UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

This object thing just bugs me. Rramjet laughed when I said "just lights" but would anyone here consider light an object? How about light reflected in haze or a cloud? When I shine a flashlight (that's a "torch" for you anglosphere denizens), it emits a beam of light, not an object.

Not to mention - lies, lucid dreams, hallucinations, confabulations, memory error, and the like aren't objects. Anecdotes certainly aren't evidence of objects.

Absolutely agree. That's why Rramjet was trying to dishonestly change the wording on the null hypothesis to "misidentification of mundane objects" from "of mundane origin". He got caught and had his hands slapped for it.

So, Rramjet, have you thought of any plausible non-mundane explanations yet? Until you do, the null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and that applies to yours.

 

[John Albert]

Fair point. I come and go from this exercise, mostly because I learn interesting things along the side.

Wholeheartedly agreed!

I've actually read this entire thread through, and have been entertained and edified by the input of 23_Tauri, Access Denied, Akhenaten, Astrophotographer, Correa Neto, EHocking, gambling_cruiser, GeeMack, Jocce, Marduk, Paul, RoboTimbo, SnidelyW, Stray Cat, tsig, and yourself (among others). There has been a lot of great analysis and some really fun moments (if you guys ever get around to doing the non-mundane explanations, my money's on SASCOW).

I'll lurk here and comment occasionally, but I'm not getting into any futile speculative discussions of UFO stories.

 

[Rramjet]

No, this posting is your online description of a memory that you had, which you say that you have written down and then "transcribed," regarding what your eyes (and your friend) told your brain on New Year's Eve a few years ago. No "objects" have been proven, or even admitted to as being likely by yourself.

…and you are merely a figment of my imagination….

What could be more speculative than your ufo/et hypothesis? It's entirely without merit.

I have NEVER contended the UFO as ET hypothesis. You know that, I know that, everyone who has been following this thread knows that. This simply shows the calibre of the people I am attempting to converse with here. Truth is unimportant to them. They will say anything as long as they think it will score a point and comfort them in their own beliefs.

I was in Norway a week ago and didn't see a single White-tailed Eagle.

No Cape Barren Geese. They do not live, migrate to, or fly over the area. It is just not a plausible hypothesis that could explain my sighting.

I did provide a lot more than a NOSS discussion but you seemed to have ignored it (by accident or on purpose, I am not sure).

Sure, you gave information on some satellites that may appear in the sky together.

What has to be explained is the unwavering trajectory of my four objects, the invariable distance between them, the oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them, the speed at which they passed over and their illumination.

Well, we have your word, which doesn't count for much on this matter that they "oscillated" around a central point…

I can assure you that is what they did. There was no mistaking it. All three witnesses agreed that was what was occurring.

…and that the transit time was indicative of an angular speed of 1.75 degrees/second (compared to the 0.5-1.0 deg/second of most satellites).

I have asked if you could translate that for me into height (m) and speed (m/sec). That is, if it was at 10,000m then it would be travelling at (x) m/sec …etc for a range of heights… I mean you must have that information otherwise you could not have worked out your angular speed…

…once again, to quote Feynman, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

I recounted the sighting as it was observed. Three witnesses agreed. The objects were there, as described, doing what they did. We simply saw them and noted what they were doing. We were not “fooled” in any way. There is no doubt about direct south to north trajectory. There is no doubt about the oscillation. There is no doubt about the quality of their illumination. The timing was an estimate – so sure a few seconds longer for the sighting than estimated is a possibility. It was what it was. You will obviously never accept the observation for what it was. We know what we saw.

Ooops forgot the "midnight" thing. You were just past the solstice at 38 degrees south latitude. You were also on DST, if I am correct. So the actual time would be 10:45 standard time. In any case, the tip of the earth's axis allows the sun to illuminate satellites that make passes much later at night from your location. Here at 43 degrees North latitude, we have satellite passes all night long in summer so I would expect a similar situation for you in the southern hemisphere during your summer at 38 degrees.

Given it was the middle of summer and the solstice was on the 22nd of Dec. then the sun would have been around 23 degrees north of the Equator. The sighting took place at about 38 degrees south. The sun would have been practically on the opposite side of the planet at approx.11pm (std time). I find it hard to believe that the sun could have illuminated any satellites travelling south to north.

