UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Again, if you can't address the argument, attack the arguer. And again typical tactics here. Quite sad.

You don't have an argument.

 

[Akhenaten]

I simply wondered how it could be that you could argue so confidently on the subject. I don't think it is honest to make definitive claims as a layperson without citing expert opinion on such issues, and even then not speculating beyond what was said.

Nice picture and overview. Yep its a you-beaut plane, that's for sure. Are you saying the radar system is perfect and never gives false readings? If not do you know the kinds of problems there may be? Not being an expert, how could you rule these kind of problems out.

Proving a negative in a historical context is almost impossible.

No less so than getting you to answer a simple question.

 

[ufology]

You don't have an argument.

Akhenaten ... I'm so relieved you think so because I'm getting really tired of arguing anyway.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Again, if you can't address the argument, attack the arguer. And again typical tactics here. Quite sad.

So you don't see any problem with what you were doing there?

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten ... I'm so relieved you think so because I'm getting really tired of arguing anyway.

How could you be tired of it when you're not even doing it? Posting combinations of logical fallacies, redefinitions, evasive waffle and flying saucer stories isn't presenting an argument by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[John Albert]

Just the thing for catching Grays off the beach at Area 51.

I hear the fishing at Groom Lake is very good this time of year, and the plasma trails are simply breathtaking.

 

[carlitos]

I wonder if that Roswell Rod could be used for water dowsing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Proving a negative in a historical context is almost impossible.

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

If you are positively claiming that it's aliens, you do have the burden of proof. Thank you for recognizing that. When will you be attempting to prove it?

 

[Akhenaten]

I hear the fishing at Groom Lake is very good this time of year, and the plasma trails are simply breathtaking.

I might give it a try, although a friend of mine was up there once, years ago, experimenting with an illuminated fly fishing rig but he reckoned some dork in a cabin not far from the lake had Led Zeppelin blaring on the stereo at 2am and scared all the fish away.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder if that Roswell Rod could be used for water dowsing.

Maybe we should ask edge about it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

A couple of points to note. The radar in the F-16s wasn't some pimitive radar. It was designed to track other jets, and other jets have hot exhausts ... hotter than a smoke stack, which was assumed ( not proven ) to have been the cause.

Radar has nothing to do with heat signatures. So it seems your argument fails right off the bat. However, I want to point out something about the radar in use on the planes. If you really read my webpage, you would see the following in my description about the F-16 radar, Interesting to note is that the AN/APG-66 was upgraded in the 1990s to the AN/APG-66(V)2 for many reasons. One of these reasons was "enhanced operational performance (including and improved mapping capability and a reduced false alarm rate)" (This came from Janes radar and electronic warfare systems of 1998-99).

Additionally, it was the ground based radar that directed the F-16s towards the smokestack and not the F-16s radar.

Besides, a huge column of hot air, it isn't going to show up as a discrete object and move the way the object did, and the theory that the movement was caused by the radar randomly jumping around picking up noise and interpreting it as the same radar lock doesn't make much sense. Neither does it make sense that the radar or the pilot would confuse the other jet with such noise.

You keep missing the point. It was the ground radar that initiated the flight and it was their radar that was triggering on the columns/pockets of air (this was Meessen's theory). As for the radar lock, you need to look at the data. The signal just moves around at random. It seems the radar was put in search mode at the widest possible range (at least that is what the video images appear to show). This kind of sweeping willl show targets of just about anything and record them on the display. This is how the one pilot accidently locked onto the other F-16 without realizing it.

Plus there were several other incidents when the F-16s went up searching and never had any of these problems. So this debunking effort is far from conclusive.

How do you know? Do you have the radar tapes? It seems likely they would have gotten false contacts but because they could not get ground returns on eyewitnesses to confirm there were UFOs in the area, they were dismissed for what they were. From what I understand, it was only the March 30-31 event that actually had ground witnesses still reporting UFOs and ground radar registering contacts when the jets arrived.

Are the skeptics never skeptical of themselves? Counting these debunking efforts as conclusive indicates heavy bias. And by the way, I don't claim that the object was an alien craft. Just that the incident represents one of the best radar cases.

Considering that I did the research on this, I think I can confidently stand by what I wrote. It is NOT a good radar case. How you can make such a claim when you have demonstrated you are ignorant of what exactly happened and how the radar systems involved worked demonstrates a will to believe and not a will to learn. I suggest you do some research before making such proclaimations.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So if you can't attack the argument ... attack the arguer? That seems typical here. Nobody needs a degree in aeronautical electronics to know F-16s were not ( and for that matter are still not ) some primitive aircraft with unreliable technology. Even by today's standards they have performance ratings far superior to any civilian production aircraft.

