UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

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.

Absolute bunkum, ufology. Let's take the Belgian UFO as an example to illustrate what a bucket of hogwash your statement above really is. So the ground radar returns, that UFOlogists insist are UFOs (even under your not commonly accepted definition) are UFOs because you and other UFOlogists like you insist that the radar returns demonstrate that the objects had performance capabilities that were anything but mundane. But, hang on, we know that those radar returns can be explained by false readings, a product of a temperature inversion created by the smoke stack and/or weather conditions that night - a phenomenon known to F-16 pilots so much so that they learn to ignore these blips as has been explained to us.

So - like the Emperor's new clothes, there's nothing there.

What could be more mundane than there being nothing there at all?. And yet you insist that the ground radar readings recorded that night were UFOs under your definition aka non-mundane.

Now, do you see how the use of this single example makes a mockery of your attempts to redefine the meaning of the acronym UFO?

 

[Akhenaten]

We aren't talking about the weather, we are talking about UFOs which are extremely transient and comparatively rare phenomena.

Horse feathers. UFOs are as common as dirt.

It's only when one gets out the English/Uflogogese dictionary and translates "UFO" into "OMG . . .aliens!" that they become not just rare, but non-existant.

It would be like the weather service predicting accurately where the next ball lightning will be.

What would?

Large scale weather can be tested with repeated observation of developing systems. UFOs don't behave like that.

UFOs don't behave like anything, as far as we know, otherwise they'd be IFOs. The mistake (or wilful pretence) that you're perpetuating here is that all UFOs are part of a single phenomenon.

Consider these points in comparison to the definition of the null hypothesis from Wikipedia:

Null Hypothesis:

<snip>


As Applied to Ufology

<snip>

For Thoth's sake, ufology, are you really incapable of seeing that it's special pleading to repeat this insistence in post after post that definitions, meanings of words, the rules of logic and the principles of critical thinking must all be amended as soon as the discussion turns to your pet subject?

Even the way you format this rubbish screams that discussions of ufology must be treated differently to any other discussions undertaken here.

The more you carry on like this the more it looks like religion.

Lastly, why should people who have a personal interest not have the freedom to explore the phenomenon?

No idea, but since you made this restriction up perhaps it's best if you try to explain it.

As far as I can see, you're free to explore the phenomenon of witches preferring roasted children to gingerbread if that's what you want to do, but you have no right to an expectation that you'll be able to present your findings here without encountering substantial critique.

As people are wont to say around these parts, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

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.

Many people find knitting and crochet to be interesting and enjoyable., and that's why the interwebz have numerous sites devoted to those activities. Some people are drawn to flying saucery and to that end online clubs such as your own are set up to cater for that clientele.

The JREF (and this, its associated forum), however, have a heavy emphasis on skepticism and critical thinking. One is given to wonder why, since you're not particularly interested in these topics, are you here? Are you hoping to convert us?

That'll end well.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

Saying nothing? It couldn't possibly yield worse results than the strategy you've employed up until now.

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.

Why would anyone want to bear that vacuous twaddle in mind when it's hard enough to keep track of all the non-fairytale stuff?

 

[ufology]

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.

I don't have a problem with this phrasing as long as you don't try to redefine these terms into something else.

Hey Jim:

Well if you want to deny the evidence, like the official USAF definitons, the Oxford Diictionary, several other dictionary definitions, the definition by scientific experts who studied the phenomena for decades, and the overwhelming obviousness that UFO imagery and stories have all become deeply embeded in modern culture, not just as some unknown light in the sky, but of alien craft, and all backed by references and examples ... then I'm sure you'll be heartily welcomed into that pack you refer to as "everyone else here" who think comments like your "Humpty Dumpty" remark are smart, I'll stck with the other "everyone else here" ... and there are more of them than you think.

 

[Akhenaten]

Excellent! I'll be able to afford that snazzy new sky fishing boat I've had my eye on.

Blimps as squid fishing boats?

Too mundane. Blimps as actual fish seems more in keeping with the spirit of a thread as surreal as this.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey Jim:

Well if you want to deny the evidence, like the official USAF definitons, the Oxford Diictionary, several other dictionary definitions, the definition by scientific experts who studied the phenomena for decades, and the overwhelming obviousness that UFO imagery and stories have all become deeply embeded in modern culture, not just as some unknown light in the sky, but of alien craft, and all backed by references and examples ... then I'm sure you'll be heartily welcomed into that pack you refer to as "everyone else here" who think comments like your "Humpty Dumpty" remark are smart, I'll stck with the other "everyone else here" ... and there are more of them than you think.

 

[John Albert]

the English/Uflogogese dictionary

Uflogogese...