 

[RoboTimbo]

…and you are merely a figment of my imagination….

The Waaaaaambulance is on its way.

I have NEVER contended the UFO as ET hypothesis. You know that, I know that, everyone who has been following this thread knows that. This simply shows the calibre of the people I am attempting to converse with here. Truth is unimportant to them. They will say anything as long as they think it will score a point and comfort them in their own beliefs.

Then you can't think of any plausible non-mundane explanations either? Good to know. We'll just stick with the null hypothesis then which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and it has never been falsified.

No Cape Barren Geese. They do not live, migrate to, or fly over the area. It is just not a plausible hypothesis that could explain my sighting.

So you still can't think of any plausible non-mundane explanations?

Sure, you gave information on some satellites that may appear in the sky together.

Making it plausible. Good for you to admit it.

What has to be explained is the unwavering trajectory of my four objects, the invariable distance between them, the oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them, the speed at which they passed over and their illumination.

Why does it have to be explained? Your eyes played tricks on you. There - explained. You're lying about the sighting - explained again. Good thing we have the null hypothesis.

I can assure you that is what they did. There was no mistaking it. All three witnesses agreed that was what was occurring.

All in favor of taking Rramjet's word for anything?

I have asked if you could translate that for me into height (m) and speed (m/sec). That is, if it was at 10,000m then it would be travelling at (x) m/sec …etc for a range of heights… I mean you must have that information otherwise you could not have worked out your angular speed…


I recounted the sighting as it was observed. Three witnesses agreed. The objects were there, as described, doing what they did. We simply saw them and noted what they were doing. We were not “fooled” in any way. There is no doubt about direct south to north trajectory. There is no doubt about the oscillation. There is no doubt about the quality of their illumination. The timing was an estimate – so sure a few seconds longer for the sighting than estimated is a possibility. It was what it was. You will obviously never accept the observation for what it was. We know what we saw.

A pity about anecdotes being unfalsifiable. Have you thought of any plausible non-mundane explanations yet?

Given it was the middle of summer and the solstice was on the 22nd of Dec. then the sun would have been around 23 degrees north of the Equator. The sighting took place at about 38 degrees south. The sun would have been practically on the opposite side of the planet at approx.11pm (std time). I find it hard to believe that the sun could have illuminated any satellites travelling south to north.

Have you thought of any plausible non-mundane explanations? If not, we'll just have to rely on the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

Even yours.

 

[GeeMack]

I recounted the sighting as it was observed. Three witnesses agreed. The objects were there, as described, doing what they did. We simply saw them and noted what they were doing. We were not “fooled” in any way. There is no doubt about direct south to north trajectory. There is no doubt about the oscillation. There is no doubt about the quality of their illumination. The timing was an estimate – so sure a few seconds longer for the sighting than estimated is a possibility. It was what it was. You will obviously never accept the observation for what it was. We know what we saw.

What it was, or is, is an anecdote coming from a proven liar. There is no evidence that any of it is true, and the obvious contradictions, fabrications, arguments from ignorance, and arguments from incredulity scattered along the way have destroyed any hope that anyone sane and intelligent will accept the anecdote as any more than an unimaginative work of fiction.

 

[Resume]

I have presented only one case where the DNA evidence showed something out of the ordinary – but still, ET? Who knows?)

I have NEVER contended the UFO as ET hypothesis. You know that, I know that, everyone who has been following this thread knows that. This simply shows the calibre of the people I am attempting to converse with here. Truth is unimportant to them. They will say anything as long as they think it will score a point and comfort them in their own beliefs.

I think you dance a lot.

 

[RoboTimbo]

corbin, this is where we left off last.

I like how you think and ask questions. The null hypothesis isn't provable, it is assumed in fact. It is falsifiable by showing just one case where it is wrong.

Yes, it would be a tedious matter to go through all the UFO cases and have to try to explain each one in mundane terms, particularly since they are built up out of anecdotes. That's why the default (or null) hypothesis just assumes that the answer to each one is mundane. If someone comes along and says, "This one is not mundane." then they have the burden of proof in proving that it isn't mundane. They have made a positive claim. They have the job of falsifying the null hypothesis.

