UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[eupeptic]

Concerning the misidentification of objects in the sky, last month during the Perseid meteor shower I was laying on my back on the roof and saw a dim red meteor strike travel from the top of my vision towards my feet. At about 30 degrees above the horizon at my feet it swerved in what appeared to be the shape of a half-circle that was perhaps a bit larger than the moon (from the beginning of the swerve to the end of it) before continuing on its original path and being obscured by a tree (at about 20 degrees above the horizon). The duration of the entire event was about 4 seconds.

I submitted a more detailed http://mufoncms.com/cgi-bin/manage_sighting_reports.pl?mode=view_long_desc&id=25133&rnd=64911284716699 to The Mutual UFO Network as it seems unlikely that what I saw was a meteor strike. (If you read that I mentioned a photo on Flickr that's similar in brightness and color to what I saw, but the person who took that photo [Steve Gifford] is no longer a member. I did keep a copy of the picture of interest along with another picture he took of another meteor strike for comparison.)


Then there are other oddities such as how the spiral light seen over Australia a few months (video) ago was rotating the opposite direction of the Falcon 9 rocket... (I'm not implying anything here, just saying that it's not wise to make assumptions and jump to conclusion.)


For those of you who know that you do not know everything that there is to know about the universe we live in and happen to be interested in learning more about what people are seeing in the sky I would encourage you to take a few minutes each day to read the latest reports submitted to MUFON (hover your mouse over the "Click here for UFO case files" at the top of their page and see the "Last 20 reports") as there are a number of interesting observations that occur and are reported to them each day - several hundred each month (although a number of those are just planes, satellites, bugs, balloons, etc., not all of them are).

 

[FlexGunship]

Another thing. The event took place after midnight. Venus is either visible around sunrise or sunset. Hence it could not have been Venus.

Sunrise is after midnight.

EDIT: Stupid comment.

 

[FlexGunship]

(although a number of those are just planes, satellites, bugs, balloons, etc., not all of them are).

What are the rest? Illusions? Hoaxes?

 

[Andre]

Sunrise is after midnight.

I was just tossing out ideas. You're right though; didn't think that one through. Although, if its in opposition, you can see it at midnight, right?

Only if you're beyound the pole circles during summer time, but http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

 

[FlexGunship]

Only if you're beyound the pole circles during summer time, but http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

OMFG... give me a prize for idiotic discussion. Opposition only occurs on planets in an orbit outside of the observer. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc... all visible at midnight during opposition. Venus and Mercury are incapable of being in opposition.

 

[alt]

What are the rest? Illusions? Hoaxes?

.. don't forget advanced military technology.

The more serious ones are that, IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

.. don't forget advanced military technology.

The more serious ones are that, IMO.

Isn't that card a little overplayed lately? My last job was with as an engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, and, yes, there was classified stuff, but it's just applications of current technology in very clever ways.

I assure you, as of 2010, there are no aircraft that operate on anti-gravity, or that can make 90-degree instant turns.

 

[alt]

Isn't that card a little overplayed lately? My last job was with as an engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, and, yes, there was classified stuff, but it's just applications of current technology in very clever ways.

No doubt. And that does not exclude the possibility (probability IMO) that there is novel technology in use, not yet known to you.

I assure you, as of 2010, there are no aircraft that operate on anti-gravity, or that can make 90-degree instant turns.

You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.

 

[FlexGunship]

No doubt. And that does not exclude the possibility (probability IMO) that there is novel technology in use, not yet known to you.

You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.

Yes, yes... hyperbole. Useful for demonstrating a point, not useful for extracting specifics. I'm just saying that even the most fanciful military projects were developed based on clever applications of technology that was common knowledge. So postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are due to military projects is not a very productive line of thought.

EDIT: I'm suggesting that we should be postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are illusions, confusions, or hoaxes.

 

[alt]

Yes, yes... hyperbole. Useful for demonstrating a point, not useful for extracting specifics. I'm just saying that even the most fanciful military projects were developed based on clever applications of technology that was common knowledge. So postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are due to military projects is not a very productive line of thought.

EDIT: I'm suggesting that we should be postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are illusions, confusions, or hoaxes.

I suppose we need to cut to the chase at some point.

(Incidently, 'tis you who gave yourself a prize for idiotic discussion a few posts up, so don't be too quick to call mine hyperbole).

What you need to think about, is just because it's 'impossible behaviors' to you, doesn't mean that it IS impossible.

I agree that most of it (sightings) is illusions, confusions, or hoaxes. But not all.