Is that pronounced anything like, "You flock o' geese"?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Hey Jim:

Well if you want to deny the evidence, like the official USAF definitons, the Oxford Diictionary, several other dictionary definitions, the definition by scientific experts who studied the phenomena for decades, and the overwhelming obviousness that UFO imagery and stories have all become deeply embeded in modern culture, not just as some unknown light in the sky, but of alien craft, and all backed by references and examples ... then I'm sure you'll be heartily welcomed into that pack you refer to as "everyone else here" who think comments like your "Humpty Dumpty" remark are smart, I'll stck with the other "everyone else here" ... and there are more of them than you think.

Even if we except this, doesn't your definition bear the assumption that alien craft exist? How can that be useful in honest inquiry?

For anyone who misses the Lewis Carroll Humpty reference:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty

 

[Akhenaten]

Uflogogese...

Is that pronounced anything like, "You flock o' geese"?

Nailed it.

 

[ufology]

Even if we except this, doesn't your definition bear the assumption that alien craft exist? How can that be useful in honest inquiry?

For anyone who misses the Lewis Carroll Humpty reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty

Sideroxylon:

If you look back through the actual conversation, you will find that the answer is "no".

It's strictly a usage issue involving the way the word UFO is defined as compared to the literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism. This relates to the "Research" part of the thread in that understanding the lexicon of a particular field of study is very important to meaningful discussion. So merely defining the word to mean a certain thing does not automatically assign belief or a predetermined conclusion to it. It simply describes what such a word is meant to convey.

To quickly review. The word UFO is meant to convey an object that defies known explanations. Various official and non-official definitions and the overwhelmingly obvious way UFOs are portrayed in modern culture prove this point. Therefore it isn't proper to construct a null hypothesis that proposes UFOs or UFO sightings are mundane objects. It would be like saying "All Millenium Falcon sightings are mundane objects" or "All starship sightings are mundane objects." Obviously the Millenium Falcon and starships are not mundane objects.

Consequently I made an effort to establish a null hypothesis that was true to the definition of the word UFO, not because I believe a null hypothesis is workable, but for the sake of discussing it with those who do. It went something like this:

"All unidentified airborne objects are natural or manmade objects".
​

As you can see, there is no presumption of an alien craft in the above version of the null hypothesis. In fact, the presumption only happens if you use the word UFO, because UFOs, by definition, are not mundane in the first place, and some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sideroxylon:

If you look back through the actual conversation, you will find that the answer is "no".

You wish.

The fact is, looking back through the conversation only reveals that you've ignored most of it and simply repost your litany as a mock response every dozen posts or so.

It's strictly a usage issue involving the way the word UFO is defined as

<waffle>

You really do believe you can define these flying saucers of yours into existence, don't you? It's like watching you reiterate a spell you need to repeat a certain number of times before the magic happens.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon:

If you look back through the actual conversation, you will find that the answer is "no".

It's strictly a usage issue involving the way the word UFO is defined as compared to the literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism. This relates to the "Research" part of the thread in that understanding the lexicon of a particular field of study is very important to meaningful discussion. So merely defining the word to mean a certain thing does not automatically assign belief or a predetermined conclusion to it. It simply describes what such a word is meant to convey.

To quickly review. The word UFO is meant to convey an object that defies known explanations. Various official and non-official definitions and the overwhelmingly obvious way UFOs are portrayed in modern culture prove this point. Therefore it isn't proper to construct a null hypothesis that proposes UFOs or UFO sightings are mundane objects. It would be like saying "All Millenium Falcon sightings are mundane objects" or "All starship sightings are mundane objects." Obviously the Millenium Falcon and starships are not mundane objects.

Consequently I made an effort to establish a null hypothesis that was true to the definition of the word UFO, not because I believe a null hypothesis is workable, but for the sake of discussing it with those who do. It went something like this:

"All unidentified airborne objects are natural or manmade objects".
​

As you can see, there is no presumption of an alien craft in the above version of the null hypothesis. In fact, the presumption only happens if you use the word UFO, because UFOs, by definition, are not mundane in the first place, and some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.

Are you saying that the definition of UFO that you are arguing for does no no actual work? What purpose could such a definition have in conversation, if any?

 

[Stray Cat]

My guess is that UFOlogy needs to define 'Flying Saucer' as 'UFO' because many military reports refer to UFO's (NEVER flying saucers) so a redefinition means that ufology can maintain his belief that the USAF shares his belief in flying saucers. It's a bit silly really, but even sillier is that ufology seems to want us to share in his delusion.

