UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

I've asked for opinions on the scientific project done at Hessdalen, but I've received no clear examples with citations outlining the logic in the context of the scientific reports. I've heard the claim that the project jumped to conclusions, but the conclusions are, "We have not found out what this phenomenon is. That could hardly be expected either. But we know that the phenomenon, whatever it is, can be measured." Again here is the link:

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

Mind you, I'm not sure I see in the studies where they call themselves ufologists. They are actual scientists studying an anomolous phenomenon that they have determined is real.

My offer to network with fair minded skeptics remains open.

j.r.

We could pick up the conversation again here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7407739#post7407739

because from what I see, a poster did respond to you, but you didn't reply to his post. I'm not an expert on Hessdelen, but from what I can deduce it's more than just jumping to conclusions, it appears to be that the researchers at Hessdalen have an a priori hypothesis:

a priori:
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2. a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/a+priori

i.e. that they start from a position that "the lights are anomalous and have an un-Earthly origin" not the other way round.

ETA: There's also a short thread specifically devoted to the Hessdalen lights, here. For background reading, I don't think we necessarily want to resurrect another Zombie thread.

 

[John Albert]

I thought some of the Hessdalen lights were determined to be landing lights for aircraft preparing to touch down at the nearby airport at Trondheim (seen through a low cloud cover common in that valley), and other occurrences were explainable as superior mirages of automobile headlights caused by rising air currents (similar to the effect at Marfa, TX).

 

[ufology]

We could pick up the conversation again here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7407739#post7407739

because from what I see, a poster did respond to you, but you didn't reply to his post. I'm not an expert on Hessdelen, but from what I can deduce it's more than just jumping to conclusions, it appears to be that the researchers at Hessdalen have an a priori hypothesis:

a priori:
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2. a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/a+priori

i.e. that they start from a position that "the lights are anomalous and have an un-Earthly origin" not the other way round.

ETA: There's also a short thread specifically devoted to the Hessdalen lights, here. For background reading, I don't think we necessarily want to resurrect another Zombie thread.

The conclusions of the project are only that the phenomenon is real, but not that they know exactly what it is ... so I don't see how that conclusion could be called "a priori".

To quote: "We have not found out what this phenomenon is. That could hardly be expected either. But we know that the phenomenon, whatever it is, can be measured."

The report is here along with some images and instrument recordings:

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml#conclusion

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

The conclusions of the project are only that the phenomenon is real, but not that they know exactly what it is ... so I don't see how that conclusion could be called "a priori".

That the phenomenon is "real" can hardly be in disputed by anyone. Afterall the phenomenon of people being able to see lights is hardly new or ground breaking. What is assumed by the nonsense of the Hessdalen lights is that they are not of mundane origin. This assumption is once again based upon stories from people who in the past have claimed that what they saw couldn't possibly be mundane because [insert anecdotal reason here].

To quote: "We have not found out what this phenomenon is. That could hardly be expected either. But we know that the phenomenon, whatever it is, can be measured."

Wow, light can be measured.
The problem being that all they will ever find is that there are some lights.
To try and take measurements of light after the fact and try desperately to find some minute element of measurement that may be anomalous is pseudo science when there is no reason to assume the lights observed (certainly in the last 15 years) are anything more than campsite lights, headlights and planes.

The report is here along with some images and instrument recordings:
http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml#conclusion

Yes, they are trying to 'spin' a mystery without any real reason nor evidence. They can only do this by incorrectly setting their null hypothesis to include assumptions that are based upon anecdotes.

 

[carlitos]

First off, thanks for replying in detail.

Re-reading my post, and it still seems reasonably coherent to me. Not my best writing, but hey, whatever.

ufology, above you indicate various beliefs. There is a "wider reality." You know "the truth." You "know what you saw" and you know that it's not of this earth (not mundane).

Please explain how your beliefs are different from the beliefs of claimed witnesses to:

• Ghosts
• Virgin of Guadalupe
• Jesus
• Werewolves
• Bigfoot
• Lady of Fatima
• Chupacabra

Thank you.

To be clear about my own sighting. The part about it not being "of this Earth" is not something I'm certain of, only that it was alien to human civilization.

You remember seeing a light (or lights) in the sky, when you were on a couch looking through a window, listening to Led Zeppelin II, or maybe Houses of the Holy (why not Presence? - Achilles Last Stand would fit nicely with the story). You have failed to eliminate mundane explanations, because your faith-based belief that aliens are visiting earth prevents you from doing so. This was the reason for me posting my list.

