UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Tomtomkent,

If you just want to weigh in on the issue that there is no scientifically valid and available physical evidence that proves Earth has been host to UFOs ( alien craft ).

FTFY. Of course there are UFOs. Many people in this thread have seen Unidentified Flying Objects. You are making the pseudoscientific mistake of equating UFOs with Alien Space Ships when there is no evidence of that. If you have such evidence, you should produce it.

You'll get no argument from me. The only hard evidence I've heard about comes from the same places as the sighting reports themselves ... books, documents. websites etc.

Then why aren't you producing such hard evidence so that it can be critically examined?

The actual physical material ( if such exists ) has not been made available for public inspection.

Then why do you believe it exists?

Videos, photos ... even radar, doesn't really prove anything.

LOL. You forgot FLIR again! If they don't prove anything, then why do you use them to prop up your unevidenced belief?

I'm not even sure given what we can now create ourselves, that anything short of a mother ship piloted by aliens could serve as proof anyway.

If you read this thread, you'll see that an alien body, alien raygun, or Alien Space Ship will do nicely. Why do you suggest that only a mother ship would serve as proof? Are you on your strawman kick again?

That is why the best evidence from my perspective are the eyewitnesses from early accounts, before our own technology became so advanced.

No, that isn't evidence at all. Those are claims. What you need to validate a claim is evidence.

There are still things our craft can't do ( so far as we know ), like do instant high speed accelleration, decelleration, or changes of direction.

Why can't they?

So I supppose that if we could get some kind of high quality telemetry on such an object, perhaps it would be good solid evidence. The only problem with that is that civilians don't have ready access to the kind of equipment necessary to do the job.

If you would pay attention to the suggestions in this thread you would have already seen how you could go about gathering evidence. I'm guessing that you already know that there is no such evidence to be gathered so as long as you don't look for it, you always have an excuse for not finding it. Decades long unfalsifiable anecdotes allow you to keep the illusion alive.

I imagine Space Command does, but good luck getting in there.

Yes, I can imagine all kinds of things also.

Author Howard Blum claims to have had an inside source who confirmed radar tracking of UFOs, but again these unnamed sources don't really constitute scientific evidence either.

You will note that the only thing that we ever see is claims, never evidence.

In the end, I realize that I am in an unenviable position with respect to the hard evidence for my belief. But that doesn't change the truth of it and I didn't come here to defend it anyway.

You're right, it doesn't change the truth that you have no evidence for your beliefs.

I just ended up in that position during discussion. What I came here for was to try to network with skeptics so that I could present a constructively skeptical view of some of the issues on my website. If anything, I thought the skeptics would be glad to help in that regard.

You came here to have the glaring holes in your claim patched up. We see you patching it on every page of this thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Could it be possible, maybe, that those UFO reports might have been determined to represent probable actual sightings of actual foreign aircraft that do represent a real threat, whereas goofy flying saucer stories can be safely disregarded as misperceptions arising from cultural fads and public hysteria?

Foreign craft, spy balloons, work on stealth craft and confidential fighters that needed to be kept quiet, there are many more plausible explanations that can and have happened and been proven to have happened before allowing for precedence.

Given we know as a fact that the British Government was able to establish the urban myth that carrots help you see in the dark to keep early radar fitted night fighters secret in WW2, the myth of flying saucers being spread less than a decade later, by the US government to "bunk" any witnesses of flying wings and jet aircraft being developed at the time (in secret) is far less far fetched than anything involving alien craft.

Let's be completely honest here. Assuming eye witness statements, even the ever changing parable ufology is feeding us, were true, and he DID see an aircraft he didn't recognise, and he does not appear an expert on aeronautical capabilities or engineering, it would be far more plausible that he happened to glance an undisclosed step on conventional aircraft, that would only appear alien to him as the first Appache Helicopters looked alien and unusual a few decades ago. And they too acted in an "impossible" way, but were terrestrial and mundane in nature.

It would also neatly explain the "MIB", although their choice of car and offer fantastical elelments would appear to have been embelished.



Alternatively it could just all be bunk. With no evidence.

