UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

... Secondly, what was meant by "insufficient data" is that reports with insufficient data were ones that gave the analysts too little data to form any reasonably accurate conclusion either way, while "unknown" or "unidentified" meant that there was enough information ( e.g. size, speed, appearance, maneuverability and reliability of witnesses ) that a match with some known type of craft or phenomena should have been possible, yet such a match was not possible because no such object existed within our technical ability or knowledge base at the time.

(My boldings)
So, some observations matched known non-existing crafts?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Pilots are just as perceptually fallible as the rest of us.
It has been shown that this particular pilot was indeed fallible in both his memory and perception.
And BTW; it is highly unlikely that anyone with a misperception would even recognise it as such... that is the nature of perception.

If you examine aviation stories, there are plenty of cases of pilots being wrong about what they think they are seeing both inside and outside the cockpit. In the case of Northwest Airlines Flight 255, which crashed on takeoff due to incorrect flaps configuration, pilots readying to take off behind the plane reported that the flaps were set correctly while evidence clearly shows they were not.

In fact, I have noticed a number of situations where what witnesses reported seeing comes up at odds with what we know actually happened based on hard evidence. For example in the case of 255, witnesses, including ATC, claimed they saw fire comming from an engine before the crash. The flames were in fact the result of a tank rupture when the wing hit a pole. People fail so often in perception that it is a trival and well studied fact.

Details of the Northwest Airlines Flight 255 investigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WGz5sUkLfI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G7FNfFeigM

 

[ufology]

Pilots are just as perceptually fallible as the rest of us.
It has been shown that this particular pilot was indeed fallible in both his memory and perception.
And BTW; it is highly unlikely that anyone with a misperception would even recognise it as such... that is the nature of perception.

Sure ... that's why I agreed "maybe" but with reservations because of the pilot's experience. The thing is, even without such reservations, this observation could have been created with human technology. How? Because it was dark, there was no way to be sure the object was a single craft performing a continuous maneuver. Two acrobatically trained expert military pilots in two separate aircraft could have pulled it off as part of the "training excercise".

On the other hand, I've mentioned the report of the daylight sighting where a USAF pilot pursued a flying disk only to have it outrun his jet at over Mach 1. That sighting lasted far too long and was too detailed to be explained as a "misperception". Skeptics typically just dismiss that case as a fabrication or exaggeration, even though it was disclosed by the head of Project Blue Book.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sure ... that's why I agreed "maybe" but with reservations because of the pilot's experience.

Then you need to show evidence that the pilot in question was highly experienced in having meteors coming at him from an angle that gave him a misperception of this kind and that he was so experienced in it that he could/should have been able to identify it as a misperception.

The thing is, even without such reservations, this observation could have been created with human technology. How? Because it was dark, there was no way to be sure the object was a single craft performing a continuous maneuver. Two acrobatically trained expert military pilots in two separate aircraft could have pulled it off as paart of the "training excercise".

Completely unevidenced speculation. If Tim had cited that as a possible explanation in his article, you'd have jumped on it straight away.

On the other hand, I've mentioned the report of the daylight sighting where a USAF pilot pursued a flying disk only to have it outrun his jet at over Mach 1. Skeptics typically just dismiss that case as a fabrication or exaggeration, even though it was disclosed by the head of Project Blue Book.

Yes and it has been thoroughly refuted as completely unevidenced and unverifiable in anyway what so ever.
An account written up in a book decades after the event written from memory of seeing a report on someone's desk.
That is why it can be so easy dismissed... There is no substance to actually investigate and research.

 

[ufology]

Then you need to show evidence that the pilot in question was highly experienced in having meteors coming at him from an angle that gave him a misperception of this kind and that he was so experienced in it that he could/should have been able to identify it as a misperception.


Completely unevidenced speculation. If Tim had cited that as a possible explanation in his article, you'd have jumped on it straight away.


