UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

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.

You forgot 6):
Parking the mothership in near Earth orbit and sending out small VW Beetle sized scouts and yet still remaining undetected by the entire crew of the ISS and every telescope mankind possesses.

 

[ufology]

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 haven't noticed the above ... no ... for example Ruppelt is more reserved than Corso and I really have my doubts about Corso ... as well as McClelland. So I'm one ufologist that doesn't fit your pattern. From my perspective I only see people acting the way you suggest when they are involved in the promotion of an author, so publiscists, talk show hosts and so on not actual ufologists. Another ufologist that doesn't have much praise for Corso is Stanton Friedman. So there are two examples. Perhaps you just want to see the favoritism because you have your own self-interest as a skeptic to promote?

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

I don't know about honest but I'll be quite impressed if GeeMack can translate it into English for us.

 

[ufology]

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.

You forgot to mention the probability of the aliens liking Kraft Dinner ... or Seinfeld re-runs. The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty. Do they come from a civilization on another planet? I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they come from Earth, so where then?

 

[Akhenaten]

I haven't noticed the above ... no ... for example Ruppelt is more reserved than Corso and I really have my doubts about Corso ... as well as McClelland. So I'm one ufologist that doesn't fit your pattern. From my perspective I only see people acting the way you suggest when they are involved in the promotion of an author, so publiscists, talk show hosts and so on not actual ufologists. Another ufologist that doesn't have much praise for Corso is Stanton Friedman. So there are two examples. Perhaps you just want to see the favoritism because you have your own self-interest as a skeptic to promote?

It's those pesky No True Ufologists™ again, eh?

 

[Akhenaten]

You forgot to mention the probability of the aliens liking Kraft Dinner ... or Seinfeld re-runs. The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty.

UFOs are a 100% certainty. Where did you read or hear otherwise?

Do they come from a civilization on another planet? I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they come from Earth, so where then?

They come from this planet. Apart from that, nobody knows because they're unidentified.

Please try and keep up.

 

[ufology]

It's those pesky No True Ufologists™ again, eh?

I never said anything about "true ufologists". You just want to imply that so you can pull out your Scottsman and wave it around. Maybe try something else to attract the girls.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You forgot to mention the probability of the aliens liking Kraft Dinner ... or Seinfeld re-runs. The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty. Do they come from a civilization on another planet? I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they come from Earth, so where then?

Unknown != OMG ... aliens!

 

[Tomtomkent]

. The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty.

I will do you one better: It is an absolute certainty there are objectis that appear to fly that can not be identified.

The "probability" they are any kind of craft is small. A craft from somewhere other than mundane human manufacture? Many times lower.

I am guessing you have never actually studied, or understood probability.

Otherwise feel free to supply the evidence upon which this probability was calculated. If it based on eyewitness reports, then it come from somebody elses opinion. Unless you have real data upon which to base the calculation, it is all just opinion.

 

[Stray Cat]

The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty.

Sweet baby jeebus is one week and one day old and he's weeping at this silly lie.

"highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge."
- Blue book Special report 14 based upon Battelle's statistical data

PS: Unless of course you've dropped your "UFOs = Aliens in flying saucers" nonsense... But we already knew that UFOs are not only a virtual certainty, but an actual reality.

 

[ufology]

I will do you one better: It is an absolute certainty there are objectis that appear to fly that can not be identified.

The "probability" they are any kind of craft is small. A craft from somewhere other than mundane human manufacture? Many times lower.

I am guessing you have never actually studied, or understood probability.

Otherwise feel free to supply the evidence upon which this probability was calculated. If it based on eyewitness reports, then it come from somebody elses opinion. Unless you have real data upon which to base the calculation, it is all just opinion.

Project Blue Book Special Report No.14 results:

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant level, in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion. The quote about the probability that UFOs don't represent anything beyond our technology is merely an opinion, not the actual results ... the actual results of the study are quite different.

 

[ufology]

UFOs are a 100% certainty. Where did you read or hear otherwise?

They come from this planet. Apart from that, nobody knows because they're unidentified.

Please try and keep up.

What makes you so sure that the craft are from this planet. I use the word "craft" because the USAF determined that some UFO reports represent craft ... metallic looking ... and so on. So you are 100% sure how? Do share.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You forgot to mention the probability of the aliens liking Kraft Dinner ... or Seinfeld re-runs. The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty.

Not just a virtual certainty, but a dead cert. Many people in this thread have seen UFOs.

Do they come from a civilization on another planet? I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they come from Earth, so where then?

Yep, other planets and even meteors are sometimes the explanation for UFOs. Why do you think that no explanations originate from Earth? Mentioned in this thread have been Chinese lanterns, oil well fires, hoaxes such as yours, misidentified aircraft, other natural phenomena, and other manmade phenomena. Your memory may be worse than we thought if you don't remember those.