 

[ufology]

Have military pilots ever made mistakes in perception?

If you think they have, how do you tell the difference between the times they do and the times they don't make a mistake?

Robo:

The issue here is certainty. We can neither be 100% certain pilots are completely accurate or 100% certain they aren't. So all we can do is establish some criteria for what is reasonable. For example, a close range daytime visual observation would be better than a night time observation. Corroboration by other pilots or crew or radar also helps. Balance the factors accordingly and do the usual investigation to rule out as many mundane possibilities as you can and then ask. Are what's left reasonable?

If not, then we have an unknown. Depending on the configuration and performance we might be justified in calling it a UFO ( alien craft ), but today's aircraft are getting weirder and more high performance all the time, so it's getting harder to make that judgment call. Still, I would think that a military pilot would have a pretty good idea what other military high performance weird looking aircraft are out there, or at least be able to determine ( under the right circumstances ) if it even was an aircraft as we understand them to be ( wings, feuselage, tail, engines, lights, cockpit, wheels, contrails etc. ).

Mind you, even the best of such reports doesn't constitute any scientific proof. Perhaps if there was a continuous radar track, gun camera footage, corroboration from other aircraft, and the object was tracked by Space Command into space or merging with a mother ship, maybe then if we had all that and were given access to the data, we might be able to make some sort of quasi convining case. But until then ... the pilot will probably be the only one who really knows what he or she saw.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Or alternatively we can validate with evidence. Then we would be certain.


A claim by a pilot is still only a claim.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, and why the obsession with space command? Given the number of observatories and universitiesaround the world looking up at the stars, or tracking satalites in orbit, space command looking at a small number of objects are likely the last to know. Of course civillian projects with open data are less useful for excusing the lack of evidence.

A lack of spaceships is a far more likely reason for the lack of evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

The issue here is certainty.

No, the question is, how can you tell the difference.

We can neither be 100% certain pilots are completely accurate or 100% certain they aren't. So all we can do is establish some criteria for what is reasonable.

The question was, how do you tell the difference? That's the question I wanted an answer to. You may want to review the question that I asked again.

For example, a close range daytime visual observation would be better than a night time observation. Corroboration by other pilots or crew or radar also helps. Balance the factors accordingly and do the usual investigation to rule out as many mundane possibilities as you can and then ask. Are what's left reasonable?

No, that makes no sense. How can a pilot tell something is close or far in the sky if they don't know what it is and don't know what size it is? That's the same problem you've had with your firefly. But you seem to be saying that the ones that the pilot perceives as close, in the daytime, and where they've had some unrelated radar contact and multiple witnesses means that there can be no possible mistake, it is an Alien Space Ship. Is that right?

If not, then we have an unknown.

Ok, so that would be a UFO sighting then.

Depending on the configuration and performance we might be justified in calling it a UFO ( alien craft ),

Again, you've redefined UFO to mean Alien Space Ship which is dishonest of you. If you mean Alien Space Ship, just say it. So which ones have been Alien Space Ships?

but today's aircraft are getting weirder and more high performance all the time, so it's getting harder to make that judgment call.

Ah, so it's just a judgment call then.

Still, I would think that a military pilot would have a pretty good idea what other military high performance weird looking aircraft are out there, or at least be able to determine ( under the right circumstances ) if it even was an aircraft as we understand them to be ( wings, feuselage, tail, engines, lights, cockpit, wheels, contrails etc. ).

So when a pilot says it's an Alien Space Ship, we can know for certain that it is definitely an Alien Space Ship, right?

Mind you, even the best of such reports doesn't constitute any scientific proof.

Then all the previous nonsense you spouted is pretty worthless. I'll ask it again, what is the objective difference between when a pilot misperceives something that turns out to be mundane and when he actually sees an Alien Space Ship? We all would like to know so that we can make that same judgment call.

Perhaps if there was a continuous radar track, gun camera footage, corroboration from other aircraft, and the object was tracked by Space Command into space or merging with a mother ship, maybe then if we had all that and were given access to the data, we might be able to make some sort of quasi convining case. But until then ... the pilot will probably be the only one who really knows what he or she saw.

