UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

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.

If you've ever played an aerial combat videogame, the phenomenon would be quite familiar:

You're speeding directly toward an object, it appears to be traveling rather slowly at an oblique tangent, then in a split second it suddenly changes direction by as much as 90 degrees and veers offscreen to one side or another at incredible speed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

To illustrate the illusion at college the teacher put a light on a record players turn table. The light, when viewved on a level plain, seems to sweep left to right, then back again in a perfectly straight line. Knocking it off sends it flying at a tangent that means it keeps going in the same direction, but seems to fly off at a completely different direction.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you've ever played an aerial combat videogame, the phenomenon would be quite familiar:

You're speeding directly toward an object, it appears to be traveling rather slowly at an oblique tangent, then in a split second it suddenly changes direction by as much as 90 degrees and veers offscreen to one side or another.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a combat game. I notice aircraft carriers doing the same thing when I try to land my Flight Sim 747 on them.

 

[John Albert]

It doesn't necessarily have to be a combat game. I notice aircraft carriers doing the same thing when I try to land my Flight Sim 747 on them.

What the hell are you thinking, trying to land a 747 on an aircraft carrier anyway? Pfft. You Ozzie military types are all the same.

 

[ufology]

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.

Sure pilots can make errors, but how likely are these particular types of misperceptions for a trained military pilot, and in particular the pilot in this incident? Chase was a USAF Major and the RB-47 required top-notch pilots. According to an article in Air & Space, even the co-pilots needed a minimum of 1000 hours flying time. Also, given the description of the incident, it isn't necessary that pilot be experienced watching only meteors approach his jet ( as was suggested by another skeptic here ), only other lights at night that do a straight sweep past an aircraft. Given the expertise required to captain an RB-47 and the rank and experience of the actual pilot, it is doubtful he was not fully aware of what kinds of optical illusions could happen during a flyby and how to sort them out.

It is also very unlikely any pilot would encounter a meteor flying almost head opn toward their aircraft in the first place. I don't know the statistical probability ... but it must be in the millions ... so low that it isn't likely to happen to any pilot during their entire life. However, like I said before, that still doesn't mean the object was an alien craft because as low as the probabilities are for a misperception of a meteor, it is plausible, and the effect of an "almost right angle turn" could conceivably be reproduced using a combination of known aircraft or a very maneuverable known aircraft combined with some smaller measure of misperception due to the high speeds.

At any rate, the SUNlite article does a good job of presenting the case for the skeptics. It takes a lot of wind out of sails of those who want to promote the incident as some kind of incontrovertable evidence. It wouldn't take much to touch up the article to address the right angle turn issue a bit better, as well as clarify the explanation for the simultaneous loss of all radar contacts. I've even offered possible explanations of my own. I'd like to see more of this kind of work from the skeptics. It's interesting and informative whether you're a UFO buff or not.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sure pilots can make errors, but how likely are these particular types of misperceptions for a trained military pilot, and in particular the pilot in this incident?

Why don't you tell us since you seem to know all about it.

Don't forget the citations.

Chase was a USAF Major and the RB-47 required top-notch pilots. According to an article in Air & Space, even the co-pilots needed a minimum of 1000 hours flying time. Also, given the description of the incident, it isn't necessary that pilot be experienced watching only meteors approach his jet ( as was suggested by another skeptic here ), only other lights at night that do a straight sweep past an aircraft.

What???

Given the expertise required to captain an RB-47 and the rank and experience of the actual pilot, it is doubtful he was not fully aware of what kinds of optical illusions could happen during a flyby and how to sort them out.

Not if they're extremely rare, as you're just about to point out.

Lastly, it is also very unlikely any pilot would encounter a meteor flying almost head opn toward their aircraft in the first place. I don't know the statistical probability ... but it must be in the millions ... so low that it isn't likely to happen to any pilot during their entire life.

How do you know this?

Frankly, given that you want to claim that encountering an alien spaceship is more likely than encountering a meteor head-on I don't know that your calculations of the odds are worth much.