However, like any technology, the equipment is prone to error and the pilots are prone to making mistakes in taking in all this data. I already pointed out the radar system in these aircraft required upgrading due to problems with false returns. Hmmmm......if you did something other than quoting a generic statement, you might have learned that. Is this how you define 'research'?

 

[23_Tauri]

Despite your bluster, ufology, the record now shows "None" as your qualifications to address the capabilities of the radar involved in the 1990 Belgian incident.

I must say that as a layperson, when it comes to an understanding of the capabilities of radar, I for one more predisposed to accept the opinion of someone who spent 23 years as a highly skilled serviceman in the US Navy....

 

[Astrophotographer]

The fact is that there isn't any evidence that the smoke stack exhaust for which the radar was theorized to have locked onto could have been responsible because, to my knowledge, no tests were done subsequently using F-16 radar and the smoke stack exhaust to see if such a lock on could be repeated. Here we have a relatively controlled set of conditions that could be scientifically proven, but no evidence is offered whatesoever to substantiate this particular theory. So far as I'm concerned, because we have the means to prove the theory, yet no attempt was made to do so, the smoke stack theory is no more than "hot air".

I need to keep pointing out these errors so you might learn.

1. I NEVER claimed the F-16 locked onto the smokestack exhaust. It was the ground radar that directed the F-16s toward the smokestack and it was registering a return. The F-16s saw nothing when they got there but the strobe light at the top of the smokestack. Therefore, this indicates the returns registering on the ground radar were potentially false returns caused by hot pockets or columns of air (this was Meessen's theory). This was all a proven fact at the time because the planes went directly towards the target the ground radar was registering. When they got there, they saw the smokestack. I am not sure why it is hard to make the connection. If you read the actual transcript of the flight, you would understand this.

2. One can not reproduce the complete conditions on a given night because all those conditions will change. Winds will be different, temperatures will be different, and even the aircraft will be different (age, changes in equipment calibration, etc).

3. The F-16 radar returns were analyzed by experts (Salmon and Gilmard) and the discovered false radar returns and lock-ons to the other F-16. If this was the case for many of the returns recorded, what does it say for the rest.

4. In the entire chase, the F-16s never saw a single UFO. What does that say? Radar echos with no physical objects being seen usually is a sign of false returns.

If you want to discuss this case and make proclamations, why not actually look into the matter instead of making statements without any evidence to back them up and get your facts straight.

Just to set the record straight, my radar training is limited to the training I received on radar operation and repair at Electronics Technician school at Great Lakes NTC, Ill. in 1978. I also took a course in radar operation and repair in the mid-1980s, while I was an instructer at Nuclear Field A school in Orlando, Florida. I also had some knowledge about the search radar used on our submarines. Beyond that formal training, I have spent time researching the subject and informing myself about specific systems by actually going to libraries and reading books about them. Do I call myself an "expert"? Far from it. I consider myself a novice. However, I consider myself an informed novice, who is willing to learn new things.

 

[John Albert]

Debunking Not Definitive

Of course it isn't! When you really, really, want to believe, nothing short of the ETH will suffice.

A couple of points to note. The radar in the F-16s wasn't some pimitive radar. It was designed to track other jets, and other jets have hot exhausts ... hotter than a smoke stack, which was assumed ( not proven ) to have been the cause.

So RaDAR ("Radio Detection And Ranging") works by detecting heat, does it? And this "heat-seeking radar" you're describing is more capable of returning signals from hotter objects than from cooler objects? Is that what you're insinuating?

Besides, a huge column of hot air, it isn't going to show up as a discrete object and move the way the object did, and the theory that the movement was caused by the radar randomly jumping around picking up noise and interpreting it as the same radar lock doesn't make much sense.

Considering your unbelievable pretensions of expertise (demonstrated right here in this very thread) on the theory and operation of radar and related technologies, I'm guessing you would have no problem citing some authority to back up your assertions?

Neither does it make sense that the radar or the pilot would confuse the other jet with such noise.

Oh yeah, but the idea of little green men from outer space playing chicken with military fighter jets is so much more believable.

Plus there were several other incidents when the F-16s went up searching and never had any of these problems. So this debunking effort is far from conclusive.

There are also plenty of incidents where airliners have successfully carried entire sports teams all over the world with 100% safety. So I this story is far from conclusive also, and there's a good chance that all those Russian hockey players are really alive and well somewhere?