But aren't the pilots reporting UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)? If they know what they saw, how can they call it Unidentified?

 

[John Albert]

I supppose that if we could get some kind of high quality telemetry on such an object, perhaps it would be good solid evidence. The only problem with that is that civilians don't have ready access to the kind of equipment necessary to do the job.

Are you even aware of the very affordable and sophisticated telemetry, radar, and other tracking technology that's currently available on the commercial market?

Most small mobile radar units you can buy today for only a couple of grand are far more technologically advanced than anything they had back in the '50s that required a tractor-trailer to lug around. Nowadays, most private yachts have far more sophisticated onboard radar, navigation, tracking, and weather detection technology than the entire US Navy of the 1950s and '60s. Plus, we consumers also have GPS, high-resolution satellite mapping, and millions of publicly-networked webcams (including video cameras in outer space), which are technologies that the 1950s Air Force probably never even dreamed of. The average person carries GPS, satellite-assisted navigation, video and still photography capabilities around on her handheld mobile telephone, for chrissakes!

Your denialist claims just don't hold water, I'm afraid. The average consumer has far more tech available to him than the US military had back in the UFO heydays of the '50s and '60s, yet no evidence of alien craft has ever materialized.

I imagine Space Command does, but good luck getting in there.

Do you think NASA doesn't also have the capability to track satellites and other objects flying around in space? Or do you suppose those guys are also in on the grand conspiratorial cover-up?

Careful how you answer that, lest you find yourself treading dangerously close to Richard C. Hoagland-style buffoonery...

Author Howard Blum claims to have had an inside source who confirmed radar tracking of UFOs, but again these unnamed sources don't really constitute scientific evidence either.

Yet another claim of a claim that you accept not only as evidence for itself, but also recursively, of the original claim which is also unproven.

Even if it were true that Space Command has detected UFOs, that still doesn't prove anything about the nature of the reported objects or their causes. As we've already established, "UFOs" are simply objects that have not been identified, all dishonest redefinitions notwithstanding.

Mind you, even the best of such reports doesn't constitute any scientific proof.

Or any conclusive evidence whatsoever. You still just don't seem to get it!

Stories, anecdotes, reports, etc. are claims. Claims are unreliable, and therefore useless as evidence.

This rule is a fundamental tenet of critical thinking and objective reasoning, not restricted to just the practice of science.

the pilot will probably be the only one who really knows what he or she saw.

Or not. As we've already established, human senses are fallible, and so is human memory.

The issue here is certainty. We can neither be 100% certain pilots are completely accurate or 100% certain they aren't. So all we can do is establish some criteria for what is reasonable.

It's true that we cannot be 100% certain about most of anything. But you seem to misunderstand, that fact does not imply that therefore all hypotheses are equally valid, probable or "reasonable."

Given your abysmal track record here regarding the application of "reason," ie. your

• numerous logical fallacies
• deliberate misinterpretations of the topics of conversation
• dishonest redefinition of terminology to obfuscate discussion
• refusal to accept the burden of proof of supporting your own claims
• insistence that stories and claims constitute evidence for themselves
• blatant denial of any universal, objective reality

I have no confidence whatsoever in your opinions regarding what is or isn't "reasonable."

If you want your claims to be believed as "reasonable," you must establish yourself as a "reasonable" person, which means—first and foremost—learning and understanding the basic rules and application of "reason."

 

[Puddle Duck]

ufology

I lightly skimmed Ruppelt's book, but I noticed a problem with the -86 chase so I looked more closely there. I'll look closer at some other stories later.

The story of the F-86 chase has an odor to it. Ruppelt obviously was writing for a lay audience, rather than a military audience, and the first thing I noticed was that he made a point of the Group CO. being a Col,. and being a Command Pilot. The average lay reader would not have known or even cared what a Command Pilot was, and couldn't distinguish one from a Tennessee mule (I am being facetious). For someone military, the default position/assumption for a flying Col. would be that he was a Command Pilot. Only if he was not, would that fact be of any interest. It looks to me that Ruppelt was padding his stories with fluff and filler.