Threads like this can only ever lead to speculation, fanciful thinking, faith, or hyperbole. Take the Iran incident for instance. If there was proof either way, it would have long being tendered by now, by either side. But it hasn't (which leads me to wonder - what is the purpose of these threads, anyway ?).

So in the absence of some poster chiming in with "here it is folks - I have definitive proof of .. " we can only ever speculate.

So using my common sense, and taking into account mankinds vast intellect and drive for dominance over others, I speculate that some of it IS advanced military technology, and some of it is deliberate obfuscation to hide such technology in plain sight. This, IMO, is far more down to Earth (excuse the pun) and mundane than aliens.

But I have no further evidence in any direction. Do you ? Does anyone else here ?

 

[FlexGunship]

I suppose we need to cut to the chase at some point.

(Incidently, 'tis you who gave yourself a prize for idiotic discussion a few posts up, so don't be too quick to call mine hyperbole).

Firstly, I called my own example "hyperbole" not your's. Secondly, at least I openly admitted I was wrong. I suggest you find other examples on this forum.

Take the Iran incident for instance. If there was proof either way, it would have long being tendered by now, by either side. But it hasn't (which leads me to wonder - what is the purpose of these threads, anyway ?).

Oddly, I think most of us would have to disagree. It seems like we came to a pretty definitive conclusion. Given the unreliability of the pilot's testimony (missile-lock and eject scenarios), the inexperience with the equipment (only acquired U.S. radar, missile, and fighter technology 4 years earlier), and the history of high ranking military officials to deny any mistakes, I think we've got this one wrapped up.

Proof? No. But a series of normal events is much more likely than a single outrageous event.

 

[alt]

Firstly, I called my own example "hyperbole" not your's.

It didn't read that way to me, but I accept I may have mis-read it.

Secondly, at least I openly admitted I was wrong. I suggest you find other examples on this forum.

It takes a great man to freely admit they're wrong. I see where you've done that. I've been wrong more times than you in these forums, and have freely said so, ergo, I must be the greatest .. (I'll get my coat) !

Oddly, I think most of us would have to disagree. It seems like we came to a pretty definitive conclusion. Given the unreliability of the pilot's testimony (missile-lock and eject scenarios), the inexperience with the equipment (only acquired U.S. radar, missile, and fighter technology 4 years earlier), and the history of high ranking military officials to deny any mistakes, I think we've got this one wrapped up.

I disagree. I think it's a high candidate for advanced military technology (no wonder they've been flat out trying to get da bomb ever since .. heh.. )

Proof? No. But a series of normal events is much more likely than a single outrageous event.

Nevertheless, outrageous events happen, and you could say your above, everytime one did.

 

[FlexGunship]

Nevertheless, outrageous events happen, and you could say your above, everytime one did.

Except that there always seems to be real evidence when an actual outrageous event happens.

This is what outrageous event evidence looks like:

[PLAIN]http://www.wyrdology.com/cryptozoology/coelacanth_assets/1575055368.jpg

So, I hope you can understand when some of us dismiss outrageous event evidence that looks like:

 

[alt]

You should have included a pic of Alice Cooper!

 

[FlexGunship]

You should have included a pic of Alice Cooper!

Heh, he was picking up golf clubs one time at the shop I used to go to.

 

[FlexGunship]

I disagree. I think it's a high candidate for advanced military technology...

"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace)

 

[alt]

"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace)

He restated and developed the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system and was one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of black holes and the notion of gravitational collapse.

OUTRAGEOUS !

 

[alt]

Heh, he was picking up golf clubs one time at the shop I used to go to.

I used to pick up girls in shops I used to go to, though I can see how Alice would have seen golf clubs as a suitable substitute !

 

[FlexGunship]

He restated and developed the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system and was one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of black holes and the notion of gravitational collapse.

OUTRAGEOUS !

And did it all without postulating secret military aircraft!

 

[alt]

And did it all without postulating secret military aircraft!

.. or the internet !

 

[BigFairy]

er.. yes well..

 

[russ_watters]

You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.

When the claim is something like "executed a 90 degree turn" or "accelerated instantly", it isn't just technologically hard to fathom, it is an explicit violation of the laws of physics. So in order to accept the witness account, you have to accept two extrordinary events simultaneously as evidence for each other. That's not scientifically acceptable. So yes, if you're thinking scientifically you must reject, out of hand, such eyewitness accounts.