An extraterrestrial origin seems reasonable given what we know about the Earth, and what other people have reported, but thinking it's reasonable is different than "believing". Believing implies that you know it to be a fact. I didn't see it come from space or a giant mother ship. It came up from behind a mountain across the lake.

Assuming that what you saw is something for which no objective evidence exists is jumping to conclusions. As for "reasonable," that's why I posted the list below.

Ghosts: I've experienced the phenomena, but I don't know how to explain it. At one time, I was of the "life after death" persuasion. Now I don't accept that at face value. I suppose it might be connected to the alien phenomenon, but that's pure speculation. Because I've experienced ghost phenomena myself, I think it's reasonable to believe other people have had similar experiences that are equally puzzling.

• I'm not surprised that you claim to have experienced other paranormal phenomena. It seems that believers in one seem to believe in many. There are, of course, possible mundane explanations for your ghost stories, but you dismissed them because of your faith-based belief system.
• You think that other non-mundane phenonema are "reasonable" to believe because of your faith-based belief system. There is no objective evidence for ghosts.

Virgin of Guadalupe: I have no idea about that one. It's a religious thing, my experience was not.

Believers in the Virgin of Guadalupe have no objective evidence. They believe based on faith. There was a collection of anecdotes, and gradually the myth built up to where many separate anecdotes were attributed to the Virgin of Guadalupe. This was the reason for me posting my list.

Jesus: Seems to be a composite character base on myth and religion. I proposed before anyone else I'd read about that the shroud of Turin couldn't be genuine because the cloth it was made from didn't exist at the time Jesus was said to have died. Also, my ( our ) expereience was a real event concerning a sphere of light, not a mythological religious figure.

Right. Your experience was real, but Paul's vision on the road to Damascus was mythology. You both know what you saw, and it wasn't of this world, but your belief is completely different.

And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven

You believe that aliens visit the earth, and Paul believed that Jesus appeared to him. Those are two faith-based beliefs without objective evidence. This was the reason for me posting my list.

Werewolves: I thought they were pure horror fiction. What I saw wasn't a creature, and wasn't fictional, and couldn't have been imitated by a man in a suit.

You will note that I actually didn't ask about what you saw, but about your belief in alien visitation, and how it differs from other faith-based beliefs. People who have seen Werewolves know what they saw. They defend the werewolf mythology the same as ufologists defend your theory that ufo = alien visitors (for example, posting unclear youtube videos that leap to bizarre conclusions). This was the reason for me posting the list.

Bigfoot: A couple of my friends claimed to have seen one in the same valley I saw the UFO. Strange animals are possible, naturally and from genetic manipulation, and I believe they saw something. But big hairy man-like animals can also be faked. I proposed the Patterson film was fake back in the early 1990s. To me it was just obvious. Again, I don't know how anyone could fake the UFO I saw.

Your highlighted argument from incredulity aside (that's a logical fallacy, btw ) , I am a little disappointed that you believe that your friends saw something. They are telling campfire stories. Boo! Assuming that they did see something, to assume what they saw was bigfoot is based on faith. People (not saying you, just bigfoot believers) who want to see bigfoot seem to find him in films, still photos, all over the place. Bigfoot is like a paraedolia wet dream; he's even bigger than Jesus on toast. Anyway, there are a lot of people that claim whatever "strange animal" they saw was bigfoot without having objective evidence bigfoot exists. It's faith based. That's why I posted the list.

Lady of Fatima: Another religious thing. What I ( we ) saw was a sphere of light, not an angel or religious figure.

Let me fix that for you.

Lady of Fatima: Another faith-based thing. We attributed the light we saw to aliens, not to an angel or religious figure.​

You did exactly what Lucia Santos did, but you chose your mythology instead of hers.

On 13 May 1917, ten year old Lúcia Santos, her sister and her cousin Jacinta and Francisco Marto, were herding sheep at a location known as the Cova da Iria near their home village of Fátima in Portugal. Lúcia described seeing a woman "brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal ball filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun.

Chupacabra: Another strange animal ... again, I suppose strange animals are possible, but getting an object to move like the object we saw is completely different. I don't know how it could happen naturally or with any known technology at the time.

I was talking about the belief system, not the "strange animal." People who attribute diverse stories about strange animals to chupacabra are superstitious. Their belief has no objective evidence and is faith-based. That is why I posted the list.

The above explains my personal perspective reagarding how the various other claims are different from the experience I had. If you're asking how they are more or less scientifically provable. I can't provide empirical proof. I can only provide my personal account. I know what I saw, but you can't, which gives you a reason to doubt, which is fair. Personally I doubt other people's stories too until I've satisfied myself that it is reasonable to believe them ... and again ... "reasonable to believe" is not the same as "believing in" as in having some leap of faith. I simply believe it is likely they are telling the truth as they recall.

