UFO'S: A possible explanation

[RoboTimbo]

Im not claiming anything here, but doesnt weird material show up at certain ufo landing spots? Like any change in soil?

Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

So you ARE claiming something.

 

[makaya325]

So you ARE claiming something.

YES, Robo, i am claiming the Rendlesham incident was NOT a lighthouse. It is not an extraordinary claim to say it wasnt a lighthouse, and it is appropiate to look into other explanations.

 

[paximperium]

YES, Robo, i am claiming the Rendlesham incident was NOT a lighthouse. It is not an extraordinary claim to say it wasnt a lighthouse, and it is appropiate to look into other explanations.

What about the soil "changes" again?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

You can do your own research on this but . . ..

The claim that it was seen within feet was part of the hysteria compounded by looking at the light from the lighthouse through infra-red "night glasses". The story has grown with time.

The "changes in the soil" were purported "tripod" holes in the ground. The terrain was rough and any three holes form a "tripod".

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If "Rendlesham" was a UFO, then you have to explain why the observers did not see the light from the lighthouse that was right there in front of their eyes at the same time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If "Rendlesham" was a UFO, then you have to explain why the observers did not see the light from the lighthouse that was right there in front of their eyes at the same time.

Duh, the UFO was making love to the lighthouse. They were pulsating with light at the same frequency, judging by Col. Halt's breathless voice recording during the event.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

How do you figure it was only "feet" away? Did any of them touch it? It appeared to be close but it really was far away. The original reports made by the airmen that night had them admitting they had pursued the lighthouse for some time before they realized it was a lighthouse. The audio tape of the pulsing light had it pulsing at the same frequency of the lighthouse. There is a lot of good evidence to suggest the lighthouse was involved.

The radiation readings of the soil were nominal contrary to claims made by Nick Pope. There was nothing unusual about the levels recorded (even though an AN/PDR-27 is not designed to detect low radiation levels - I used them on my nuclear sub).

The soil was disturbed but a forester, who saw them, said they looked like rabbit holes.

Not much here but if you want to read more, I suggest Ian Ridpath's website:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

Interestingly, "lighthouses" is not a typical "cookie-cutter" explanation.

 

[Marduk]

"Col. Halt's breathless voice recording."

every time I have heard that footage I have just thought "Gay"
is it just me ?

 

[jakesteele]

enter three characters

aaa - You obviously haven't a clue about the case he is describing do you? Tell me what do you really know about the case? What you heard? What you might believe? Feel free to elaborate.

I have made reference to the Phoenix Lights case and Phil Plait as an example of a CSIOPtic style of debunking. I believe the post I responded to was actually about Phillip Klass.

However, the point I made, and am still making, is that a CSIOPtic will almost always accept the anecdotal evidence of anyone who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of qualifications, but reject anecdotal evidence from anyone, regardless of qualifications, who tells them what they don’t want to hear.
If Einstein had come out and said the type of things Hynek said, you would be saying, “He was a brilliant man that made huge contributions, however….he went off the deep end, had a streak of woo in him, etc.

You claim you refuted this but you have done no such thing. Plait got a lot of his information from me and Tony Ortega.

I am debunking/refuting the style of subjective skepticism that Phil, you and most of the other followers of the James Randi Cult of Personality employ. Specific events are only used to show and example of such biased debunking. In other words, the Phoenix Lights, et al, are only the tip of the ice berg, which is what you concern yourself with, while I am dealing with the iceberg underneath.

We both examined this case very closely and, unless you have too, then you have no claim to have refuted anything. Feel free to continue your diatribe but the case is most likely a formation of aircraft at high alitude.

no doubt that you examined this case very closely and I have no doubt that you examined it very closely with a predetermined agenda to debunk rather than to investigate with an open mind.

Subjective Skeptics already have their minds made up that everything they have labeled as woo is bogus. UFOs, as in alien intelligence, falls into your category of woo, therefore, to you, it’s bogus.

You go into any situation like this not with an open mind and suspended judgment, but rather to disprove. That’s what this entire forum is about. That’s what James Randi got on the map for, attacking anything in the catch-all bag of woo. You are emotionally invested in the outcome and allow illusory objectivity to trick yourself with ‘sleight of mind’.
Of course, you will say things like, “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know. ‘Hey, I’m the first guy who wants to know the truth’, etc.”