However, like I said before, that still doesn't mean the object was an alien craft because as low as the probabilities are for a misperception of a meteor, it is plausible, and the effect of an "almost right angle turn" could conceivably be reproduced using a combination of aircraft or a very maneuverable aircraft combined with some smaller measure of misperception due to the high speeds.

You don't say.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure pilots can make errors, but how likely are these particular types of misperceptions for a trained military pilot, and in particular the pilot in this incident?

How likely? In numbers? Quantitative and supported by real data? And if you don't know, the appropriate answer isn't a wild guess. The appropriate and honest answer is, "I don't know."

Chase was a USAF Major and the RB-47 required top-notch pilots. According to an article in Air & Space, even the co-pilots needed a minimum of 1000 hours flying time. Also, given the description of the incident, it isn't necessary that pilot be experienced watching only meteors approach his jet ( as was suggested by another skeptic here ), only other lights at night that do a straight sweep past an aircraft. Given the expertise required to captain an RB-47 and the rank and experience of the actual pilot, it is doubtful he was not fully aware of what kinds of optical illusions could happen during a flyby and how to sort them out.

So was his assessment, based on all that experience and training, that he saw an alien craft? Or was his assessment that he didn't know what he saw? How about an honest response to this?

Lastly, it is also very unlikely any pilot would encounter a meteor flying almost head opn toward their aircraft in the first place. I don't know the statistical probability ... but it must be in the millions ... so low that it isn't likely to happen to any pilot during their entire life.

It looks like you're making it up again. Show the data you used to calculate these odds. If you can't, the appropriate and honest response is to admit that you're guessing.

However, like I said before, that still doesn't mean the object was an alien craft because as low as the probabilities are for a misperception of a meteor, it is plausible, and the effect of an "almost right angle turn" could conceivably be reproduced using a combination of aircraft or a very maneuverable aircraft combined with some smaller measure of misperception due to the high speeds.

But in the final assessment, there was no conclusion drawn that it was an alien craft, was there? How about an honest answer for a change.

Since there are several requests to provide honest answers here, and since those honest answers, easy as they'd be, would actually require, well, honesty, I predict they'll be met with ignorance. "Ufology" is such a predictable pseudoscience.

 

[Akhenaten]

What the hell are you thinking, trying to land a 747 on an aircraft carrier anyway? Pfft. You Ozzie military types are all the same.

Check it out.

​

 

[Stray Cat]

Sure pilots can make errors, but how likely are these particular types of misperceptions for a trained military pilot,

I don't know, which part of the training for a military pilot teaches them about every possible misperception they are likely (or unlikely but possibly) to make?

and in particular the pilot in this incident? Chase was a USAF Major and the RB-47 required top-notch pilots. According to an article in Air & Space, even the co-pilots needed a minimum of 1000 hours flying time.

Is 1000 hours long enough to have encountered enough meteorites coming at the right angle and speed to create the illusion? therefore gaining the crew valuable training in avoiding subsequent misperceptions?

Also, given the description of the incident, it isn't necessary that pilot be experienced watching only meteors approach his jet ( as was suggested by another skeptic here ), only other lights at night that do a straight sweep past an aircraft.

Twaddle, have you any idea how fast meteorites travel compared to other aircraft doing sweeps?

Given the expertise required to captain an RB-47 and the rank and experience of the actual pilot, it is doubtful he was not fully aware of what kinds of optical illusions could happen during a flyby and how to sort them out.

The nature of our fallible perception is that we can not guard against every possibility. Even after you are fully used to looking at a particular optical illusion it is difficult to actually train your mind to not be fooled by it.

Lastly, it is also very unlikely any pilot would encounter a meteor flying almost head opn toward their aircraft in the first place.

It is even more unlikely that any pilot would encounter an alien in a flying saucer flying almost head on toward their craft.

I don't know the statistical probability ... but it must be in the millions

And compare that to the statistical probability of it being an unevidenced, unproven to exist alien in an unevidenced, unproven to exist flying saucer.

... so low that it isn't likely to happen to any pilot during their entire life.

Unique things happen all the time. When something like this does happen, it's not surprising to anyone with an ounce of sense that someone could misperceive it.