But that was fairly minor. The big thing that caught my eye was the statement that
from Ruppelt

The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots--and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar.

This is the same as what you quoted.
This tells me that they were flying Dogs (since the D model was the only one of the line at that time that had AI radar) and being Dogs, were in ADC and were sitting alert.

This was in '52, during the Korean War and long before my time so I'm extrapolating here. I know that trying to extrapolate too far is dangerous, so I'm hoping to not overextend.. But, as far as I know, inside the CONUS, there has never been any Rules of Engagement that would allow discharge of weapons off the confines of a weapons range without permission of a higher headquarters, and a lot higher than a Group or Wing.. There were looser rules for the people that escorted Bears going to and from Cuba and the tour of Alaska that allowed return fire if fired on. An intentional discharge, at least in my time and probably then, would almost guarantee meeting an FEB.

. Quickly charging his guns, he started shooting.

This is where it gets interesting. The F-86D did not carry guns, it had only rockets namely 24 - '2.75" FFARs' in a tray that would drop down, fire the rockets and retract.. The pilot could select 6, 12, or 24 to fire, so he had at best, what amounted to the equivalent of to up to 4 shotgun shells. He could not have used guns, but the story has him shooting guns.

Someone appears to have been lying, but who? The logical person to point the finger at would be Ruppelt, since he is telling the story and he seems to be tilted in the direction of belief in UFO = ET, and this would make a good story. But there are other people that are possibilities if Ruppelt was gullible. Perhaps there was an elaborate joke, although that doesn't make any sense to me.

The story could not have played out like it was written. What are your ideas? If anyone else has a better idea, throw it up. I don't know.

PD

 

[tsig]

Oh, so ufology didn't think to mention it was a beetle viewed side on. That only occured after it was pointed out the visual reference he gave was indeed a point of light. Now he is just describing a light.

Amazing he can be so accurate after admitting he could not discern the edges from bleed-glow.

His retro memory is getting better and better. Some might even think he's making it up as we go along.

 

[ufology]

No, that makes no sense. How can a pilot tell something is close or far in the sky if they don't know what it is and don't know what size it is? That's the same problem you've had with your firefly. But you seem to be saying that the ones that the pilot perceives as close, in the daytime, and where they've had some unrelated radar contact and multiple witnesses means that there can be no possible mistake, it is an Alien Space Ship. Is that right?

Robo:

What I had meant by the issue of certainty is that your question is somewhat loaded because any answer implies certainty, which isn't possible from mere short-term observation alone. However given your response above, there are some factors to consider.

For judging distance, Air Force pilots have onboard radar. Distance can also be estimated visually compared to known markers. For example if the pilot is above the object and the ground is visible, or the object flies between the aircraft and a cloud bank or mountain or tall building or another aircraft. Or the pilot is able to fly some distance around the object while keeping it in view. There is also atmospheric haze, the perception of surface detail, and the speed at which the apparent size of the object changes as it gets closer or farther away. When all these things are combined, distance can be estimated fairly well. In Ruppelt's account of the F-86 chase, the pilot saw the object below him during the daylight and was able to dive in on it and view it from several different angles. He was able to see details well enough to estimate his distance at about 500 yards before the object sped off.

As for you alluding to my own sighting, I again remind you how the distance was calculated and you have provided no logical respose, just further proclaimations. If you don't think how I was able to determine the distance makes sense, please explain your logic rather than persisting in denial. Or you could just forget my sighting altogether. Some people here are getting tired of hearing about it and I'm getting tired of explaining it over and over again.

 

[ufology]

ufology

I lightly skimmed Ruppelt's book, but I noticed a problem with the -86 chase so I looked more closely there. I'll look closer at some other stories later.

The story of the F-86 chase has an odor to it. Ruppelt obviously was writing for a lay audience, rather than a military audience, and the first thing I noticed was that he made a point of the Group CO. being a Col,. and being a Command Pilot. ....

... This is where it gets interesting. The F-86D did not carry guns, it had only rockets namely 24 - '2.75" FFARs' in a tray that would drop down, fire the rockets and retract.. The pilot could select 6, 12, or 24 to fire, so he had at best, what amounted to the equivalent of to up to 4 shotgun shells. He could not have used guns, but the story has him shooting guns.

Someone appears to have been lying, but who? The logical person to point the finger at would be Ruppelt, since he is telling the story and he seems to be tilted in the direction of belief in UFO = ET, and this would make a good story. But there are other people that are possibilities if Ruppelt was gullible. Perhaps there was an elaborate joke, although that doesn't make any sense to me.

The story could not have played out like it was written. What are your ideas? If anyone else has a better idea, throw it up. I don't know.

Puddle Duck,

Thanks for your commentary. It is refreshing to see people give reasons for their answers instead of mere proclaimations and criticism. Of note regarding Ruppelt's book, he did change some names and places around to protect witnesses and personnel so it's possible that this was the case with regard to this incident. I did a little more digging and found some more information on this incident. I'm adding them as notes as I go through the book. You might find these deatils interesting at the bottom of page 18.

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/BD_017-018.htm

Also, I did a little writeup on the F-86 and included the encounter here:

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/F86-01a.htm

There was more than one version of the F-86 and the F-86H was a fighter/bomber armed with six 50 calibre machine guns. I've also run across information stating that there were orders to try to down UFOs if necessary, but I haven't got any official documents to confirm that. Here's a clipping:

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

What I had meant by the issue of certainty is that your question is somewhat loaded because any answer implies certainty, which isn't possible from mere short-term observation alone. However given your response above, there are some factors to consider.

Who in their right mind would ever believe something so earth shattering as alien visitation to our planet without having that certainty? Based only on unfalsifiable anecdotal claims?

For judging distance, Air Force pilots have onboard radar. Distance can also be estimated visually compared to known markers. For example if the pilot is above the object and the ground is visible, or the object flies between the aircraft and a cloud bank or mountain or tall building or another aircraft. Or the pilot is able to fly some distance around the object while keeping it in view. There is also atmospheric haze, the perception of surface detail, and the speed at which the apparent size of the object changes as it gets closer or farther away. When all these things are combined, distance can be estimated fairly well. In Ruppelt's account of the F-86 chase, the pilot saw the object below him during the daylight and was able to dive in on it and view it from several different angles. He was able to see details well enough to estimate his distance at about 500 yards before the object sped off.

Note Puddle Duck's comments above about the errors in Ruppelt's narrative. Why did the narrative say that the pilot fired guns when F86's didn't have them? What are the errors in the part of the narrative concerning the pilot's observations?

As for you alluding to my own sighting, I again remind you how the distance was calculated and you have provided no logical respose, just further proclaimations. If you don't think how I was able to determine the distance makes sense, please explain your logic rather than persisting in denial. Or you could just forget my sighting altogether. Some people here are getting tired of hearing about it and I'm getting tired of explaining it over and over again.

I'm sure you do wish you could forget about the debacle you've made of your alleged sighting on this forum. Perhaps you can provide a logical response to how you calculated 200 feet to be 300 yards to be 4608 feet? How you were unable to discern the outline of the glow and yet knew its size and distance when you didn't know what it was. Until you can provide logical responses to those questions and the other questions about the "enhancements" you've made to your story as you went along, there is nothing for me to respond to you about.

Your proclamations (note the spelling) are dismissed as unsupported claims.

 

[GeeMack]

For judging distance, Air Force pilots have onboard radar. Distance can also be estimated visually compared to known markers. For example if the pilot is above the object and the ground is visible, or the object flies between the aircraft and a cloud bank or mountain or tall building or another aircraft. Or the pilot is able to fly some distance around the object while keeping it in view. There is also atmospheric haze, the perception of surface detail, and the speed at which the apparent size of the object changes as it gets closer or farther away. When all these things are combined, distance can be estimated fairly well. In Ruppelt's account of the F-86 chase, the pilot saw the object below him during the daylight and was able to dive in on it and view it from several different angles. He was able to see details well enough to estimate his distance at about 500 yards before the object sped off.