If you cannot see the contradictions in the two highlighted statements, I'm afraid that you will never understand why I will not accept your particular flavor of faith. You can't remember what album was playing but you "know" that it was aliens visiting us based on seeing a light through a window. The thread title is apt - "believers." Your beliefs are no different from ghosts, bigfoot or Christianity; they have exactly the same amount of objective evidence.

Does this help?

Yes, thank you.

 

[ufology]

First off, thanks for replying in detail.
Yes, thank you.

When the object departed, I was standing outside in the morning light, wide awake, looking straight across the lake at it. There was no window between and I had a clear unobstructed view. The object went from a dead stop to cover over 25Km in about one second.

There is no "faith" involved in this sighting and I did not say I "believe they were aliens" ... I said I believe the object was alien to human civilization, and that where it came from I don't know, but given what we know about the Earth, an extraterrestrial explanation is reasonable. By contrast, trying to convince me that I didn't see what I saw, or that what I saw wasn't real isn't reasonable.

However I've granted you that it is reasonable for you to doubt my story because you didn't experience it yourself. My problem with your assessment is that you want to cast my sighting in with some group or another and impart their thinking onto me ... which is not applicable or fair. You also tend to assume other people like myself aren't smart enough to understand what you're talking about. Like I said before, being a skeptic doesn't make one intellectually superior or grant the right to be condescending.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

However I've granted you that it is reasonable for you to doubt my story .

Which version?

Good questions. I should probably post all these details on my site, but for now, I'll try my best to answer the individual questions...

Yes, it might help you get your story straight.

But since these memories are over 37 years old, it is not surprising that you have them muddled between your posts here and the posting on your website.

To Whit.

You should pay more attention: I actually said, "I could even tell you the record that was playing while we were sitting there ... Led Zeppelin, Houses Of The Holy." It was released in 1973. You're thinking of the song Houses Of The Holy from physical Grafiti.
j.r..

You should check the facts before you lay into someone about paying attention.

Of course, this is a classic example of a person's memory being infallible, but insisting that they have perfect recall.

The memory from your website:

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
The three of us were sitting together on the couch in the dark looking out the picture window and listening to Led Zeppelin Two.

So what was it? The 1969 Zep II or the 1973 Houses of the Holy?

Another:

...The object rose about 300 feet before accellerating, and it went north and gained altitude as it went,...

And the website version

...It rose vertically to about 200 meters and stopped instantly.

In the website version, the object rose twice as high in the sky as your JREF posted version.

Such inaccuracy...

Last one;

Third: It was also much closer than 25Km when it first appeared, directly across the lake ( about 3 Km ). Here is a graphical representation that is very similar:
http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/Orb-01a.png

Which doesn't look much like the description of the the sighting as per your website recollections.

At midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs...

So which version of your account is correct?

The forum posting version of your (teenage) memory recounted 37 years later, or your website version of your (teenage) memory recounted 37 years later?

 

[R.A.F.]

...You also tend to assume other people like myself aren't smart enough to understand what you're talking about.

WoW....talk about projection. This is precisely the way you have treated anyone who would dare disagree with you.

..and how do you know that this "object" covered 25k in less than a second? Did you time it? How did you determine the distance involved?

 

[R.A.F.]

...trying to convince me that I didn't see what I saw, or that what I saw wasn't real isn't reasonable.

Well, then...there's really nothing to discuss...your mind is made up that you saw something of extraterrestrial manufacture, and as you posted, no one will be able to convince you otherwise.


What is it that skeptics are usually accused of....being closed minded?

 

[ufology]

Which version?

I saw an object that went from a dead stop to cover a distance of over 25Km in about 1 second. I saw it while I was outside in the morning light with a clear unobstructed view. Careless metric conversion and mixing up an album name in the haste of a forum post aren't relevant. They don't represent any margin of error in the sighting of the object itself. Plus the sighting is outlined on my website for backup reference. If you want to use any version, use that one.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So your 25 km could actually be 10 meters or 1/3 the height of the mountain?

 

[ufology]

So your 25 km could actually be 10 meters or 1/3 the height of the mountain?

The above is not correct ... what is correct is "over 25Km in about 1 second".

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So I think you are finally seeing why anecdotes are unfalsifiable and of no use for validating extraordinary claims, leaving you as simply a "believer" rather than a "knower".