 

[Akhenaten]

My guess is that UFOlogy needs to define 'Flying Saucer' as 'UFO' because many military reports refer to UFO's (NEVER flying saucers) so a redefinition means that ufology can maintain his belief that the USAF shares his belief in flying saucers. It's a bit silly really, but even sillier is that ufology seems to want us to share in his delusion.

I have a theory that all brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end he doesn't care whether we actually share the delusion or not, as long as we acknowledge its possibility as fact so he can spin that into some kind of endorsement by the JREF (for which he originally and obviously mistakenly assumed us to be the spokestrawpeople) of his flying saucer club.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

There's only red port left, as they say on all the better planets.

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess ufology has me on ignore since I never get any reply to my very simple question. I'll try one more time:

Let's check.

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?

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

An oldie, but a goodie.

 

[23_Tauri]

Spot the difference:

They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

It's strictly a usage issue involving the way the word UFO is defined as compared to the literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism.

That's right, no difference, they're both twaddle.

Oh, and whilst I'm here, ufology, have you contacted MUFON to tell them that they're 'mistakenly' not using your definition of UFO yet?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Notice that I didn't say you said anything about the radar locking onto the smokestack itself.

Yes you did. In a previous post you stated:

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.

Nobody ever stated the F-16s locked on to the smokestack plume except you. Anybody with good reading comprehension can see that my article never states this.

I was referencing the physics professor Meessen who in the article explains the F-16 radar lock-ons as being of the same nature as the ground radar and that he goes on to explain this "nature" involved the exhaust from a smokestack, as was also highlighted. To quote again:

"Is it possible that the rising heat plume created a temperature inversion column that affected the radio waves passing through it and generated a false contact?"

These points are what gave rise to my comments about the F-16 radars locking onto the exhaust from the smokestack. It basically says so right there in the article. Therefore I see no reason to change my view.

Once again, you misrepresent what is written (and very little of it is Meessen's writing) by quoting out of context.

The radar contact initially reported appeared to be to the southwest of Wavre. The F-16s were directed to this but all they could see was a smokestack light. The location reported closely matches the location of a power generating station/factory on my map of Belgium (it appears to be a short distance to the WSW). Is it possible that the rising heat plume created a temperature inversion column that affected the radio waves passing through it and generated a false contact?

In the earlier paragraph I described that this initial contact was reported by the Glons radar station. All you have to do is read the entire article and it is clear what is being described.

However, since you claim to be the one who wrote the paper, perhaps you might want to change the sections I highlighted to clarify:

• That what the F-16 radars had been theorized to have locked onto, wasn't actually the same nature as the ground contacts ( as is clearly stated ), and which was theorized to have been the smokestack exhaust ( also clearly stated ). This will allow us to rule out the theory that the F-16 radar had locked onto the smokestack exhaust.
• Explain what the F-16 had actually locked onto during the part in the General's briefing where he describes the F-16 radar locking onto and tracking an object ( maintaining its lock ) while the object pulled high speed, high acceleration, evasive maneuvers.

It is not a claim that I wrote the article. It is a fact. I am Tim Printy. It is my web site. I did not copy the article from somebody else.

I am not sure why I have to rewrite the article because I clearly state the radar contact registering the smoke stack was from the radar station at Glons. Had you read the entire section, you would understand this. Just to give the section that describes the timeline of events (this preceeds the section you are focused on misrepresenting):


At 2300 local time, a police officer in the village of Ramilles reported seeing UFOs to the west-southwest. Two military radars confirmed that an unknown contact had appeared to be in the same area of the observation. The Gendarmie from Wavre (SSE of Brussels) went to investigate and verified the sighting. According to the report, the witnesses were seeing bright lights that formed a triangle and another smaller triangle of lights was seen in the same area. Radar stations at Glons and Semmerzake did track a target but never more than one. The Glons Radar is an air defense radar station located near Liege (60 miles to ESE of Brussels) and Semmerzake is a military ATC station located some 30 miles west of Brussels. The targets tracked were to the SW of Brussels near Nivelles (there appears to be an airbase called Beauvechain located here and is quite often referenced in the transcript). This makes the Semmerzake radar nearest the targets and the Glons radar installation some 60-70 miles away. As distance increases, resolution on radar also decreases. The two radars were some 80-90 miles apart and trying to match targets. While the Glons radar was an air defense network radar, the Semmerzake radar was a more common traffic control radar used by the military. Resolution capabilities for this radar would not be as precise. For the Glons and the Semmerzake radar to be able to positively identify these targets as the same echo at such distances apart is difficult. According to Auguste Meessen and the BAF report, this is what happened. Although the visual observations of multiple UFOs did not match the singular echo, Glons directed the launching of two F-16 interceptors around midnight.