Yes and it has been thoroughly refuted as completely unevidenced and unverifiable in anyway what so ever.
An account written up in a book decades after the event written from memory of seeing a report on someone's desk.
That is why it can be so easy dismissed... There is no substance to actually investigate and research.

"Thoroughly refuted" is an exaggeration. Unverifiable is more accurate. This leaves us to consider the probabilities. You would probably maintain that the probability that the account is true is unlikely ... I would disagree by saying that it isn't likely that Ruppelt concocted the account, but neither of us have any proof either way.

I should also add that if a sighting could be explained using technology at our beckon call, then I would not "jump on" any skeptic for offering it up. The whole point of ufology is to consider those observations that cannot be explained by our own technology. We're not really interested in the ones that can be.

 

[Toke]

....
I should also add that if a sighting could be explained using technology at our beckon call, then I would not "jump on" any skeptic for offering it up. The whole point of ufology is to consider those observations that cannot be explained by our own technology. We're not really interested in the ones that can be.

Like those lights able to outrun the fastest human fighter planes.
e.g. Jupiter.

 

[ufology]

Like those lights able to outrun the fastest human fighter planes.
e.g. Jupiter.

Jupiter has been quite spectacular lately hasn't it. I assume you've been outside to watch it ... if you are in a part of the world where it is visible.

 

[Stray Cat]

"Thoroughly refuted" is an exaggeration.

Actually it was the importance and relevance that you place on this (at least) third hand story that is the exaggeration.
The sceptics treat it as the hearsay that it is.

Unverifiable is more accurate.

And therefore not advancing your argument one iota.

This leaves us to consider the probabilities. You would probably maintain that the probability that the account is true is unlikely ... I would disagree by saying that it isn't likely that Ruppelt concocted the account, but neither of us have any proof either way.

No one would have to suppose that Ruppelt "concocted" the account for it to be most likely that the account is not accurate. There is a whole chain of events where inaccuracies/misperceptions could have leaked into it.
You would have to rule out those well known probabilities before positing a completely unevidenced one.

I should also add that if a sighting could be explained using technology at our beckon call, then I would not "jump on" any skeptic for offering it up.

Nonsense. Months ago you presented some videos of UFOs which I pointed out contained artifacts only explainable by the use of CGI. You went to some lengths to deny the possibility or at least cast doubt over it, even though my explanation was explained using technology that is "at our beckon call".

The whole point of ufology is to consider those observations that cannot be explained by our own technology. We're not really interested in the ones that can be.

And that's why UFOlogists don't learn from their past mistakes and are still regularly taken in by UFO hoaxes and misidentified mundane objects. To say "It's a hoax, I'm not interested in it" or "It turned out to be some birds so I'm not interested" is a silly approach that will only result in UFOlogists keeping themselves in the dark as to what particular objects may actually be.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Thoroughly refuted" is an exaggeration. Unverifiable is more accurate. This leaves us to consider the probabilities.

And what exactly is the probability of an unidentified object being a form of vessel that apparently violates the laws of physics having been built by a race we have no evidence to suggest exists and no reason to assume they do?


why, other than your determination to validate a belief would we assume alienvessels a probab ility when we have no grounds to assume they are a possibility, let alone plausibility.


The null remains: until evidence of alien craft is presented all UFOs are of mundane origins we have yet to identify.


This discussion has gone on way too long. Either present evidence to counter the null, or stop pretending that there are reasonal grounds to assume or pretend aliencraft are possible, plausible, or probable.

 

[23_Tauri]

All I've done is shown that your assertion is faulty. So why not just admit that instead of fudging around and moving the goalposts? Nothing about the laws of physics defies interstellar travel. It is just a really major undertaking.

BTW: At one tenth C we're looking at around 200 stars that could be reached at a travel time between 50 - 300 years, including some of the ones that show promise for intelligent life.