This has been verified by several other reports and not just the reports of the amateur astronomer in question. Additionally, much of the eyewitness testimony also supports the observation. Only the exotic stories were published in the media. The other reports support the claim of aircraft in formation. Finally, the only video tape of the event in question supports aircraft in formation. This is why the case has a good explanation. You have demonstrated a knee-jerk believer response and did not bother to look into the case.

Again, I’m not talking about whether any particular incident is true or not true, I am addressing the underlying psychological matrix that drives determines your world view and reality map.

The more exotic the claim the more likely there is an error. You have already admitted pilots can make errors and now you seem to be backtracking saying they can't. Which is it? Can pilots make observational errors or not?

Phil says about amateur astronomers, …”But they don't. Why not? Because they understand the sky! They know when a twinkling light is Venus, or a satellite, or a military flare, or a hot air balloon, and so they don't report it.”

Why is it that an amateur astronomer can understand the sky and not be fooled, but expert, experienced aviators can’t? I don’t understand.

He did not state this or he later corrected this statement. His claim is that amateur astronomers should be reporting a lot of these sightings but are not. Why is this? Why, after over 35 years of amateur astronomy, haven't I seen one of these objects? Am I just not observant? Do I have to want to see the UFOs? Am I just unlucky? I bet a majority of amateur astronomers probably feel the same way. Some have seen odd things but nobody, to the best of my knowledge, talk about huge triangular craft hovering over their observing sites.

Why haven’t you? Well, it’s one of two things:
1. There are unexplainable anomalies and you haven’t been in the right place at the right time to observe.
2. Or every single sighting in the history of man has been mundane and explainable. Which of those two options do you think it is?


As for your poll of astronomers, every one of those sightings had to do with unknown lights and nothing concrete. Tombaugh's sighting is something he later determined to probably be an atmospheric phenomena because of the faintness of the lights. These observations were "unidentifieds" and not "alien spaceships" or "unknown aerial vehicles operating under intelligent control".

Of course, typical tactic. Attack the credentials and qualifications of the opposition in an attempt sideline their claims. I expect nothing less from a CSIOPtic.

Okay, let’s keep playing this game. Here’s another list for you to do what subjective skeptics do; downplay, diminish, marginalize and minimize.


+++http://www.topblogarea.com/sitedetails_21613.html
2007-11-16 16:36:00
Although it is sometimes contended that astronomers never report UFOs, the Air Force's Project Blue Book files indicate that approximately 1% of all their reports came from amateur and professional astronomers or other users of telescopes (such as missile trackers or surveyors). In the 1970s, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock conducted two surveys of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and American Astronomical Society. About 5% of the members polled indicated that they had had UFO sightings. [6] [7] In 1980, a survey of 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations by Gert Helb and astronomer J. Allen Hynek of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) found that 24% responded "yes" to the question "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?"[29]Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who admitted to 6 UFO sightings, including 3 green fireballs supported the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) for UFOs and stated he thought sc

I’m talking about the cases that can’t be explained away with mundane explanations, whether it be a triangle craft, glowing orbs, lights blinking, etc. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is exotic, but because no logical explanation can be given, it leaves the door open to other possibilities within the realm of feasibility. Until you can explain away every single report (thousands and thousands) the possibility for exotics exists, although, it would be the most remote and the one you would consider last.

Occam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the right one.

Now, once again, do you think that every reported sighting in the history of man from the dawn of civilization, up to and including the present, and by extension, every sighting in the future until one lands and introduces itself?


"many"???? I think you overestimate your position. Do you have data to support the claim or is it just your belief?

 

[makaya325]

How do you figure it was only "feet" away? Did any of them touch it? It appeared to be close but it really was far away. The original reports made by the airmen that night had them admitting they had pursued the lighthouse for some time before they realized it was a lighthouse. The audio tape of the pulsing light had it pulsing at the same frequency of the lighthouse. There is a lot of good evidence to suggest the lighthouse was involved.

The radiation readings of the soil were nominal contrary to claims made by Nick Pope. There was nothing unusual about the levels recorded (even though an AN/PDR-27 is not designed to detect low radiation levels - I used them on my nuclear sub).

The soil was disturbed but a forester, who saw them, said they looked like rabbit holes.

Not much here but if you want to read more, I suggest Ian Ridpath's website:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

Interestingly, "lighthouses" is not a typical "cookie-cutter" explanation.

Thanks for the links Astro. I just remember the UFO files episode about the case.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have made reference to the Phoenix Lights case and Phil Plait as an example of a CSIOPtic style of debunking. I believe the post I responded to was actually about Phillip Klass.