Are the skeptics never skeptical of themselves? Counting these debunking efforts as conclusive indicates heavy bias.

Nobody said it was conclusive, but at least some evidence exists to support this hypothesis, unlike the ETH for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

And by the way, I don't claim that the object was an alien craft. Just that the incident represents one of the best radar cases.

What exactly does that mean then? One of the "best" cases for what?

You're trying to make the point that not knowing what something is, somehow proves that it's something extraterrestrial or paranormal. That's an argument from ignorance.


All your preferred "definitions" for the acronym "UFO" are further demonstrations of the same exact logical fallacy.

I offer in addition to AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, the following contemporary and common language definitions in support of my position:

• Gale Encyclopedia of US History:
  The UFO phenomenon consists of reports of unusual flying objects that remain unidentified after scientific inquiry.

Note it says "reports," not "proven facts."

Evan if something is unidentified, that doesn't mean that all non-mundane causes have been—or can possibly be—conclusively ruled out. Stating the converse is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

You're also leaving out the part where they define the words initialized to make up the acronym: "Unidentified Flying Object."

• Oxford Dictionary:
  UFO: a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

Note the words "for which it is claimed." Again, the definition is specifying that somebody makes a claim, but not that the conclusion is factual.

The fact that something is unidentified does not mean that all non-mundane causes have been—or can possibly be—conclusively ruled out. Stating the converse is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

And again, you've leave out the part where they define the initials in the acronym: "Unidentified Flying Object."

• J. Allen Hynek Astronomer/CUFOS - UFO: A UFO is the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Again, on closer inspection we see that the definition depends on a mere "perception," and not proven fact.

As we should all know by now, 1 person's or 1000 persons' inability to identify something does not constitute proof that it is extraterrestrial, paranormal, alien to humanity, supernatural, inexplicable, or non-mundane.

• Encarta Dictionary:
  UFO (plural UFOs) noununidentified flying object: a flying object that cannot be identified and is thought by some to be an alien spacecraft

• Websters Dictionary:
  UFO: an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer

Every in depth official definition from the people who created the word UFO during the official investigations define the word UFO in such a manner as to eliminate many mundane explanations.

That's because once the Unidentified Flying Object is identified, it ceases to be an Unidentified Flying Object. Duh.

It does not logically follow that just because some of these UFOs have not been identified, that somehow constitutes proof they cannot be identified, only that they haven't.

Consider a person who's never seen a dragonfruit before. This person might be a grocer who has spent 30 years working in the produce section of a small town Dominick's supermarket. This guy is an expert in his field who can identify three dozen apple varieties and at least ten types of heirloom tomatoes, differentiate Swiss chard from Chinese spinach at a moment's glance, and accurately determine the precise shelf life of any given avocado. But when a shipment of these neon pink, spiny fruits arrives from Thailand with no accompanying shipping manifest, he doesn't know what to do. He assumes they're some kind of strange plant bulb intended for the florist department but sent to him instead.

Now you know and I know that the thing in question is a rare, spiny red fruit from Thailand, with a creamy white texture, a delicate sweetness, and a lot of little black seeds inside. But from the green grocer's perspective, this thing might have popped right out of a meteorite from beyond Uranus.

Is this object in question non-mundane, simply for the grocer's ability to identify it? Of course not. Because not knowing what something is does not constitute proof that no one can possibly know what it is. All it means is that we don't know.

Several contemprary definitions also portray UFOs as alen craft. Established UFO interest groups also define UFOs in such as way as to preclude mundane objects, and the overwhelming popular imagery of UFOs is of alien craft.

If you look closely enough at those definitions, you'll see that they really say, "sometimes mistaken for" an alien spacecraft, or "often thought to be" an alien spacecraft, or "popularly considered as" alien spacecraft. Do you mean to say you don't recognize the distinction?

Besides all these niggling details, every single one of the definitions invariably mentions the three words that the acronym represents:"Unidentified Flying Object."

You can play these little semantic games all you want, but changing the definitions of words do not change reality and it does not change the rules of logic. In the end, you just end up making yourself look like a crackpot, trying to manipulate language to pull a fast one on an audience who are far too astute to fall for your lame tricks.

The term UFO is therefore not simply a reference to a generic "unidentified" object in the sky, but to something extraordinary.

To a pseudoscientist, perhaps.

It does not logically follow that just because some of these UFOs have not been identified, that somehow constitutes proof they cannot be identified, only that they haven't.

