• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
The DC sightings involved several incidents. Some involved radar tracking alone, sometimes confirmed by two separate radar tracking stations, and some involved radar/ground visual. The different times and the different aircraft mean different pilots were involved in different incidents at different times. So it's not surprising there was no consensus on individual incidents, because consensus would not have been possible to acheive given the circumstances. So that point isn't relevant.

What is relevant is that there was at least one incident when a radar target was visually confirmed by pilots and there was at least one such incident involving the vectoring of a jet to a target, which was seen by the pilot, who could not catch the object because of its "phenomenal speed".

In a newspaper interview, one pilot also reported seeing the objects around his jet and descibed them as glowing spheres.

For a long time I had not paid much attention to the DC sightings because they seemed to convoluted and the famous "lens flare" photo was the only evidence I'd seen. However after reviewing the case in more detail, and discovering the aforementioned details, it became apparent that there was much more to the DC flap than I had previously realized.

From E.J. Ruppelt:

"The controllers vectored the jets toward group after group of targets, but each time, before the jets could get close enough to see anything more than just a light, the targets had sped away.Then one stayed put. The pilot saw a light right where the ARTC radar said a target was located; he cut in the F-94's afterburner and went after it,[/hilite] but just like the light that the F-94 had chased near Langley AFB, this one also disappeared." From Wikipedia:

"Capt. John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar pips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts (Peebles, 76). However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do[/hilite]; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four objects then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared." Lastly, although radar technology then was not as advanced as today's, it still worked well enough to perform air traffic control at a major airport, and there were two different tracking stations involved, including military rardar. So it's not as though the people back then used stone knives and bearskins. Radar had been used by the US Navy since 1940.
Click to expand...

Disappeared doesn't speak well for them being real.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Disappeared doesn't speak well for them being real.
Click to expand...


It was obvious they were real. Both radar and visual confirmations proved that much. The use of the word "disappeared" In the context of the DC sightings, is reveal by further reading to mean that in some instances they had suddenly changed location or accellerated beyond range. Seeming disappearance can also be accomplished by instantly fast acceleration directly away from the observer, who was in this case in pursuit. Or perhaps the objects simply switched off their lights. So I don't agree that it speaks for them not being real at all. But it does speak to them being evasive.
 
ufology said:
We aren't talking about the weather, we are talking about UFOs which are extremely transient and comparatively rare phenomena. It would be like the weather service predicting accurately where the next ball lightning will be. Large scale weather can be tested with repeated observation of developing systems. UFOs don't behave like that. Consider these points in comparison to the definition of the null hypothesis from Wikipedia:

Null Hypothesis:

"The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position."

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true[/hilite]. If the data-set is very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false."

"Consider the question of whether a tossed coin is fair (i.e. that on average it lands heads up 50% of the time). A potential null hypothesis is "this coin is not biased towards heads" (one-tail test). The experiment is to repeatedly toss the coin. A possible result of 5 tosses is 5 heads. Under this null hypothesis, the data are considered unlikely (with a fair coin, the probability of this is 3%). The data refute the null hypothesis: the coin is biased."

As Applied to Ufology

We are not in a controlled situation as in the example of a coin toss above, so how do we test the observed data when the observations are so fleeting as to be considered unreliable by the skeptics? It simply isn't possible until such time as a UFO submits itself to such observational testing. In the mean time what would the skeptics have those who have seen a UFO do ... simply say "I don't know" and forget about it? What if these people are pilots and air safety or national defense may be affected? What then? Do we still continue to ignore it? So you see, it's not **** as the above poster could not resist but include in his remarks.

Lastly, why should people who have a personal interest not have the freedom to explore the phenomenon? Many people find it interesting and enjoyable, and that is as good a reason as any so far I'm concerned. Limiting all interest in the subject to what can be proven by a null hypothesis would subtract greatly from the rich array of subject matter and activities that make up ufology as a whole.
Click to expand...