Do you see why Rramjet scurries away like a scared rabbit goose whenever I ask him if he can think of any plausible non-mundane explanations? He is deathly afraid of the burden of proof, knowing that his belief system is built on quicksand.

 

[Astrophotographer]

What has to be explained is the unwavering trajectory of my four objects, the invariable distance between them, the oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them, the speed at which they passed over and their illumination.

Gee, I never knew a satellite would waver in trajectory. Your observations are unverifiable. For all I know you could be making them up.

I can assure you that is what they did. There was no mistaking it. All three witnesses agreed that was what was occurring.

So you say. We have no way of verifying the observation and no way of checking with your supporting witnesses.

I have asked if you could translate that for me into height (m) and speed (m/sec). That is, if it was at 10,000m then it would be travelling at (x) m/sec …etc for a range of heights… I mean you must have that information otherwise you could not have worked out your angular speed.

I gave you some time ago a link (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/earth_orbit) to a calculator that can compute those for you to your heart's content (see post 9956). Once the distance is determined, you can then compute a basic angular speed. Most work out to be between 0.5 and 1 degree/second depending on the distance to the satellite. Is this a request for me to do your math for you? I would think a scientist could figure this out. What kind of degree did you get?

I recounted the sighting as it was observed. Three witnesses agreed. The objects were there, as described, doing what they did. We simply saw them and noted what they were doing. We were not “fooled” in any way. There is no doubt about direct south to north trajectory. There is no doubt about the oscillation. There is no doubt about the quality of their illumination. The timing was an estimate – so sure a few seconds longer for the sighting than estimated is a possibility. It was what it was. You will obviously never accept the observation for what it was. We know what we saw.

First of all, it was never documented publicly (as in a UFO report). The other witnesses and you never seemed to think it was that important to do so. So, it could not have been that strange at the time. Second, it is your word the witnesses support your story. We have no way of checking up on it. Third, when I asked to see the documentation, you say you transcribed the story and then threw it away introducing a further potential for error in the transcription. We already know that you got some directions wrong regarding your location. What else was in error? We don't know. As a scientist, you should understand that this makes it unverifiable and, therefore, unreliable.

Additionally, as I pointed out many times already it was NOT direct south to north as you keep claiming. If it was at 70 degrees elevation in the west and headed towards due north, indicates it was in a northeast trajectory (a direct south to north trajectory would have had the object pass directly overhead). It may seem like a small point but you are putting such a great emphasis on the accuracy of your observations, that it becomes necessary to point out. Try plotting it on a map of the sky sometime.

Given it was the middle of summer and the solstice was on the 22nd of Dec. then the sun would have been around 23 degrees north of the Equator. The sighting took place at about 38 degrees south. The sun would have been practically on the opposite side of the planet at approx.11pm (std time). I find it hard to believe that the sun could have illuminated any satellites travelling south to north.

That is where you are wrong. You ignore the axial tilt of the earth TOWARDS the sun in your summer (which means the sun is 23 degrees SOUTH of the equator in December and NOT north), the latitude of your observing location, and the altitude of these satellites. All of these combine to allow you to see satellites around midnight during the summer months.

If you use Heaven's above, you would see that satellites are visible all night long for 38 south around the Solstice. I was able to go back to July 1st (the equivalent of December 31st for Cape Otway) using San Francisco (lat 37.8 N equivalent to the latitude of Cape Otway) as a location. I got the following results for AFTER 23:45 PDT:

