UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Excellent. Will you be posting any of these which don't have mundane explanations?

I posted one earlier as reported by E.J. Ruppelt who was one of the heads of Project Blue Book, in which he describes an incident in which an Air Force radar picked up a target and scrambled two jets to find it. One of the jets spotted an object and closed within 500 yards ( in broad daylight ) and could clearly see that the object was disk shaped and travelling near the speed of sound. The pilot fired on it, but the object pulled away and outran the jet.

There are several other cases in Ruppelt's classic book that were classed as unknown. However I'm sure you are familiar with the the general take of skeptics, these reports prove nothing other than than someone wrote a book about some alledged events that may or may not have taken place.

So if your follow up question is to ask for physical scientific evidence, I've already conceded that there is none that I know of that proves anything empirically. The only science that has been done by the USAF that we are aware of are some astronomical evaluations that were used to confirm or rule out celestial phenomena ( stars, planets etc. ), and statistical evaluations that establish probabilities based on multiple reports that we are in fact actually dealing with real objects of unknown origin. The results of those studies were posted way back in this thread someplace.

Still, even with the probability being a virtual certainty that we are dealing with real objects for which no known manmade or natural phenomena provides an adequate explanation, that isn't the same as material scientific proof of extraterrestrial visitation. There is no way to provide that short of being granted a cruise on a mother ship. Even videos by so called "reputable sources", as suggested by one of the other skeptics here, would not in my view constitute scientific proof that extraterrestrials exist. However it might provide reasonable grounds for some skeptics to seriously consider it, and if the video were transmitted from a Mars rover, that would be even better.

So what we are left with is to determine for ourselves, given the information we do have, whether or not we need scientific evidence to hold a reasonable view that alien craft probably exist, and for that, I think there is enough information ... even if I hadn't seen one myself. Having seen one myself however, combined with all the other reports, I am personally certain that alien craft ( not necessarily extraterrestrial ) have been operating near the Earth.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I posted one earlier as reported by E.J. Ruppelt who was one of the heads of Project Blue Book, in which he describes an incident in which an Air Force radar picked up a target and scrambled two jets to find it. One of the jets spotted an object and closed within 500 yards ( in broad daylight ) and could clearly see that the object was disk shaped and travelling near the speed of sound. The pilot fired on it, but the object pulled away and outran the jet.

However, we don't know the name of the pilot and there are no actual reports. You have totally ignored a more likely solution than an actual craft . That being, the pilot shot of his guns when he was by himself (his wingman going to a different altitude) and, to explain it, he stated he fired on the UFO. We have no evidence there ever was a craft at all. The probable reason the report was never filed had to do with accounting for the violation of the pilot firing his guns. The CO of the base would not want to reveal to his superiors afraid that he was running a base with pilots just going amok shooting at anything and endangering civilians. This is all an anecdote and is unverifiable. Had the pilot stated he was firing on a dragon (same evidence for a dragon as there are for this "craft"), would you so readily believe his story?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

I posted one earlier as reported by E.J. Ruppelt who was one of the heads of Project Blue Book, in which he describes an incident in which an Air Force radar picked up a target and scrambled two jets to find it. One of the jets spotted an object and closed within 500 yards ( in broad daylight ) and could clearly see that the object was disk shaped and travelling near the speed of sound. The pilot fired on it, but the object pulled away and outran the jet.

There are several other cases in Ruppelt's classic book that were classed as unknown. However I'm sure you are familiar with the the general take of skeptics, these reports prove nothing other than than someone wrote a book about some alledged events that may or may not have taken place.

So if your follow up question is to ask for physical scientific evidence, I've already conceded that there is none that I know of that proves anything empirically. The only science that has been done by the USAF that we are aware of are some astronomical evaluations that were used to confirm or rule out celestial phenomena ( stars, planets etc. ), and statistical evaluations that establish probabilities based on multiple reports that we are in fact actually dealing with real objects of unknown origin. The results of those studies were posted way back in this thread someplace.

Still, even with the probability being a virtual certainty that we are dealing with real objects for which no known manmade or natural phenomena provides an adequate explanation, that isn't the same as material scientific proof of extraterrestrial visitation. There is no way to provide that short of being granted a cruise on a mother ship. Even videos by so called "reputable sources", as suggested by one of the other skeptics here, would not in my view constitute scientific proof that extraterrestrials exist. However it might provide reasonable grounds for some skeptics to seriously consider it, and if the video were transmitted from a Mars rover, that would be even better.