 

[carlitos]

So it first appeared (at a distance of 3km) across the lake, or it first appeared from behind the mountain (looks like miles away to me)? And no one here is buying that you are confusing 200 meters with 300 feet as a "metric conversion error;" that's baloney. And your initial certainty and being defensive about which Zeppelin record was playing just confirms what we all know. It's a memory of something that happened years ago. You have no evidence for what happened, and your story isn't all that clear, due to the fallibility of human memory. This isn't surprising at all. The same thing was true of the guy who first started this topic:

I suggest you mine this forum for in consistencies and then point out how my memory has changed...if it has.

2003:

i said it was true because i saw star-like objects(6), emitting a visible light, move with a constant velocity and make right-angle turns, and move in cordination with one another, and at one point disobey the laws of physics. And i have seen more than one other example of this event in a video recording, that couldn't be identified with any terresterial craft. And that this same 'theme' is present in every form of media throughout the ages...is what leads me to this 'finding'.

since when is a light not an object? This was at night, there were a half a dozen of them, and they performed tasks that no terresterial pilot could. Moreover, their ability to disobey the laws of physics, as i understand them led me to this unearthly conclusion.

2005:

when i was like 24, a friend of mine and i were out in the country, near the red river, when we saw no less than 7 airborne 'crafts'...or things, that resembled star-like objects move in ways no terresterial-piloted vehicle could. They performed manuvers like making right angles turns with a constant velocity, and at one point 2 headed toward one another- became one - and then seperated again into two different things again...

...
That what i saw was 'probably' aliens is my stance, not that i could prove any such thing, but that i would like to rely on occam's razor...

The way i see it, there could be any number of theories that would explain what i saw. But that the 3 most likely are these: 1.) both of us could have imagines the whole thing. 2.) what we saw was a super secret terresterial craft, an uav of some sorts capabled of changing its physical form, or 3.) that there is 'some' truth behind the myths and stories written about a "god" who exists in the heavens.

I would like to boldly say that of these the first is the more unlikely, given that for 2 seperate unrelated people, uninduced by drugs or alcohol, to have the exact same hallucination would be odd, indeed.

So, what i saw was either man-made or it wasn't. Within the event i witnessed, these craft did several astounding things, some feats i have heard of and seen, while others i had not. Initially, the star-like objects moved into position, and merely 'held' their position. This was not a really big deal, because i know the helicopters can do virtually the same manuver (except that these craft moved silently). Their next feat did however raise my eyebrow, as well as my friend's. They moved, and 'seeming' without slowing down, turned at a right angle or greater. This was odd, in that i had 'heard' of some new military craft utilizing 'directional exhaust', but that the g-forces put upon a pilot's body would limit how fast turns could be accomplished. Still, a uav with the right engineering make-up might be able to simlate such feats, given the right conditions. But why would the government be showing off these things to a couple of country bumpkins??? Believe it or not, that question actually went through my mind at one point...then two of them headed for each other at a greater speed than either had previously moved. Then they did something i had never seen or heard of aircraft doing, while airborne, they became one.

Now, this was odd, moreso than anything i could have expected to see in the sky. Moreover, their joining was marked by a multiplied size. Like when you take 2 small clay balls and join them together, you expect to get 1 medium size ball. Or a ball twice the volume of one of the balls. Well, the appearance of the larger entity was "4 times" as large as the single units. So, i look to my friend and ask, "did you see those two head toward one another...?"

and he responded before i could finish, "...and join up to make a really big version of themselves.", yes, i did.

Then we looked back up at it and it seperated again into it smaller parts.

2008:

my friend and i were scouting out a place to go camping right near the bank of the red river near gainesville texas, when i saw an unusual cloud formation/shape in the sky due north of our position. I saw it was 'unusual' because it was oddly semetrical. It looked cigar shaped, with very tapered ends. Stuff is almost never perfectly semetrical in nature, so i got a thought in my head, to use this unusual shape to screw with my friend.

I said, "hey jon, look at that ufo, man!" "that just a cloud, man...", he rebuked. "no, look how perfectly semetrical it is. That not just a cloud, it is something else!", and then i began flashing my headlights with high beam on, at it. After my second series of flashings, the right side of the cloud-looking object "shrank", and instead of a tappered edge, it seemed to "square off", like someone had used a cigar cutter on the end.

My friend and i just sat there in stunned silence. All this happened in about 2-3 minutes, at around 7:45-8:00 during the early to mid-summer. It was light enough to still see a potential camping site, but the sun was retreating quickly and stars were just beginning to appear.

Once the cigar shaped 'cloud-ufo' squared itself, and the initial shock wore off, i began flashing my lights again, in an attempt to get a reaction...which my friend was totally against.