Facts do mess up your fantasy.
 
ufology said:
Jim:

If saying UFOs are all mundane objects isn't correct, and saying UFO reports have mundane explanations isn't correct. Then what would you suggest?
Click to expand...

I'm not Jim but Steve here says that if you would want to state "If saying UFOs are all mundane objects isn't correct, and saying UFO reports have mundane explanations isn't correct. Then what would you suggest?" Well, Steve here would suggest you provide irrefutable evidence that the UFO in question wasn't a mundane object. BTW, the anecdote that fuels a "UFO" report isn't "evidence" any more than my saying so means my name is really Steve. Maybe I'm Steve, maybe I'm not. ;)

Bear in mind that not all the unexplained cases remain unexplained because there is not sufficient information to explain them as mundane objects, but because they were so non-mundane that we don't have any conventional way of explaining them ... whatever they are, such UFOs are not mundane objects.
Click to expand...

Duh! :rolleyes: All unexplained cases remain unexplained simply because they are unexplained, no embellishment necessary. As far as establishing how "non-mundane" an object is, how can you know that if the object is unidentified?
 
ufology said:
It was obvious they were real. Both radar and visual confirmations proved that much. The use of the word "disappeared" In the context of the DC sightings, is reveal by further reading to mean that in some instances they had suddenly changed location or accellerated beyond range. Seeming disappearance can also be accomplished by instantly fast acceleration directly away from the observer, who was in this case in pursuit. Or perhaps the objects simply switched off their lights. So I don't agree that it speaks for them not being real at all. But it does speak to them being evasive.
Click to expand...

Why would interstellar craft have lights?
 
ufology said:
It was obvious they were real. Both radar and visual confirmations proved that much. The use of the word "disappeared" In the context of the DC sightings, is reveal by further reading to mean that in some instances they had suddenly changed location or accellerated beyond range. Seeming disappearance can also be accomplished by instantly fast acceleration directly away from the observer, who was in this case in pursuit. Or perhaps the objects simply switched off their lights. So I don't agree that it speaks for them not being real at all. But it does speak to them being evasive.
Click to expand...
I see that establishing the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and radar bounced right off you. Kinda reinforced what others here have said. Anyway, there is no "proof" here, only your blind acceptance of the ufological lore.
BTW, I like how you try to explain "disappear" here. Maybe you need to read more of the lore because "disappear" was a synonym. Try your spin on "wink out" instead. Good luck with that.
 
ufology said:
If saying UFOs are all mundane objects isn't correct, and saying UFO reports have mundane explanations isn't correct. Then what would you suggest?
Click to expand...
But I think "UFOs are all mundane objects" or as previously phrased ""All UFO sightings are of mundane origin" is the correct null hypothesis. I hope you see the difference between these and your suggestion.

ufology said:
Bear in mind that not all the unexplained cases remain unexplained because there is not sufficient information to explain them as mundane objects, but because they were so non-mundane that we don't have any conventional way of explaining them ... whatever they are, such UFOs are not mundane objects.
Click to expand...
You don't know that they are not mundane objects, because neither you nor I know what they are. And if we had more (or better, or preferably both) information there is no reason to think they wouldn't be just as mundane as all the other objects.
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
But I think "UFOs are all mundane objects" or as previously phrased ""All UFO sightings are of mundane origin" is the correct null hypothesis. I hope you see the difference between these and your suggestion.

You don't know that they are not mundane objects, because neither you nor I know what they are. And if we had more (or better, or preferably both) information there is no reason to think they wouldn't be just as mundane as all the other objects.
Click to expand...