However, you claimed to have refuted Plait. You did not. The evidence supports the observations unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Therefore, your claim is false.

However, the point I made, and am still making, is that a CSIOPtic will almost always accept the anecdotal evidence of anyone who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of qualifications, but reject anecdotal evidence from anyone, regardless of qualifications, who tells them what they don’t want to hear.

Incorrect. They are using good skeptical sense. If an amateur astronomer says he saw aircraft through his telescope and a pilot says, no I saw a dark triangle with lights that turned invisible the instant it passed in front of the moon, which is more likely? Obviously, the aircraft explanation. There is no evidence to support the second claim and therefore, it is the least likely. You need better evidence to give the observations credibility. Your point is invalid and good standards of evaluating the evidence makes this clear.

If Einstein had come out and said the type of things Hynek said, you would be saying, “He was a brilliant man that made huge contributions, however….he went off the deep end, had a streak of woo in him, etc.

Would of...could of...should of... This hypothetical is not valid because it did not happen. The fact of the matter is that most scientists find the evidence for UFOs less than desirable. I can add names like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke to that list if you so desire. Here is a quote from Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" (you should read this book!) with regards to James McDonald (a prominent scientist interested in UFOs):

McDonald's view on UFOs was based, he said, not on irrefutable evidence, but was a conclusion of last resort: All the alternative explanations seemed to him even less credible. In the middle 1960s I arranged for McDonald to present his best cases in a private meeting with leading physicists and astronomers who had not staked a claim on the UFO issue. Not only did he fail to convince them that we were being visited by extraterrestrials; he failed even to excite their interest. And this was a group with a very high wonder quotient. It was simply that where McDonald saw aliens, they saw much more prosaic explanations.

This was duplicated in 1997, when UFOlogy's best and brightest scientists presented their "best evidence" to a panel of scientists who had no position on UFOs and was hand-picked by UFO proponent and astronomer Peter Sturrock. Their conclusions were:

It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence (Sturrock - The UFO enigma)

I am debunking/refuting the style of subjective skepticism that Phil, you and most of the other followers of the James Randi Cult of Personality employ. Specific events are only used to show and example of such biased debunking. In other words, the Phoenix Lights, et al, are only the tip of the ice berg, which is what you concern yourself with, while I am dealing with the iceberg underneath.

However, your example is invalid. The evidence was examined carefully and completely. The result was that the astronomers observations are valid and give a satisfactory explanation for the event. Therefore, it is not "subjective" skepticism at all. You immediately dismissed his testimony without a thought because you wanted to believe the more exotic explanation. Who is the one being subjective? Plait read my report and felt it was a good explanation and could find no fault. You have read nothing and believe only what you hear. Which person is allowing his bias to influence his opinion?

Subjective Skeptics already have their minds made up that everything they have labeled as woo is bogus. UFOs, as in alien intelligence, falls into your category of woo, therefore, to you, it’s bogus.

It was good investigative techniques that suggested there is probably a more earthly explanation for the case. To immediately accept the idea that it has to be an alien spaceship and not a potential misperception (which most UFO reports are - statistics support this) is being very narrow minded and not open to other possibilities.

You go into any situation like this not with an open mind and suspended judgment, but rather to disprove. That’s what this entire forum is about. That’s what James Randi got on the map for, attacking anything in the catch-all bag of woo. You are emotionally invested in the outcome and allow illusory objectivity to trick yourself with ‘sleight of mind’.
Of course, you will say things like, “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know. ‘Hey, I’m the first guy who wants to know the truth’, etc.”

This from a person who has not even investigated the case and implied the astronomer was probably making his story up. You had your mind made up the instant you heard the story. At least I was interested in asking the pertinent questions to see if there was a possible answer. I was curious enough to ask the questions you would never think of asking. That is a lot more open minded than jumping on the ETH right away. Did you watch the video about "open-mindedness" I posted?

Again, I’m not talking about whether any particular incident is true or not true, I am addressing the underlying psychological matrix that drives determines your world view and reality map.

And I am trying to demonstrate to you how an actual investigation should be conducted. You want everyone to think that it was a matter of openly dismissing the case right away. It was not. It started by asking questions nobody else was interested in asking and then seeing if the answers fit the puzzle presented by the witness reports. It did. It was a good process and beats the heck out of blindly accepting wild stories told only by a few individuals who received media attention.

Why is it that an amateur astronomer can understand the sky and not be fooled, but expert, experienced aviators can’t? I don’t understand.