I admit that my assertion is faulty and that theoretically would be possible to travel 26.2 trillion miles under the power of a small, on-board, nuclear reactor. It's just a very, very long way. And it doesn't overcome the fact that you still have zero evidence for aliens from Alpha Centauri, or anywhere else for that matter, having visited Earth.

I’m returning to this exchange from last night because I feel now that I was too quick to admit my assertion was faulty. (It was late, I was tired.... )

In post 15796 I wrote:

I think you miss the point of the witch analogy. Witches on broomsticks defy the laws of physics. Aliens travelling light years across the cosmos in saucers defy the laws of physics.

Picking up on one point in my post you then accused me of “fudging around” and “moving goalposts” over the issue of interstellar travel, instead of addressing the main issues I raised, which was that Giordano Bruno and Galileo were scientists following the scientific method and this is a far cry from modern ufology. That’s disingenuous in itself. I still accept that my statement “interstellar travel defies the laws of physics” was erroneous, however the phrase I used in my post #15787 was “Your theory is nothing but pure fantasy” and I stand by that.

I have been reading (that’s what JREF is all about, after all) and learn that there all kinds of designs that could – theoretically – power us to the stars. Ion Thrusters and Solar Sails and all kinds of futuristic things. However, this doesn’t overcome what I see as you main problem with this argument about the relative proximity of the nearest stars, which is a distinct lack of life out there. Not just highly-evolved, intelligent life-forms with a desire, and technology, to travel to far flung corners of the galaxy but any life whatsoever.

Not only that, you’ve failed to demonstrate a link between these massive interstellar ships of your imagination that travel across the galaxy for years (lifetimes?) and the firefly luminous ball about the size of two Volkwagen Beetles doing figure of eights down a mountainside.

As another poster has noted here, you make far too many assumptions, folo, and when you make a layer cake of assumptions it is akin to making stuff up. It is science fiction fantasy, and so improbable that you might as well postulate witches on broomsticks for UFO sightings. After all, at least we have evidence that witches actually exist.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well actually ... if you look at the history of it, some of the brightest minds were once considered heretics ...

Nothing's changed.

Now we have airplanes, space ships and all kinds of cool things that would have been considered "witchcraft" a few centuries ago.

That's the whole thing though, isn't it?

We have airplanes, space ships and all kinds of cool things, but we don't have any alien flying saucers.

 

[Akhenaten]

Q. What gap is there to bridge?

The gap between the deluded and the non-deluded.

<waffle>

The above situation has given rise to two significantly different world views and caused a lot of controversy, yet neither side is to blame.

There are, in fact, three different world views:

1. I saw something and I don't know what it was.
   
   
2. All UFOs are of mundane origin.
   
   
3. "OMG . . . aliens!"

The last group is most definitely to blame for any perceived controversy, although frankly I think it's more a matter of:

<even more waffle>

So the UFO question doesn't have to be a definitive pro or con at every point in our discussion.

<it's a wafflanche!>

It's a definitive con that Group 3 (above) can't even get its collective head around the fact that UFO stands for 'Unidentified Flying Object' and since that's the very point where the discussion starts it seems we're stuck in Wafflistan forever.

 

[Turgor]

Not to interrupt everybody's fun here but I have finished and posted the latest issue of SUNlite.
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_1.pdf
The reason I post it here because it addresses one of the premier cases in UFOlogy, the RB-47 case (a favorite of the OP, who has left the building). Enjoy reading the issue.

Thanks for that. Another well thought out and informative edition.

When I first read Brad Sparks article, the bit that jumped out at me was his insistence that this was "scientific proof of UFOs"

errrrr.... yeah cool Brad, but like we already know that sometimes people see stuff they can't identify... Why would we need you to provide scientific proof of it.

Thanks for that link Astrophotographer, I did enjoy reading it on my lunch break.

@Stray Cat: I think Brad Sparks uses the same definition of UFO as ufology does, hence the confusion on his part.