Hey Jim:

I guess you missed the whole section where it was explained that the word UFO is not simply a literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism. For example, if you see an object do a maneuver that no known natural phenomenon or manmade technology can accomplish, the object is by definition a UFO and is therefore not mundane. However if it is simply a light in the sky at some distance, it could possibly be an aircraft on approach, and is not considered to be a UFO as UFOs are defined. To get around this issue we need to create a null hypothesis that is in harmony with the accepted lexicon. I guess that if you don't think phrasing it in the form of a "UFO report" is OK, perhaps we might try:
"All unidentified airborne objects are of mundane origin"

​
How does that sound? It seems to me that if the above were falsified, we'd end up with some non-mundane object. But would that make it alien? Some high-tech projects are anything but "mundane" in a generic sense and what we are trying to distinguish is whether or not they are alien, at the very least to human civilization. So I suppose then we'd also have to define what we really mean by "non-mundane" So perhaps even better we might say:
"All unidentified airborne objects are of natural or manmade origin"

​
How about that? It seems to nail it down better. If that is falsified what else could it be but something alien?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
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"​
Click to expand...


It doesn't make sense to refer to a null hypothesis in respect of UFOs unless we use your null hypothesis?

You've heard of special pleading, right?


ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


You have no idea whether this is true or not, and stating it as an established fact is completely dishonest.


ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


This is a fabrication based entirely on a pretence that your own twisted and fanciful redefinitions and reinterpretations of common words and phrases represent a consensus.

The above statement, made as it is despite the dozens upon dozens of times that it has been shown to be incorrect is nothing short of an outright lie.


ufology said:
This also makes it incorrect usage to say that any unidentified light in the sky is a UFO.
Click to expand...


Isis be praised that you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't correct usage of the English language..
 
ufology said:
At this point many people simply jump to an extraterrestrial explanation based on the logical assumption that the infrastructure required to manufacture such advanced technology ( UFO mother ships for example ) would be so complex that it simply could not be hidden on Earth without us knowing about it, and therefore it must be extraterrestrial.

Personally I find, based on the overwhelming number of personal experiences where alien craft have been reported, that the probability of them all being mistakes or hoaxes based on poor information is so low as to make the reality of such craft a virtual certainty, even if you haven't seen one yourself ( which I have ). Once you accept that there are craft alien to our civilization, it's not hard to accept the probability that they are ET.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Oh wait, you're serious?
 
ufology said:
Hey Jim:

I guess you missed the whole section where it was explained that the word UFO is not simply a literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism.

<repetitive blather>
Click to expand...


It beggars belief that you would dishonestly pretend that your self-serving redefinition of what UFOs are constitutes an explanation of the state of play.

Well, not that you would do it so much, but that you seem to have fooled yourself into believing that you're getting away with it.
 
ufology said:
BTW: That's cool that you did some teaching on radio communications. I enjoy teaching, but have only taught guitar lessons and personal computing in a private setting.
Click to expand...
But we weren't talking about playing the guitar and personal computing, we were discussing radar and radio wave propogation. :rolleyes:

ufology said:
We aren't talking about the weather, we are talking about UFOs which are extremely transient and comparatively rare phenomena
Click to expand...
Like:
  • False radar returns
  • Fireflies
  • Entoptic phenomena
  • Oil well fire stacks....

(although I'll admit that they're not that rare - fireflies, or particularly transient in the case of oil well fire stacks...)
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
I guess you missed the whole section where it was explained that the word UFO is not simply a literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I saw it. Just didn't buy it anymore than anyone else here. You may want to be Humpty Dumpty but I don't believe that either.

ufology said:
So perhaps even better we might say:
"All unidentified airborne objects are of natural or manmade origin"

​
How about that? It seems to nail it down better. If that is falsified what else could it be but something alien?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with this phrasing as long as you don't try to redefine these terms into something else.
 
ufology said:
To make themselves visible in the dark maybe?
Click to expand...
Visible to whom? And is this before or after they don their cloaking devices?

Oh, btw, Resume, that red and green light thing? I believe that's standard regulation airship navigation light colours across the whole of the Milky Way. :D
 
I guess ufology has me on ignore since I never get any reply to my very simple question. I'll try one more time:

Ufology, if I understand correctly, you are saying that all UFO reports concern sightings of alien objects. It's just that we don't now what kind of alien object each one is. Is that correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom