, we'll just have to go with the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

It doesn't really matter which mundane explanation but geese or satellites seem to be taking the commanding (indeed, only) lead.

The satellite hypothesis cannot be supported by evidence. Moreover, have you ever observed any satellites fitting the sighting description anywhere at all?

Yes, the satellite hypothesis can be supported by evidence as has been shown. Your personal ignorance and incredulity notwithstanding. Have you thought of any plausible non-mundane explanations for your Rramjet Gets Goosed case? Although, I really like AstroPhotographer's "Precious" to name this one.

No, you described some satellites that travelled as a threesome (the NOSS I believe). I challenged you to demonstrate they were at the location at the time. There were four objects in my sighting.

Your alleged sighting. The null hypothesis still allows for your outright lying about it and we know what your track record is.

I might accept the satellite explanation as potentially plausible except for two things: the leading pair of objects was oscillating about a central point between them and where would their illumination have come from (given it was midnight – and given the transit time)?

Have you yet thought of a plausible non-mundane explanation?

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

So geese or satellite remain the only plausible explanations. They have to remain purely speculative, of course, since we don't know if the tale wasn't made up out of whole cloth or not. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable.

Rramjet, have you thought of a plausible non-mundane explanation yet?

 

[Akhenaten]

One reference above was to the geese in the Colac lakes area. If you look here (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...vtmtfs&sig=AHIEtbSEPjoZYt75D6d1_DP7XOhTfL6BqA) you will see a bird count on page four for 2009. You will see that far from the geese being present in the lakes suggested by the poster above, there was just 12 of them in Lake Weering.

That's eight more than we need.

There is also another factor that must be taken into account. In the summer of 2008/2009, many of the lakes in the area were completely dry (eg; http://www.otway.biz/lakecolac.html).

Lake Corangamite in December, 2008 (could those be waves?)​

Moreover, if you go here (http://www.birdata.com.au/maps.vm) and type in “Cape Barren Goose” you will obtain the distribution data for the bird. Cape Otway and the coastal Otway region is not in that habitat region.

You've been told repeatedly why this argument is bollocks.

It is just not a place the birds go to or fly over. In all my life I have never seen a cape Barren goose in the area. Now of course, while nothing can ever be counted as impossible – it is totally implausible to explain my sighting as Cape Barren Geese.

Appealing to your own authority? You've got to be kidding Rramjet.


etcetera . . .

 

[GeeMack]

? Missed that he'd actually given us a date.

Well, since there's no reason to accept anything about this alleged sighting as true, and much reason to take it as a complete work of unimaginative fiction, for what it's worth...

I presume you have Google Earth? Okay, type in “Cape Otway”. That will give you a location that is near enough for the purpose. It was at 11:45 on December 31st, 2008.

Of course we've heard since then that any explanation which might apply to Cape Otway isn't plausible because the alleged sighting wasn't really there anyway. There's reason to believe it was Apollo Bay.