 

[23_Tauri]

I've made no mistake, and I've explained the reasoning. In the context of the studies done, for all intents and purposes unidentified is synonymous with alien, only alien is more descriptive and accurate. The USAF just didn't like using words that might be construed as meaning extraterrestrial, even though there were people inside who were of that opinion. Also, in my Encarta dictionary the word "unknown" is also listed as a synonym for alien. So again the context is perfectly legitimate.

That (highlighted bit) is exactly the opposite of of what you said in post #15797 ("22% were 'True UFOs'") and then in post #15804 where, referring to that 22%, you stated that "a number of the results are probably still the result of classified conventional aircraft or missile projects".

So, how can they all be alien, according to your Rredefinitionary, and then some of them (but not all of them, funny that ) be man-made machines that the Blue Book folk weren't able to identify?

 

[Akhenaten]

Just remember that you have to believe I am so seriously wrong that I've either fabricated or evolved some fictional story rather than actually experienced anything even close to what I maintain I saw.

No problemo. Been doing just that for months

How many times can you do that to witnesses before you finally see something must be going on? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? A thousand? Several thousand?

Billions and billions.

Because that is what you are facing. I'm not the only one who has had a UFO experience nor the best of witnesses.

I've had several myself, and have posted my own experience of the Min Min light in this very forum and yet I don't have anything like the credibility problems that you do.

I wonder if it's because my account didn't have "OMG . . . aliens!" in it.

Are you really sure we're all mistaken or frauds or suffering from some psychosis?

Not at all, but some most definitely are.

Are you positive?

Absolutely. New evidence is posted every day.

 

[Stray Cat]

@Stray Cat: I think Brad Sparks uses the same definition of UFO as ufology does, hence the confusion on his part.

Yes, I know that.... and every time I read something similar from anyone I feel a need to point out that it's blx.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The issue:

• How is an object that does a 90 degree direction change "consistent with a meteor?"

On page 35 there is also this comment:


"Contrary to what Sparks stated, the 4. UFO sighted never appeared to make any exotic maneuvers. There were statements it paced the aircraft but this is not stated in any of the reports from 1957. There are no indications the visually observed UFO flew loops, stopped on a dime, or zigzagged about. It was just a light that was seen, and when the RB-47 got near the UFO, it disappeared."

• The issue again: An "almost instantaneous right angle turn" seems pretty "exotic"

.

It is all about perspective. A meteor may appear to make a right angle turn but it did not. Remember, he was looking at the object from head on and thought it was coming towards them and then made the right angle turn. His sketch shows this. A bright meteor ususally begins as a fainter object and then explodes into brilliance. That would give the impression of an object coming from a distance and then flashing in front of the plane. It would appear to make a "right angle turn" to the observer.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Maybe ... but an experienced pilot would know this could happen [ what you describe ] and would not report that the object had made such a maneuver ... however the maneuver could stll have been an intentional illusion as I stated in the part you left out.

No. Otherwise you would never have pilots mistaking meteors and satellite entries as making exotic maneuvers. There is plenty of case histories which show pilots making these kinds of errors. I won't bother listing them unless you think I need to do so.

 

[Akhenaten]

It is all about perspective. A meteor may appear to make a right angle turn but it did not. Remember, he was looking at the object from head on and thought it was coming towards them and then made the right angle turn.

I've often seen lights wobbling about the sky and guessed this to be the cause of them. It seems that far too many people, for no apparent reason, assume themselves to be perpendicular to the trajectory of every 'shooting star' they see.

 

[Turgor]

I've often seen lights wobbling about the sky and guessed this to be the cause of them. It seems that far too many people, for no apparent reason, assume themselves to be perpendicular to the trajectory of every 'shooting star' they see.

I've never seen meteorites observed from the ground wobble, at least not in the (long exposure) photographs I made from events like the Pleiades when I was at astronomy camp. They all seem to go in a straight line. But when you're up high and the meteorite actually passes you I can see how one would think it has an angle in it's trajectory.