Complete and utter garbage. Where some of those criteria may be helpful in determining the distance of a known object, we're talking about UFOs, which are unidentified, unknown objects. Atmospheric haze, surface detail, apparent size, not helpful at all, completely irrelevant at best, and likely even damaging to any objective speculation. Distance may be guessed, but may be grossly under- or over-estimated. Details are meaningless in an unidentifiable object. Rivets or seams could be a half meter across, or the width of a hair. The object could be changing size and not be changing distance at all. Your argument is total nonsense.

As for you alluding to my own sighting, I again remind you how the distance was calculated and you have provided no logical respose, just further proclaimations. If you don't think how I was able to determine the distance makes sense, please explain your logic rather than persisting in denial. Or you could just forget my sighting altogether. Some people here are getting tired of hearing about it and I'm getting tired of explaining it over and over again.

Good. Because it has clearly been demonstrated over and over again that it is not believable, none of it, not the least little bit.

 

[ufology]

... Perhaps you can provide a logical response to how you calculated 200 feet to be 300 yards to be 4608 feet? ...

Perhaps you can quote where I actually said that rather than you or someone else misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I had said.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps you can quote where I actually said that rather than you or someone else misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I had said.

Perhaps you can give me all the different numbers you've used. Let's see if you can admit the changes or are in denial.

 

[ufology]

Complete and utter garbage. Where some of those criteria may be helpful in determining the distance of a known object, we're talking about UFOs, which are unidentified, unknown objects. Atmospheric haze, surface detail, apparent size, not helpful at all, completely irrelevant at best, and likely even damaging to any objective speculation. Distance may be guessed, but may be grossly under- or over-estimated. Details are meaningless in an unidentifiable object. Rivets or seams could be a half meter across, or the width of a hair. The object could be changing size and not be changing distance at all. Your argument is total nonsense.

GeeMack,

Using your rivets analogy, rivets a half meter across at a distance to make them appear to be the same size as normal rivets would reduce their apparent clarity compared to normal sized rivets seen close up. This is a well documented facet of visual observation in the atmosphere. Your objections seem logical but don't apply in a real practical way.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack,

Using your rivets analogy, rivets a half meter across at a distance to make them appear to be the smae size as normal rivets would reduce their apparent clarity compared to normal sized rivets seen close up. This is a well documented facet of visual observation in the atmosphere.

What size of rivets, with how much atmospheric haze, at what time of day, at what altitude, at what speed, through what thickness and what material of windscreen, with how much dirt on it? Are the rivets concave, convex, tapered, painted darker around the edges, lighter, striped at angles, plaid? Exact numbers and details please. You clearly don't have enough information to make an objective assessment. Period. You can pull wild*** guesses out of thin air all day long. It won't help. Your argument is nonsense.

Your objections seem logical but don't apply in a real practical way.

My objections and your inability to answer to them with every single relevant and necessary detail, quantitatively and objectively, demonstrate beyond any rational reasonable doubt that your argument is uninformed, unqualified, unsupportable nonsense.

 

[John Albert]

Distance can also be estimated visually compared to known markers. For example if the pilot is above the object and the ground is visible, or the object flies between the aircraft and a cloud bank or mountain or tall building or another aircraft. Or the pilot is able to fly some distance around the object while keeping it in view. There is also atmospheric haze, the perception of surface detail, and the speed at which the apparent size of the object changes as it gets closer or farther away. When all these things are combined, distance can be estimated fairly well.

Have you ever actually traveled by air, with the opportunity to look out of a window?

 

[ufology]

Have you ever actually traveled by air, with the opportunity to look out a window for any extended period of time?

Mr. Albert

How about addressing the argument rather than the arguer.

 

[carlitos]

I also saw the object in the morning light as well.

Sure you did.

UFOs ( alien craft )

UFOs ( alien craft ).

Perhaps you can quote where I actually said that rather than you or someone else misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I had said.

Lolwut?

You're cracking me up, bro.