You're trying to use ass-backward logic to make it work the other way round. What you're arguing is that if something remains unexplained to your own satisfaction even after an arbitrary number of "sciencey" people try to identify it, then it somehow transcends the status of being merely "unidentified," into the realm of the unknowable, paranormal, alien, extraterrestrial, etc. That conclusion is not supported by any evidence, therefore it is logically incorrect. It's an argument from ignorance.


But to me, it's just another genre of wild story that some people exploit to get attention from simpleminded, credulous rubes. Come back when you have some proof to falsify the null hypothesis, which is:

"All UFO reports are the result of mundane causes."

Just provide testable, verifiable material evidence to prove one single case of extraterrestrial visitation, and you will have falsifies the null hypothesis. Until then, you're just pissin' into the wind, my friend.

 

[ufology]

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
​

If you are positively claiming that it's aliens, you do have the burden of proof. Thank you for recognizing that. When will you be attempting to prove it?

Again, using a null hypothesis in the study of UFOs really isn't logical because a null hypothesis is meant to be used in conjunction with controlled experiments in order to provide consistent measurable statistical results. However if you really want to use a well phrased null hypothesis, it would be better to say something like:

"All UFO reports have mundane explanations"

​

The above would be accurate with respect to the lexicon as has been discussed in depth here recently because a UFO sighting implies the observation of a UFO in real time and observers of UFOs are not reporting mundane objects. By both definition and popular interpretation, both inside and outside the field of ufology, UFOs are not believed to be mundane objects for reasons such as their shape and/or performance capabilities. This also makes it incorrect usage to say that any unidentified light in the sky is a UFO.

 

[carlitos]

Again, using a null hypothesis in the study of UFOs really isn't logical because a null hypothesis is meant to be used in conjunction with controlled experiments in order to provide consistent measurable statistical results.

I am so glad that the pioneers in the weather services didn't make up **** like this because they couldn't do "controlled experiments." If they did, we'd have thousands dead in every hurricane, and hucksters in fields like "weatherology" telling us that it was Thor hurling lightning bolts or aliens or whatever.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again, using a null hypothesis in the study of UFOs really isn't logical because a null hypothesis is meant to be used in conjunction with controlled experiments in order to provide consistent measurable statistical results.

That makes no sense. Why wouldn't you want to use an actual falsifiable null hypothesis?

However if you really want to use a well phrased null hypothesis, it would be better to say something like:

"All UFO reports have mundane explanations"​

Oh, you do want to use a null hypothesis. So why are you so against the correct phrasing of one?

The above would be accurate with respect to the lexicon as has been discussed in depth here recently because a UFO sighting implies the observation of a UFO in real time and observers of UFOs are not reporting mundane objects.

This also makes absolutely no sense. How do you know they are reporting objects which are not mundane? When has any UFO ever turned out to be non-mundane?

By both definition and popular interpretation, both inside and outside the field of ufology, UFOs are not believed to be mundane objects for reasons such as their shape and/or performance capabilities. This also makes it incorrect usage to say that any unidentified light in the sky is a UFO.

No, you are incorrect. By both definition and critical examination, only outside the pseudoscientific field of UFOlogy, UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects and none have ever falsified the easily falsified null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

This makes it correct to say that any perceived Object which appears to be Flying and is Unidentified is a UFO.

As you know, perception is easily fallible as is memory. I know you have to be reminded of it because your memory is so fallible but I'll refer you back to the egregious errors you've displayed in your own sighting where you can't keep your story straight.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This also makes it incorrect usage to say that any unidentified light in the sky is a UFO.

Your redefinition makes it incorrect usage to call anything a UFO.

 

[AdMan]

Again, using a null hypothesis in the study of UFOs really isn't logical because a null hypothesis is meant to be used in conjunction with controlled experiments in order to provide consistent measurable statistical results. However if you really want to use a well phrased null hypothesis, it would be better to say something like:

"All UFO reports have mundane explanations"

​

The above would be accurate with respect to the lexicon as has been discussed in depth here recently because a UFO sighting implies the observation of a UFO in real time and observers of UFOs are not reporting mundane objects. By both definition and popular interpretation, both inside and outside the field of ufology, UFOs are not believed to be mundane objects for reasons such as their shape and/or performance capabilities. This also makes it incorrect usage to say that any unidentified light in the sky is a UFO.

So that flying-saucery-looking object in your logo for your "Ufology Society International", which you've claimed is ambiguous and doesn't necessarily represent an actual alien craft, isn't a UFO either, right?