The result of my flashing was for a 'star-like' object to appear at the squared edge of the cigar. Then the object took off in a straight line and then held its position, only to have another similiar object emerge from the cigar shape, which also took to a position and stopped. This continued to happed untill there were 7 such objects. Then they started to move in concert with one another. The first one to move made an "l" shaped flight pattern, and stopped. Then another made a "z" shaped flight path, then two others moved toward one another, joined together, and increased their "size" by 4 fold. If you take 2 pieces fo clay and mash them into one ball the size of the ball doesn't increase dramatically. These 2 objects, after joining together, did.

So, to answer your question, i saw both- something that had "shape", and mere "lights".(*i have told this tale more than once, here. I am sure you could read my initial account somewhere here.)



there was nothing 'obvious', about what we saw that evening, except that it was obvious that i had never seen anything like this before.

the 'objects' i saw were brightly lite, and 'undulating' in colors of red, white, and blue. They 'performed' ariel feats unattainable by human pilots. Our planes 'bank' as they turn. They 'arch' through the sky, even the directional exhaust of the f-22 raptor can't achieve the "right-angle turns" these craft managed repeatedly.

2009:

the area known as the bottom is huge, the northern edge of cooke countyis a rock bluff, that forms a ridge. There is a gravel road that turns west from atop the bluff, and travels down and along side to 75 yards away from the red river itself, and then goes back up and out onto the higher bluff. The difference in elevation probable isn't over a hundred feet.

The sky was clear, except for this huge gray 'semetrical' saucer looking cloud. I decided to try to screw with my friend telling him, "hey man look at that ufo! Look at how perfectly semetrical that cloud is. It's a ufo!" and i started flashing my headlights at it and honking.

To which it 'responded'...

...by sucking in and squaring off it's eastern edge...

...that's when the star-like objects emerged, one after the other from the squared off edge, each one zooming off to a fixed position, until there were 7 in total. Then they started to move, each move being more complex or difficult, right angle turns while maintaining a consistant speed. They didn't 'bank' and turn in the manner i am familiar with. The last thing they did was the first one that emerged and the last one headed toward each other, 'combine', and result in a 4-fold larger verson of itself (this really blew my mind, because i didn't expect something that big to result. When you put two clay balls together, you don't get something that looks 'twice' as big as the two separate entities. These two things...), i looked over at my friend and asked "did you just see two of them head toward each other...", and he interupted "...combine and make a big ass version, and then split apart again?" "yeah.", i responded.

The area has a ranch house ever square mile or 2. It's texas, there's lots of space.

There's an tiny town called burneyville about 3 miles north northwest, and they have a small airstrip.

Consistencies include "star-like objects" (in the night sky!), them appearing to emerge from the edge of the symmetrical cloud, right-angle turns and "light," plus the 2 lights converging to appear to be one bigger light.

Inconsistencies include "light" evolving to oscillating/undulating red / white / blue, 6 objects becoming "no less than 7," "cigar" shaped vs. "saucer" shaped (this is probably a perspective thing, like the Rramjet blimp sighting).

The red / blue thing could be a recent addition, or it could be that he's conflating it with this sighting of light blue "thunderless lightning"? In any case, the level of detail varies, but that's to be expected. KotA, please feel free to clarify.

King of the Americas, I'd still be interested in seeing your original version. We might all learn something from it.

 

[Marduk]

KotA hasn't been back since I pointed out to him that this was debuting on TV just before he claimed to have seen it in real life

 

[Resume]

The above is not correct ... what is correct is "over 25Km in about 1 second".

j.r.

How can you possibly know this is correct?

 

[laca]

How can you possibly know this is correct?

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[ufology]

How can you possibly know this is correct?

1 second goes by pretty fast ... we can all count one one-thousand, two one thousand ... or even just guess and be pretty accurate. This thing was gone in about the same time than it takes to say "one one-thousand", about the same time that it takes to snap your fingers when someone says "go" ... it left a glowing streak of light in its wake that dissipated fairly quickly.

The distance I know from looking at maps of the area and taking measurements from where it was when it started to where it went out of sight. The object was below the top of the mountains when it departed, and on the other side of the lake ( east side of the valley ) and stayed in the valley until it was gone from view. At some point I'll check with Google Earth to see if I can get even more accurate numbers, but even these numbers are close enough to figure out that this thing wasn't anything we have in our technological inventory.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

Plus the sighting is outlined on my website for backup reference. If you want to use any version, use that one.

I just read some of the stories on your website. If I were you, I wouldn't send any critical thinkers there.

 

[Marduk]

wait.... what location was ufologies sighting ?