 

[alt]

When the claim is something like "executed a 90 degree turn" or "accelerated instantly", it isn't just technologically hard to fathom, it is an explicit violation of the laws of physics. So in order to accept the witness account, you have to accept two extrordinary events simultaneously as evidence for each other. That's not scientifically acceptable. So yes, if you're thinking scientifically you must reject, out of hand, such eyewitness accounts.

.. and accept that;

a) everyone who has ever seen a UFO has halucinated / made a mistake, or

b) aliens from another world, from somewhere within that 13.7bly universe that we're supposed to be in the centre of, found us in space, and just so happened to be coincident to our present existence in a 13.7b year time frame as well (a laughably miniscule probability) .. and then frigged around with some planes ..

Personally, I really do believe that the the advanced military craft scenario is much more plausable then either of the above.

I cannot speak for or against the eyewitness accounts.

But, for all practical purposes, a bullet coming out of a gun barrel accelerates instantly - to the human eye. Lead and black powder - 2,500 years old.

And have you ever seen an adept Australian aborigine throw a boomerang ? Depending on it's attitude to the wind, and your point of observation, it can sure as hell appear to make a 90 deg turn - or even a 30 deg turn sometimes. Wind and wood - 70,000 years old. How's that, Mr Einstein ?

But I should iterate here - my strong assertion in this thread, is that they are not extraterrstrials. The militaty thing is a possible alternative. Can you think of any others, other than 'stoopid hallucinating people' ?

 

[mugaliens]

Pilots are often seen as "experts" by UFO advocates, but experts in what? It isn't like flight training includes courses in astronomy - pilots are not necessarily qualified to identify objects in the sky (does "in the sky" imply "in the atmosphere"...?). UFO reports from pilots are often chock-full of obvious false conclusions about what is being seen, just like reports from laypeople. They talk about distance, altitude, speed, size - all things they can't possibly know from what they see. These are conclusions/illusions generated in their heads, not observations. One thing astronomers are good at that others are not necessarily good at is understanding what they are actually seeing and overriding the brain's attempts to assign distance/altitude/speed/size to what they see. For example, when yous eee an object moving in the night sky, odds are good it is either a plane or a satellite. But while either may cover the same chunk of your field of view in the same time (and that time can be highly variable), the satellite is traveling 20x higher and faster.

If anything, I get the impression that the training pilots get conditions them to attempt to assess distance, altitude, speed, and size even without the information required to do that. That can make them worse even than laypeople when it comes to UFO sightings.

As a pilot, it's clear your conception of what an average pilot knows and does not know, as well as what they can and cannot do with respect to estimating size, distance, and velocity, is somewhat amiss.

However, I'm also an amateur astronomer, and have been since the seventh grade. :) Most recently I spent four days at Rocky Mountain Star Stare (RMSS), where hundreds of us astronomers, mostly amateur, some real, gathered together for fun, fellowship, camping, cookouts, and some incredibly clear nights spent looking at the heavens.

So, I do understand where you're coming from when you speak of astronomers knowing what they're looking at when they see the night sky more so than the layman. Or even the day sky, for Venus was wonderfully present at dusk during RMSS.

 

[russ_watters]

The pigeons thing reminds me of another compelling piece of evidence: the vast proliferation of low-cost/high-quality imaging equipment has not improved the signal to noise ratio of the sightings. This implies that the noise is the signal being analyzed. It is a bit like when anti-Einstein crackpots use the error margins in the various repeats of the MMx as "evidence" that there is an ether drift. It just doesn't work that way: if the evidence is not of sufficient quality to separate the effect from the noise, then it simply can't be said to be showing the claimed effect.

 

[FlexGunship]

a) everyone who has ever seen a UFO has halucinated / made a mistake, or

b) aliens from another world, from somewhere within that 13.7bly universe that we're supposed to be in the centre of, found us in space, and just so happened to be coincident to our present existence in a 13.7b year time frame as well (a laughably miniscule probability) .. and then frigged around with some planes ..

[...]

Can you think of any others, other than 'stoopid hallucinating people' ?

First of all, that's a hugely false dichotomy (or trichotomy, since you're proposing an alternative). I would phrase it as "illusion, confusion, hallucination, or hoax." That seems to cover every possible case.

And I can't think of a more biased thing to say than "stupid hallucinating people." It's a common experience of the human condition. We're relying on dumb light receptors passing electrical impulses, sometimes noisy and full of out-of-context information, and relying on a rather clumsily assembled interpretation center at the back of our brain where we compare the signals to other signals that we've seen in the past.