So what we are left with is to determine for ourselves, given the information we do have, whether or not we need scientific evidence to hold a reasonable view that alien craft probably exist, and for that, I think there is enough information ... even if I hadn't seen one myself. Having seen one myself however, combined with all the other reports, I am personally certain that alien craft ( not necessarily extraterrestrial ) have been operating near the Earth.

First: ... the pilot fired on it .. Do you have any idea about the rules of engagement?
Second: ... not necessarily extraterrestrial .. that's even more unbelievable than aliens from far away. Do you really believe that a high tech civilization of non-human origin could hide on earth? That's even below pseudoscience niveau, that's religious dogma.

 

[ufology]

However, we don't know the name of the pilot and there are no actual reports. You have totally ignored a more likely solution than an actual craft . That being, the pilot shot of his guns when he was by himself (his wingman going to a different altitude) and, to explain it, he stated he fired on the UFO. We have no evidence there ever was a craft at all. The probable reason the report was never filed had to do with accounting for the violation of the pilot firing his guns. The CO of the base would not want to reveal to his superiors afraid that he was running a base with pilots just going amok shooting at anything and endangering civilians. This is all an anecdote and is unverifiable. Had the pilot stated he was firing on a dragon (same evidence for a dragon as there are for this "craft"), would you so readily believe his story?

Hey Astro, certainly your opinion is valid. I suppose that it's possible that the pilot was just joy riding and decided to risk serious consequences by firing his guns for the fun of it and then fabricate a story to tick off hi CO ... but, I unlike you, I doubt that such was the case.

There were also the initial radar returns. That's why the jets were scrambled in the first place. So saying, "We have no evidence there ever was a craft at all." isn't entirely accurate either ( other than in the context of here and now in this forum ) and for that matter, this forum can't provide proof of anything material. We can only discuss things.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Wrong radar returns were no rarity in the 1950s.

 

[ufology]

First: ... the pilot fired on it .. Do you have any idea about the rules of engagement?

Second: ... not necessarily extraterrestrial .. that's even more unbelievable than aliens from far away. Do you really believe that a high tech civilization of non-human origin could hide on earth? That's even below pseudoscience niveau, that's religious dogma.

Supposedly, back then, the decision to fire on UFOs over sensitive areas was at the discretion of the pilots. This was in the Korean/Cold War era, not recent times. Still, your point on the rules of engagement are what in my view make it unlikely that the pilot was simply joy riding and shooting for no reason at all ( as was implied by a previous poster ).

As for UFOs not necessarily being extraterrestrial. Personally I agree with your evaluation. I'm only going on the information available. We don't have information from reliable sources who say they've tracked UFOs coming into the Earth's vicinity from interplanetary or interstellar space. We only have reports by people near the surface of the Earth. Even if you count the astronaut sightings, we're still only dealing with the Earth/Moon system. Hence I usually use the word "alien" to mean alien to our civilization, and beyond that I think the ETH is the most reasonable hypothesis.

 

[Astrophotographer]

There were also the initial radar returns. That's why the jets were scrambled in the first place. So saying, "We have no evidence there ever was a craft at all." isn't entirely accurate either ( other than in the context of here and now in this forum ) and for that matter, this forum can't provide proof of anything material. We can only discuss things.

However, you can not show the radar returns were even the actual craft. Do you have data? Do you have a written report describing the direction of the contacts in relation to the jets at the time the guns were fired? In my scenario, once the two pilots separated to go UFO hunting, it gave the opportunity for the pilot to play with his guns. If there were false radar returns that started this "hunt", he had a ready made excuse. This is a more likely scenario than an alien spaceship.

 

[ufology]

Wrong radar returns were no rarity in the 1950s.

It's true that in 1952 radar was not nearly as sophisticated as modern radar, but experienced radar operators could tell craft from inversions and other noise. So when a hard return is tracked coming into range at about 700 MPH and slowing to about 100 MPH and watched for several minutes, it's not likely we are dealing with malfunctions or noise. Then we add to the mix that jets were scrambled and a pilot saw an object and gave chase ... and fired on the object. The liklihood of the whole incident being based completely on errors is pretty small ... specifically, mistaken radar returns over several minutes resulted in mistaken orders to scramble jets, one of which mistakenly saw an object and mistakenly fired on it. Sorry, but I'm not buying into that.