Don't you remember the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

For any UFO to be identified as an Alien Space Ship (ASS) originating from a civilization on another planet, you're going to need some extraordinary evidence to falsify your own null hypothesis.

 

[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.

A pile of rather smelly gibberish there, none of which addressed any of the questions I asked in any way. Ignorance of germane concerns seems as much a mainstay of the pseudoscience of "ufology" as dishonesty is.

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?

I predicted there would be no honest answers to the questions I asked, questions directly addressing your post. And exactly as I predicted, there were no honest answers. There was ignorance and avoidance. There was a bunch of gibberish, the pretense of a relevant reply, but there was no relevant reply. Not a single question I asked was addressed, not even indirectly.

This year I will be exactly as quick to point out the lies, the waffling, the nonsense, the logical fallacies, the avoidance, and the ignorance that is common to the pseudoscience of "ufology". I will be just as quick to point out the feigned persecution, the whining, the dishonest redefinition of terms. And I will continue remind you and everyone else that you've made some pretty ridiculous claims that you're wholly unable to support. I will also remember, and remind you of the null hypothesis you created:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

Now if there's a shred of honesty to be found within the pseudoscience, how about you go back to my post, which directly addressed several issues you brought up, and give us some honest answers to the few questions I asked... honest... for a change.

Or I suppose you could demonstrate that my prediction was exactly correct and that those questions, easy as they would be to answer, are too uncomfortable to be answered honestly by "UFOs = aliens" believers.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Project Blue Book Special Report No.14 results:

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant level, in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.

Well done. You have proven the USAF knew that unidentified objects are unidentified. I just said that to you.

Now perhaps you can justify your insistence that their being a craft of any kind is a possibility or probability? You know, to discuss the points I actually made.

 

[Akhenaten]

UFOs are a 100% certainty. Where did you read or hear otherwise?

They come from this planet. Apart from that, nobody knows because they're unidentified.

Please try and keep up.

What makes you so sure that the craft are from this planet. I use the word "craft" because the USAF determined that some UFO reports represent craft ... metallic looking ... and so on. So you are 100% sure how? Do share.

All UFOs are of mundane origin. Haven't you read any of this thread at all?

 

[ufology]

A pile of rather smelly gibberish there, none of which addressed any of the questions I asked in any way. Ignorance of germane concerns seems as much a mainstay of the pseudoscience of "ufology" as dishonesty is.

I predicted there would be no honest answers to the questions I asked, questions directly addressing your post. And exactly as I predicted, there were no honest answers. There was ignorance and avoidance. There was a bunch of gibberish, the pretense of a relevant reply, but there was no relevant reply. Not a single question I asked was addressed, not even indirectly.

This year I will be exactly as quick to point out the lies, the waffling, the nonsense, the logical fallacies, the avoidance, and the ignorance that is common to the pseudoscience of "ufology". I will be just as quick to point out the feigned persecution, the whining, the dishonest redefinition of terms. And I will continue remind you and everyone else that you've made some pretty ridiculous claims that you're wholly unable to support. I will also remember, and remind you of the null hypothesis you created:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

Now if there's a shred of honesty to be found within the pseudoscience, how about you go back to my post, which directly addressed several issues you brought up, and give us some honest answers to the few questions I asked... honest... for a change.

Or I suppose you could demonstrate that my prediction was exactly correct and that those questions, easy as they would be to answer, are too uncomfortable to be answered honestly by "UFOs = aliens" believers.

OK GeeMack ... have it your way, don't be reasonable, and don't expect any responses from me for another hundred posts.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

However, we are describing a rare event. That being a bright bolide meteor. We are not describing a "falling star". Like all the other misperceived fireballs and re-entries, there is the possibility he misperceived the event.

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.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. I have seen my share of point meteors before. However, he did not report a head on pass. He perceived this. If it were flying perpendicular to his line of sight as he described, the initial appearance would have been a normal meteor (a point source) that would be a moderate brilliance. However, once it brightened to bolide/fireball status, it would appear to have gone broadside to him. Bolides/fireballs are not very common. In all my years of astronomical observing (thousands and thousands of hours), I have only seen maybe a few dozen that were brighter than -6. Many of those were during the Leonids/Perseids/and Geminid meteor showers. They are not very common.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Metallic looking? That is of course based on the quality evidence we have to hand? No, wait, it is based upon the subjective opinion of what a witness thought they saw...

So it could in fact have been nothing of the sort, given what we know of human pssychology. As a human having a hallucination, or misrembering, or simply having their mind fill in the blanks of what they thought they could see, wouldn't possibly think something might have been metal. Or metallic looking.

When you are seeing something that is not there, it can't possibly look like a vessel...

 

[Akhenaten]

OK GeeMack ... have it your way, don't be reasonable, and don't expect any responses from me for another hundred posts.

DOC?