However, like I said before, that still doesn't mean the object was an alien craft because as low as the probabilities are for a misperception of a meteor, it is plausible, and the effect of an "almost right angle turn" could conceivably be reproduced using a combination of aircraft or a very maneuverable aircraft combined with some smaller measure of misperception due to the high speeds.

There is no need to introduce the speculation of other maneuverable aircraft when the same result can be achieved by a single meteorite that doesn't need to maneuver at all.

 

[ufology]

And compare that to the statistical probability of it being an unevidenced, unproven to exist alien in an unevidenced, unproven to exist flying saucer.

Maybe you missed my point ... I never said I was a proponent of the UFO ( alien craft ) conclusion and I offered three additional possibilities to explain certain aspects of the case. I also never claimed it wasn't possible for pilots to have misperceptions, just that in this case with this pilot and in combination with the theory that a meteor was flying almost directly toward the aircraft, the probabilities are really low ... and that is a reasonable position to take. By the same token I presume you are not trying to claim with 100% certainty that the visual sighting was a meteor or that the directional change was a misperception. So just relax a little. We seem to agree more on this case than you think.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sure pilots can make errors, but how likely are these particular types of misperceptions for a trained military pilot, and in particular the pilot in this incident?

Compared to the compound probability of the following:
1) There being an civilisation.
2) The alien civilisation having interstellar travel.
3) Their having ignored obvious means of first contact through radio-based communications signals.
4) Their having visited Earth.
5) Their having chosen to fly around with out making contact, only spotted by that pilot at that time.

I would say comparatively likely. By a considerable margin.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Maybe you missed my point ... I never said I was a proponent of the UFO ( alien craft ) conclusion and I offered three additional possibilities to explain certain aspects of the case.

You now retract your many, many, many posts claiming ufo=Alien?

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe you missed my point ...

Perhaps actually having a point would prove useful.

I never said I was a proponent of the UFO ( alien craft ) conclusion . . .

Dispensing with that nonsense woud help your cause too, I dare say.

 

[ufology]

But in the final assessment, there was no conclusion drawn that it was an alien craft, was there? How about an honest answer for a change.

Since there are several requests to provide honest answers here, and since those honest answers, easy as they'd be, would actually require, well, honesty, I predict they'll be met with ignorance. "Ufology" is such a predictable pseudoscience.

GeeMack,

This year try a little harder to see the context before making your accusations. When I speak of conclusions in favor of an alien craft for the RB-47 case I am referencing the conclusions of those who have drawn or might draw the conclusion that the case represents proof for UFOs being something other than misperceptions and hoaxes ... whatever ... obviously implying some kind of alien craft. Of course you can go on pretending that when we are speaking of UFOs in this manner that we are not really talking about the possibility of alien craft, but I'm not going to be so politically correct or reserved about it when we all know that is what is at the heart of the issue ... is that "honest" enough for you?

 

[Garrison]

In addition to his own dictionary Ufology also appears to have his own version of statistical probability in which mispercieving meteorites is extremely unlikely while seeing an alien spacecraft is common occurrence.

 

[23_Tauri]

Has anyone else notice a tendency amongst ufologists to trust the judgement of ex-military personnel when doing so will support their ET hypothesis, but to be slightly less forgiving when it doesn't?

Just sayin'.....

 

[ufology]

You now retract your many, many, many posts claiming ufo=Alien?

Tomtomkent,

Like I said to GeeMack, try to keep your comments in context. You quoted a part of a statement from an opinion on a particular case, that when viewed in context does not mean I have changed my position on what the word UFO is meant to convey.

 

[Toke]

Has anyone else notice a tendency amongst ufologists to trust the judgement of ex-military personnel when doing so will support their ET hypothesis, but to be slightly less forgiving when it doesn't?

Just sayin'.....

I am certain there are nice words for being selective with ones sources.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent,

Like I said to GeeMack, try to keep your comments in context. You quoted a part of a statement from an opinion on a particular case, that when viewed in context does not mean I have changed my position on what the word UFO is meant to convey.

So ufo doesn't mean alien (except it does)?

It's bad enough being wrong, but could you not try to be consistently wrong?

 

[23_Tauri]

Check it out.

​

Bravo Captain Akhenaten! You have saved us all from certain doom and a watery grave!