 

[ufology]

Skeptic's Opinion Please

Can I get a Skeptical opinion on this video please? Does anyone here know whether or not this video is for real or provide a detailed explanation for the object in the video being something other than what it is claimed to be?

http://youtu.be/4xkHt6br1Q4

 

[Paul2]

Hey Paul ...

Your question, "So if we can't find a hoax, it's not a hoax?" was answered already. It's not a "yes" or "no" answer. If you want a single word answer, I'll rephrase it for you:

Q. So if we can't find a hoax, it's not a hoax?
A. Possibly.

If you want something more in-depth, then review my initial answer(s). If you don't think my answers are clear enough or don't address the idea you are trying to get across, then restate the question so that it can be answered with more precision e.g. "So if we can't find a hoax ( for what exactly ), it's not a hoax?" and provide an example.

OK, that's fine, but can you at least point me to where you already answered the question in more depth (your "initial answer(s)")? Where I think that is may or may not be where you think that is. Thanks.

One other clarification:
I take your "possibly" answer to mean that, in some case(s), when we look for a hoax and don't find one, we can properly conclude on that basis that there is no hoax. Do I have that right?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Can I get a Skeptical opinion on this video please? Does anyone here know whether or not this video is for real or provide a detailed explanation for the object in the video being something other than what it is claimed to be?

http://youtu.be/4xkHt6br1Q4

My goodness. You are gullible aren't you? I debunked this in SUNlite 3-2 (page 5).

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_2.pdf

You missed the obvious clue of the american ejection seat in a mig-21. That should have been a red flag for a hoax. The actual video comes from a video called "Russian Top Gun" (I have a copy) and it is a video shot of an F-15 intercepting a Russian TU-20/95 bear aircraft. The cylinder was crudely added in the hoaxed video. All of this can be found at SUNlite 3-2 and at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjwTj2uFMZ0 Go to time 2:18

 

[ufology]

OK, that's fine, but can you at least point me to where you already answered the question in more depth (your "initial answer(s)")? Where I think that is may or may not be where you think that is. Thanks.

One other clarification:
I take your "possibly" answer to mean that, in some case(s), when we look for a hoax and don't find one, we can properly conclude on that basis that there is no hoax. Do I have that right?

Paul ...

I'm not going to go in circles on this, so instead of me pointing to where I think I answered and you replied that I didn't, can you please just restate the question and we'll break it down from there.

On the other clarification, my "possibly" answer did not mean what you interpreted it to mean. To answer in the context of your question, it would mean, in some case(s), when we look for a hoax and don't find one, we can conclude, depending on the information, that it still could possibly have been a hoax or could not have possibly been a hoax.

 

[Toke]

Do you think if the USAF thought they were alien invaders from outer space that they would think that might be a threat to national security?

Why should they?
Aliens are vulnerable to loud rock music, there is plenty of that available.

 

[ufology]

My goodness. You are gullible aren't you? I debunked this in SUNlite 3-2 (page 5).

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_2.pdf

You missed the obvious clue of the american ejection seat in a mig-21. That should have been a red flag for a hoax. The actual video comes from a video called "Russian Top Gun" (I have a copy) and it is a video shot of an F-15 intercepting a Russian TU-20/95 bear aircraft. The cylinder was crudely added in the hoaxed video. All of this can be found at SUNlite 3-2 and at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjwTj2uFMZ0 Go to time 2:18

Please refrain from presumptions. I didn't say I believed anything about the video. I simply asked for opinions on it. Thank you for the references, I'll add them to my files.

 

[Paul2]

Paul ...
On the other clarification, my "possibly" answer did not mean what you interpreted it to mean. To answer in the context of your question, it would mean, in some case(s), when we look for a hoax and don't find one, we can conclude, depending on the information, that it still could possibly have been a hoax or could not have possibly been a hoax.

Great, thank you for your clarification. One thing I don't understand, however.

I cannot imagine a case in which we have looked for a hoax and didn't find one and we then conclude that it could not have possibly been a hoax (one of the "possiblys" you mention above). It seems to me like there would *always* be the possibility - directly contrary to your conclusion that "it could not have possibly been" - that there is still a clever, well-crafted hoax that we just haven't found, despite our looking for it.

Can you explain how we can rule out hoax entirely?

 

[ufology]

Great, thank you for your clarification. One thing I don't understand, however.