NOSS 3-2 (A) 3.8 23:46:36 10° NW 23:53:54 79° WSW 23:55:38 56° SSE
NOSS 3-2 (C) 3.8 23:46:43 10° NW 23:54:00 79° WSW 23:55:44 56° SSE
IGS 1A 3.7 23:47:26 30° WNW 23:47:26 30° WNW 23:49:59 10° NNW
Cosmos 1992 Rocket 4.1 23:49:38 10° N 23:54:50 62° ENE 23:54:54 62° ENE
Okean 2 4.3 23:52:48 10° N 23:55:56 43° NNE 23:55:56 43° NNE
Cosmos 1816 Rocket 4.4 23:52:50 10° N 23:59:00 76° E 23:59:39 68° SE
Gbstr 26 Del rocket 4.5 23:57:39 53° SE 23:57:40 53° SE 00:04:36 10° ENE
SeaSat 1 3.4 00:03:22 10° NE 00:06:46 37° ENE 00:06:46 37° ENE
Okean 3 Rocket 4.1 00:03:57 10° N 00:07:30 57° N 00:07:30 57° N
Meteor 1-18 Rocket 4.1 00:04:58 10° N 00:10:31 70° E 00:10:32 70° E
Cosmos 972 4.5 00:07:36 10° NNW 00:12:38 77° NW 00:12:38 77° NW
In-Cosmos 22 Rocket 4.2 00:08:47 68° WSW 00:09:06 70° W 00:14:27 10° N
YAOGAN 6 4.3 00:09:42 32° NW 00:09:42 32° NW 00:12:00 10° NNW
Cosmos 1570 Rocket 4.5 00:12:36 10° NNW 00:17:26 51° W 00:17:26 51° W
Cosmos 1697 Rocket 4.4 00:13:00 20° ENE 00:13:00 20° ENE 00:15:45 10° NE
Cosmos 158 Rocket 4.2 00:15:43 60° NE 00:15:43 60° NE 00:19:55 10° NNE
Helios 1B rocket 3.9 00:19:48 33° NE 00:19:48 33° NE 00:22:57 10° N
Cosmos 1464 Rocket 3.8 00:27:12 79° SE 00:27:22 81° ESE 00:33:37 10° N
Cosmos 2285 Rocket 4.2 00:29:07 10° NNW 00:35:26 62° ENE 00:36:00 59° E
Cosmos 1408 4.5 00:30:43 30° NNE 00:30:43 30° NNE 00:32:48 10° N
EO 1 Del DPAF 4.4 00:35:19 48° N 00:35:19 48° N 00:38:33 10° N
Cosmos 1954 Rocket 4.1 00:35:23 69° NW 00:35:23 69° NW 00:40:21 10° NNE
H-2A R/B 2.7 00:37:54 48° W 00:37:54 48° W 00:42:59 10° NNW
Terra 4.3 00:38:40 11° W 00:38:51 11° W 00:40:22 10° WNW
Cosmos 1943 Rocket 3.8 00:42:47 22° W 00:45:06 29° WNW 00:49:59 10° N

These TLE's are old but they demonstrate that satellites are plentiful around midnight from a latitude of 38 degrees.

 

[Paul2]

I can assure you that is what they did. There was no mistaking it. All three witnesses agreed that was what was occurring.

Can you think of any circumstances in which one should not believe multiple witnesses attesting to the same thing?

If so, why should we believe you until you show us that those circumstances don't apply in your case?

If not, then you're saying that, as long as multiple people witness something, it's true?

 

[Stray Cat]

No Cape Barren Geese. They do not live, migrate to, or fly over the area. It is just not a plausible hypothesis that could explain my sighting.

Then I suggest you have a gander at this post, you must have missed it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456183&postcount=10241

We were not “fooled” in any way. There is no doubt about direct south to north trajectory. There is no doubt about the oscillation. There is no doubt about the quality of their illumination.

Before you explain exactly how you are uniquely immune from human fallibility, I'll point out that there is no doubt Cape Barren Gooses have been observed at Cape Otway.
There is no doubt that you didn't know West from North.
There is no doubt that you are not certain of how much they were illuminated.

 

[Jocce]

I think a big part of the debunker mindset is that there are so many mundane explanations, that it seems unlikely that any one of these cases could escape mundane explanation.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but the big part is to start gathering reliable facts about the event. In each case that has been discussed so far there hasn't been enough of that so the "object" remains unidentified. One can speculate if it mght have been a satellite, weather baloon, geese or chinese lanterns but as long as the objective evidence is lacking, no conclusion can be reached. I am perfectly happy to accept that but the ufologists keep insisting that the explanation must be "alien" since noone can come up with a mundane explanation.