Let me quote Thomas Huxley and Sagan for you:

Huxley: "Trust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, not the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned. When they are involved, require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified."
Sagan: "When we notice something strange in the sky, some of us become excitable and uncritical, bad witnesses." and "No anecdotal claim - no matter how sincere, no matter how deeply felt, no matter how exemplary the lives of the attesting citizens - carries much weight on so important a question. As in the older UFO cases, anecdotal accounts are subject to irreducible error."

Why haven’t you? Well, it’s one of two things:
1. There are unexplainable anomalies and you haven’t been in the right place at the right time to observe.
2. Or every single sighting in the history of man has been mundane and explainable. Which of those two options do you think it is?

I know my answer and I know yours. However, it does not answer the original statement by Plait. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of amateur astronomers observing the sky. Why don't astronomers report a greater number of UFO reports than those that just happen to randomly look up and see a UFO? The number of hours of observation should increase the liklihood of seeing a UFO (especially one like that reported so often in UFO databases). I am not talking about unusual lights in the sky. I am talking about immense physical craft that dart around the sky.

Of course, typical tactic. Attack the credentials and qualifications of the opposition in an attempt sideline their claims. I expect nothing less from a CSIOPtic.

I did not do this. I attacked the data. I pointed out that all the UFOs seen in this poll were just lights in the sky and none reported any distinct craft. As I state on my web site in regards to astronomers and UFOs:

Out of forty interviewed, five stated they had seen a UFO (Astronomers R, II, LL - La Paz, NN - Tombaugh, and OO). One of these (R) did not place any significance to his sighting. None of the reports had anything to do with detailed observations of "structured craft" but were mostly fleeting glimpses of lights or small (in angular size) objects that lasted only a few seconds. If these are the principle observations that demonstrate that UFOs exist as some form of "structured craft that demonstrate unearthly characteristics", then they are very poor evidence even if the witnesses were professional astronomers.

The data is poor with this astronomer poll. To suggest it is good data is exaggerating.

I’m talking about the cases that can’t be explained away with mundane explanations, whether it be a triangle craft, glowing orbs, lights blinking, etc. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is exotic, but because no logical explanation can be given, it leaves the door open to other possibilities within the realm of feasibility. Until you can explain away every single report (thousands and thousands) the possibility for exotics exists, although, it would be the most remote and the one you would consider last.

Well, I have the results in front of me for Gert Herbs poll. He later admitted that most of the sightings reported were vague. One he suggested was very good but analysis by myself indicates it was probably a KH-8 spy satellite making an orbital correction. If you want to go into Two line elements and the details, I can go there if you want. If this was one of his best sightings and it could be explained, what does it mean for the rest? The fact is that a poll of scientists/astronomers of events that transpired months or years before are not going to be solved very easily. It is hard to chase down various items to explain them. Feel free to list the best cases in these surveys and we can look at them for how exotic they really were.

Now, once again, do you think that every reported sighting in the history of man from the dawn of civilization, up to and including the present, and by extension, every sighting in the future until one lands and introduces itself?

I haven't seen a sighting yet that has impressed me to the point I would say "That's an alien spaceship for sure". There are some puzzlers to say the least that lack solid explanations but that does not mean they are evidence for the ETH. They are simply cases that can not be explained and remain "unidentified". When good evidence surfaces to demonstrate the ETH has merit, then I will alter my position. Until then, the most likely explanations for UFO reports are misperceptions and hoaxes. Prove me wrong. Show me a case that can be proven not to be a misperception or hoax. We (I assume I speak for the rest of the forum) are more than willing to see your best case. Just remember, the 1997 panel of scientists were unimpressed by the details presented to them by various UFO proponent scientists. We are waiting.....tick..tock...

 

[makaya325]

Astro, what do you think is a good explanation for the black triangle ufo's? Perhaps the TR-3B?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astro, what do you think is a good explanation for the black triangle ufo's? Perhaps the TR-3B?

Each sighting has to be addressed individually. I am not even sure the TR-3B ever existed. Some have suggested the NOSS satellites. They are very faint and not likely a source. One must realize that three lights can form a triangle. Three craft in formation creates a flying triangle shape. A triangle seen over the north sea near the UK back in the 1980s turned out to be aircraft involved in an aeriel refueling exercise. Some have misperceived satellite reentries as "flying triangles". I can think of a case in 1999 where the investigator put up the video of the reentering debris and insisted it was a flying triangle! As I said, each case has to be examined separately. There is no blanket explanation contrary to popular belief.