Looking at the summary report gives a certain impression not so readily obtained when looking at the transcripts of the flight. We know the pilots were scrambled to investigate the contact that was supposed to be the same as the visual sightings by the Gendarmie. However, reading the transcript, we discover the pilots could not see this contact on radar or visually, despite flying by the target! At 0007, the pilots are talking to control and discover that their first target is at 310 degrees azimuth and 15nm away. When asked for an altitude, control does not have one! The planes travel at 9000 feet. Eventually the controlling station gives an altitude of 10,000 feet and gives direction for an intercept. The F-16s rapidly close at a rate of roughly 7nm/min. This equates to roughly 420 knots, which is the air speed of the F-16. Although we do not know the exact speed at this moment, it certainly appears the radar contact they were sent to intercept was moving very slow or was stationary. As the planes close, we hear Glons pointing out that the target is slow moving. The planes then pass by the target (supposedly the target is overhead) but the pilots see nothing and track nothing on radar. This continues for some time as the pilots move about. By 0013, Glons has lost contact and all the pilots can show for it is a flashing light on the ground. This later turns out to be a smokestack.

This made it clear, who was reporting a contact at the location of the smokestack.

As for the contact that pulled away, I already discussed this in the article. Meessen pointed out that at one point the altitude of the contacts were negative and this was due to the radar reflecting off the ground. Additionally, Salmon-Gilmard concluded they were false contacts generated by atmospheric conditions. Just because you have problems grasping all of this, does not mean they are unexplainable.

Also provide some commentary on why during previous dates no similar radar problems were encountered. Why hadn't the ground or other aircraft radar locked onto this exhaust plume before? Smoke stacks don't generally pick themselves up and wander off.

Since the article is focused on the events of that night, I am not sure why I have to speculate about other nights. However, you are completely out of touch here.

1) The other nights were not operating under the same atmospheric conditions. As a result, the stack's plume may have not registered on the Glons radar.

2) The other nights probably did not involve UFOs reported in the area near the smokestack. As a result, the stack's stationary contact, if it was present, was ignored by the radar operators as being something of no concern. Radar can employ filters to remove such contacts. If the operator turns off the filters, the contacts will appear.

3) Are you still contending that I stated the smokestack contact moved and the F-16s locked onto it? Because if you are, then you still have reading comprehension problems.

The bottom line here is that in the case of the other nights, by the time the F-16s were sent up, the visual UFOs were gone and the radar stations no longer had contacts with visual confirmation for them to pursue.

EDIT: after reviewing my files I found this commentary from the old Paranet forum by UFOlogists Bill Chalker concerning the other nights the F-16s were sent to intercept:

1. Starting early Dec 89 the BAF has been contacted on several occasions by eyewitnesses who observed strange phenomena in the Belgian airspace. On some occassions they described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200 feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +- 100 m above the ground and making only a very light humming noise.
Some witnesses saw the object departing at very high speed after a very fast acceleration. All observations were made in the evening or during the night.
2. The radar stations which had been alerted by eyewitnesses could not definitely determine a correlation between the visual observations and their detections on radar. On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F16 during the
evening hours.
a.On the first occasion the F16 arrived +- 1 hour after the visual detection. Nothing was observed.
b. On the second occassion, pilots could identify a laser-beam projector on the ground. After investigation it appeared however that the description of the observations totally differed from previously described phenomena.
3. Consequently the Belgian Airforce, anxious to identify the origin of the phenomena, authorised F16 scrambles if following conditions were met:
a. Visual observations on the ground confirmed by the local police.
b. Detection on radar.


It does not seem like the previous nights even had anything of significance to go intercept.

Because the night of March 30-31 involved reliable police officers reporting UFOs and that Glons had some radar contacts in the area of the sighting, the F-16s were sent up and DIRECTED by Glons radar station to the areas where the contacts were located. As described in my article, the F-16s moved about the sky trying to locate these UFOs that were being reported on radar and by the ground observers. They never saw anything visually and spent a great deal of their fuel zigzagging around on a wild goose chase initiated by Glons spurious contacts. During that time, the radar on the F-16s picked up some contacts but the contacts were fleeting and appeared to evade the aircraft by running into the ground or moving away. I also quoted Roger Paquay's commentary on the Doppler radar and how it produced false returns. This was confirmed by the analysis of Salmon-Gilmard.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It was obvious they were real. Both radar and visual confirmations proved that much. .

Can you provide evidence where the radar and visual sightings actually matched up? Saying there is a radar contact in a general direction and somebody sees a UFO in the same general direction is not a radar-visual confirmation.