I think there is a more methodological and exact way of looking at UFO cases... the event itself and the accuracy of the description of the event are separated.

That's pretty much what I just wrote.

1. Can the sighting be explained by a mundane object? If yes, discard case. If no, move onto step 2. The focus shifts from the event itself to the accuracy of the description of the event. Note: Answering "no" implies that there is enough information to plausibly rule out any mundane explanations. Cases with insufficient information are also discarded.

Wrong. Start with step 2 in what you wrote there, the FACTS. Without reliable facts to examine, everything becomes imaginative speculation.

Accuracy of description- (either the witness is lying about the event, or mistaken about the event, or some combination; the point is to invalidate the description of the event itself, because at this point, if the description is taken at face value, then we have a non-mundane UFO.)

Facts are important. How the event APPEARED to the witness is not of much use because we know that human perception is fallible

2. Is the sighting credible? (in other words, is the witness lying?)

Sorry, you can't know that with any degree of certainty. Witness statements are claims and claims needs to be backed by evidence or they can be dismissed.

3. Is the sighting reliable? (in other words, is the witness mistaken about the event?) To test reliability you look at things like other witnesses, time passed since description, etc. If no, discard case. If yes, then you can derive from a probability tree the probability of this case being descriptive of a non-mundane UFO.

Sorry again, same reason as above.

A lot of these determinations have a degree of subjectivity (particularly steps 2 and 3), which is why this is a game of probability and statistical analysis, not proofs. At this stage, its a pseudoscience in the same way that psychology is a pseudoscience - doesn't mean we throw everything out the window because there is some subjectivity.

In pretty much every case, all we have is subjectivity so throw them out.

 

[Jocce]

I have NEVER contended the UFO as ET hypothesis.

You have said several times that ET is a plausible hypothesis.

No Cape Barren Geese. They do not live, migrate to, or fly over the area.

I have never seen such a high level of denial. People have been showing you reports that conclusively prove that these geese are in the area. Of course, that all depends on your definition of "area". What is this area you're talnking about. The airspace precisely over your porch?

Sure, you gave information on some satellites that may appear in the sky together.

So that proves that satellites can actually be seen in what appears to be formation.

What has to be explained is the unwavering trajectory of my four objects

Are you saying that satellites should zigzag rather than follow a straight line?

, the invariable distance between them

Are you saying that satellites can't appear to have the same speed?

the oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them, the speed at which they passed over and their illumination.

This has all been explained to you and does not rule out satellites.

I can assure you that is what they did. There was no mistaking it. All three witnesses agreed that was what was occurring.

This is a claim, not evidence.

You will obviously never accept the observation for what it was. We know what we saw.

You know what you saw? What was it then?

 

[tsig]

What's absurd is that Ufologists claim that such a mystery equals "aliens" until proven otherwise.

Ufology:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary anecdotes and we can make them up ourselves.

 

[Akhenaten]

Given it was the middle of summer and the solstice was on the 22nd of Dec. then the sun would have been around 23 degrees north of the Equator. The sighting took place at about 38 degrees south. The sun would have been practically on the opposite side of the planet at approx.11pm (std time). I find it hard to believe that the sun could have illuminated any satellites travelling south to north.

So that's why it's always snowing at my place at Christmas time.


Or not.

 

[Resume]

Then I suggest you have a gander at this post, you must have missed it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456183&postcount=10241

Oooh.

 

[EHocking]

...No Cape Barren Geese. They do not live, migrate to, or fly over the area. It is just not a plausible hypothesis that could explain my sighting.

To continue to deny the plausible possibilities, in the face of actual evidence, in preference to your a priori ETH is dishonest.

 

[GeeMack]

I have NEVER contended the UFO as ET hypothesis. You know that, I know that, everyone who has been following this thread knows that. This simply shows the calibre of the people I am attempting to converse with here. Truth is unimportant to them. They will say anything as long as they think it will score a point and comfort them in their own beliefs.

Oh, bummer. The caliber of people who aren't so stupid they'd fall for outright lies. That sort of thing might work on some of those crackpot "ufology" web sites, but nope, not here with the caliber of people you'll find at the JREF. Must suck to be a "ufologist".