I think the large triangular UFO sightings began in the 1980s. Prior to that, they really did not exist in large numbers. They were mostly "discs" being reported. People's perception of what a UFO should look like changed. Did the aliens change the shape of their craft or did people start expecting to see giant triangles based on popular movies, TV shows, and literature?

 

[makaya325]

Each sighting has to be addressed individually. I am not even sure the TR-3B ever existed. Some have suggested the NOSS satellites. They are very faint and not likely a source. One must realize that three lights can form a triangle. Three craft in formation creates a flying triangle shape. A triangle seen over the north sea near the UK back in the 1980s turned out to be aircraft involved in an aeriel refueling exercise. Some have misperceived satellite reentries as "flying triangles". I can think of a case in 1999 where the investigator put up the video of the reentering debris and insisted it was a flying triangle! As I said, each case has to be examined separately. There is no blanket explanation contrary to popular belief.

I think the large triangular UFO sightings began in the 1980s. Prior to that, they really did not exist in large numbers. They were mostly "discs" being reported. People's perception of what a UFO should look like changed. Did the aliens change the shape of their craft or did people start expecting to see giant triangles based on popular movies, TV shows, and literature?

What about the Belgium ufo wave in the 1980's? Remember the famous triangle photo?

 

[I Ratant]

Astro, what do you think is a good explanation for the black triangle ufo's? Perhaps the TR-3B?

.
There were names and levels assigned to various UAVs... The Tier 3 was, if memory serves, a Lockheed flying wing UAV, called the "Dark Star", but after its second attempted flight, the "Dark Splat".
There is a follow-on twin jet version I've heard is (or isn't) operational.
TR-anything is most likely a misheard name for something like these, with some woo attached..
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-3.html

 

[Vortigern99]

Astrophotographer: Nominated for Post 251.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I’m talking about the cases that can’t be explained away with mundane explanations, whether it be a triangle craft, glowing orbs, lights blinking, etc. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is exotic, but because no logical explanation can be given, it leaves the door open to other possibilities within the realm of feasibility. Until you can explain away every single report (thousands and thousands) the possibility for exotics exists, although, it would be the most remote and the one you would consider last.

IMO, the cases that can't be explained away with mundane explanations are those about which there is insuffient information. As simple as that.

And yes, there's no question, the door is open to other possibilities. No real skeptic closes the door a priori to any possibility, no skeptic say that ETs don't exist. It's just a matter of evidence, the same old story. And no, the nonsense that UFO enthusiasts pretend us to believe don't count as evidence, not even close.

Anyway, we are willing to examine your "best UFO case". You must have one if you defend so vigurously the "other possibility" option.

 

[Starthinker]

I see you were talking about RAF Bentwaters. If you go to http://www.badalien.org and click on Clear you will find an interesting article about RAF Bentwaters.

 

[MikeSun5]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_296044a3d9a33ed58c.jpg[/qimg]

OMG, it's totally the TR-3B! Or the USS Aeon! Maybe the USS Dauntless! Or it could be some type of Imperial or Victory-class Star Destroyer! Maybe some new type of A-Wing fighter!

Here's a fun fact: the "TR-3B" is crap. I worked in Europe for many years during the 90s with the military and there is no USAF base even in Belgium (where that pic was supposedly taken). I've been to SHAPE, and even to Chievres Air Base. It's the smallest air base I've ever been to, it doesn't house experimental craft, and the nearest USAF base is in Germany anyway (Ramstein AB -- which is also not big enough to hide nuke powered triangles).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for explaining UFOs with man-made crafts, but so far our technology for vertical takeoffs is super primitive.

 

[Astrophotographer]

What about the Belgium ufo wave in the 1980's? Remember the famous triangle photo?

The photograph was taken under very suspicious circumstances. Supposedly, the shot was a few seconds long using a telephoto lens of about 100-150mm at F4. Anyone with photographic experience knows that such a shot would be difficult even for an experienced photograph using a tripod. This individual claimed he shot it proping the camera up against a wall. Does this means this was a hoax? Wim Van Utrecht was able to create a photograph that looked almost exactly like it for the book "Danger in the air" by Jenny Randles. Does this mean this photograph was a hoax? It is possible.

You can read skeptical opinions about the Belgian UFOs at the following links.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm - my site. A collection of information I obtained over the years abotut he case.

http://gmh.chez-alice.fr/RLT/BUW-RLT-10-2008.pdf - A theory that some of the UFO sightings during the Belgian wave were of helicopters and their lighting.

http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm - there is a lot of information about the picture here.