I cannot imagine a case in which we have looked for a hoax and didn't find one and we then conclude that it could not have possibly been a hoax (one of the "possiblys" you mention above). It seems to me like there would *always* be the possibility - directly contrary to your conclusion that "it could not have possibly been" - that there is still a clever, well-crafted hoax that we just haven't found, despite our looking for it.

Can you explain how we can rule out hoax entirely?

To answer the question about ruling out a hoaxes entirely, first we need to establis where the goalposts are. You will notice that in my response, I used the phrase "depending on the information" ... so let's explore that.

During a forum discussion, we can't prove anything because we aren't present to see or hear the evidence first hand. So in the context of this forum we can't say with any certainty that any report isn't a hoax, or for that matter that many everyday things we take for granted aren't hoaxes, and to take it a step further, we can't rule out "entirely" that our entire existence isn't some kind of simulation and is consequently not real. If we are to take the question to those extremes, then we cannot rule out a hoax for anything entirely. So where do we draw the line?

 

[Toke]

To answer the question about ruling out a hoaxes entirely, first we need to establis where the goalposts are. You will notice that in my response, I used the phrase "depending on the information" ... so let's explore that.

During a forum discussion, we can't prove anything because we aren't present to see or hear the evidence first hand. So in the context of this forum we can't say with any certainty that any report isn't a hoax, or for that matter that many everyday things we take for granted aren't hoaxes, and to take it a step further, we can't rule out "entirely" that our entire existence isn't some kind of simulation and is consequently not real. If we are to take the question to those extremes, then we cannot rule out a hoax for anything entirely. So where do we draw the line?

We could wait for the dna analysis on those guys with the odd looking craft and bits of rubber glued onto their foreheads. Or count the number of functional limbs?

See, it is no problem to flip it around.

 

[Paul2]

To answer the question about ruling out a hoaxes entirely, first we need to establis where the goalposts are. You will notice that in my response, I used the phrase "depending on the information" ... so let's explore that.

During a forum discussion, we can't prove anything because we aren't present to see or hear the evidence first hand. So in the context of this forum we can't say with any certainty that any report isn't a hoax, or for that matter that many everyday things we take for granted aren't hoaxes, and to take it a step further, we can't rule out "entirely" that our entire existence isn't some kind of simulation and is consequently not real. If we are to take the question to those extremes, then we cannot rule out a hoax for anything entirely. So where do we draw the line?

My problem is that I can't even imagine a hypothetical situation in which a hoax could be ruled out conclusively, so it doesn't matter if we can see the evidence firsthand, or that we're just in this forum, etc.

Can you give me even a hypothetical case in which we can conclusively rule out a hoax?

 

[carlitos]

Hey Astro, certainly your opinion is valid. I suppose that it's possible that the pilot was just joy riding and decided to risk serious consequences by firing his guns for the fun of it and then fabricate a story to tick off hi CO ... but, I unlike you, I doubt that such was the case.

The above poster is again dishonesly reframing arguments that no one has made in order to argue against strawmen.

"Just joy riding" ... "Firing his guns for the fun of it" ... "To tick off his CO" are all lies made up by the above poster. A poster who relies on thirdhand anecdote to assert that there was ever such an incident at all. Before we make up motives for character, couldn't we first find whether the guy even exists? Bizarre behavior by the above poster. Pure fantasy.


On edit:
Plus look how he treats Astrphotogrpher. He says his opinion is valId, and then he procceeds to ridicule it by dishonestly reframing it in such a silly light. This manipulative behavior is directed at a real expert who is giving helpful advice and debating honestly. Real classy behavior.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sure Robo ... if they thought they were "invaders", I don't think there would be any doubt that they would take them seriously. Even as non-invaders, I think they would take them seriously, but probably still couldn't release detailed information without compromising national security.

Do you have anything besides your opinion based on your will to believe in UFOs as alien spaceships?

So, because as you now acknowledge, if there were aliens in our skies flying spaceships, the USAF would consider it to be a threat to national security. And since they don't, no UFOs are alien spaceships, as you must now readily agree in that context.

The null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

still remains intact.

Will you be presenting any evidence that would be able to falsify the null hypothesis and prove that the USAF are lying, as you seem to be intimating.

You also have yet to answer this question:

"It seems as if you are saying that any UFO sighting that hasn't been proven to have a mundane explanation is, by default, an alien spaceship. If that isn't the case, please clarify."