No Cape Barren Geese. They do not live, migrate to, or fly over the area. It is just not a plausible hypothesis that could explain my sighting.

Obviously this is a lie. I'm interested in how some of the other alien-believers feel about this blatant and repeated lie. Maybe King of the Americas will drop in someday and let us know if he agrees with this argument, or if he would prefer to distance himself from it. Maybe the newer aliens-are-real proponent, ufology, will let us know if he considers outright lying to be a reasonable way to "illuminate the truth [...] that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin".

Sure, you gave information on some satellites that may appear in the sky together.

What has to be explained is the unwavering trajectory of my four objects, the invariable distance between them, the oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them, the speed at which they passed over and their illumination.

I can assure you that is what they did. There was no mistaking it. All three witnesses agreed that was what was occurring.

I have asked if you could translate that for me into height (m) and speed (m/sec). That is, if it was at 10,000m then it would be travelling at (x) m/sec …etc for a range of heights… I mean you must have that information otherwise you could not have worked out your angular speed…

I recounted the sighting as it was observed. Three witnesses agreed. The objects were there, as described, doing what they did. We simply saw them and noted what they were doing. We were not “fooled” in any way. There is no doubt about direct south to north trajectory. There is no doubt about the oscillation. There is no doubt about the quality of their illumination. The timing was an estimate – so sure a few seconds longer for the sighting than estimated is a possibility. It was what it was. You will obviously never accept the observation for what it was. We know what we saw.

So your understanding of satellite trajectories is as good as your understanding of how birds behave.

What has to be explained is your claim to have magical powers, the ability to allegedly see something at satellite altitude and know, with infallible perception, that it wasn't anything known to man. Nobody in the history of humanity has possessed such powers. But the explaining isn't the responsibility of others, as much as you continue to dishonestly try to deflect it. The explaining is up to you. And you might want to take that claim of magical powers of infallible perception to the Million Dollar Challenge department. There could be a tidy little profit in it for you. On the other hand, if you can't prove you have those powers, your assertions above can be discarded as just more silly ranting.

Given it was the middle of summer and the solstice was on the 22nd of Dec. then the sun would have been around 23 degrees north of the Equator. The sighting took place at about 38 degrees south. The sun would have been practically on the opposite side of the planet at approx.11pm (std time). I find it hard to believe that the sun could have illuminated any satellites travelling south to north.

So your understanding of the way the Earth behaves is as good as your understanding of how birds behave.

Again I would ask some of the other alien-believers to weigh in on this. Is it acceptable practice for "ufologists" to abandon real science and make things up as they go along like this? Do "ufologists" in general just not stop and think? How about it, ufology, are you good with Rramjet representing your faith with the flat out lies about the geese and these stupid, grade school level mistakes about the angle of the Earth in summer?

 

[Jocce]

Given it was the middle of summer and the solstice was on the 22nd of Dec. then the sun would have been around 23 degrees north of the Equator. The sighting took place at about 38 degrees south. The sun would have been practically on the opposite side of the planet at approx.11pm (std time).

As I've said before. There are plenty of good free astronomy software that would let you check such things as the position of the sun at the time and place of your sighting. Ues them next time so you don't have to claim such silly things as this.

 

[Akhenaten]

Before you explain exactly how you are uniquely immune from human fallibility, I'll point out that there is no doubt Cape Barren Gooses have been observed at Cape Otway.
There is no doubt that you didn't know West from North.
There is no doubt that you are not certain of how much they were illuminated.

There's no doubt that figuring out the difference between Summer and Winter is causing some difficulties as well.

 

[carlitos]

As I've said before. There are plenty of good free astronomy software that would let you check such things as the position of the sun at the time and place of your sighting. Ues them next time so you don't have to claim such silly things as this.

This one does that, but it doesn't account for how the sun, while not visible on the horizon, would still be illuminating objects "at satellite height" due to the earth's tilt.

On edit - Rramjet is nearly right with his "halfway around the world" (oops) "opposite side of the planet" estimate, the issue is that, in summer, halfway around the top third of a sphere isn't anything like halfway around the middle of it. Hope this makes sense to someone.