Often, we come up with false matches. And I mean often. The fact that some of these false matches are interpreted as military craft or alien spaceships is also entirely expected since the only frame of reference we are give is through pop culture; movies, music, pictures, and books.

UFO sightings are exactly the type of hallucination you would expect to happen often with this recipe.

The pigeons thing reminds me of another compelling piece of evidence: the vast proliferation of low-cost/high-quality imaging equipment has not improved the signal to noise ratio of the sightings. This implies that the noise is the signal being analyzed.

Wow, this is a profoundly intelligent point that I've never thought about. Both values here are easily quantifiable.

Firstly, you have the relative proliferation of photographic media (ignore videographic equipment for the sake of argument) and how that has changed from the 1960s (for example) to the 2000s.

Secondly, you have the increased print/review resolution of the media itself. Photographs on the newest chemical films can resolve about 36MP from the negative, I think it was about 4 or 5 in the 50s. Maybe a bit better in the 60s with the advent of Velvia and Kodachrome. Modern digital cameras reliably produce about 12MP at the $100 price point.

Thirdly, you have optical resolution, or the finest detail that it not obscured by either chromatic aberration or vignetting, or some other optical anomaly. Optics have advanced a bit, but I'm not sure how consumer-level cameras have been affected.

Anyway, if you could quantify that, you could really make a statement about whether or not "noise" is the backbone of UFO photographs (or videos). I suspect, Russ, that you're very much correct in this observation.

P.S. I always carry my 12MP point-and-shoot in the car, and usually have my 12MP DSLR with me when I'm on trips. I also have two other 6MP cameras that get thrown around a bit. I keep the point-and-shoot with me just in case there's a chance I can reliably contribute to the world of paranormal research. I don't believe that alien spaceships (or ultra-secret military craft) are the cause of any sightings.

However, I know that, if it's dark, I can't hold the camera in my hands to take a picture, it will come out blurry because of the long exposure. A fact that many UFO buffs would do well to learn.

 

[FlexGunship]

It is a bit like when anti-Einstein crackpots use the error margins in the various repeats of the MMx as "evidence" that there is an ether drift. It just doesn't work that way: if the evidence is not of sufficient quality to separate the effect from the noise, then it simply can't be said to be showing the claimed effect.

RUSS! I had no idea you were a luminiferous ether denier. How do you explain the following image?

Also, how do you explain bacterial flagella motors, and frog elbows, and the Iran UFO, and the coelacanth, and bigfoot pictures, and you think the eye just appeared?!

 

[Andre]

You forgot phlogiston contrarian.

But I guess this thread has run it's course?

 

[alt]

First of all, that's a hugely false dichotomy (or trichotomy, since you're proposing an alternative). I would phrase it as "illusion, confusion, hallucination, or hoax." That seems to cover every possible case.

OK, scratch my dichotomy / trichotomy. We'll go with your .. 'quatrotomy'.

And I can't think of a more biased thing to say than "stupid hallucinating people."

It was my miserable attempt at exersising brevity. You 'quatrotomy' of "illusion, confusion, hallucination, or hoax" is more biased IMO.

It's a common experience of the human condition. We're relying on dumb light receptors passing electrical impulses, sometimes noisy and full of out-of-context information, and relying on a rather clumsily assembled interpretation center at the back of our brain where we compare the signals to other signals that we've seen in the past.

You are waxing to suit your purpose here. Humans have used the above facilities you describe, for millenia. And sometimes, they get it right. Those very things, and extentions of them, have got us to where we are today.

Often, we come up with false matches. And I mean often. The fact that some of these false matches are interpreted as military craft or alien spaceships is also entirely expected since the only frame of reference we are give is through pop culture; movies, music, pictures, and books.

Yes, often, but not always. I for instance, don't care at all for pop culture, have seen one or two movies in the last 10 years, only like girly pictures, and laugh at Ufology books.

UFO sightings are exactly the type of hallucination you would expect to happen often with this recipe.

As you said .. often !

 

[FlexGunship]

You forgot phlogiston contrarian.

But I guess this thread has run it's course?

No, alt is still talking. Can someone else take a whack at this for a while.

By the way, "illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax" is hardly a quatrotomy (quadchotomy?). Illusion describes thousands of possible experiences. Confusion describes ever more! This is an entire spectrum of human interaction with reality and none of it requires aliens or super-high-tech secret military aircraft.

How is that not more reasonable? You need nothing extraordinary to explain it. Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.

The best human observer is hardly better than a mediocre video camera. Both can be easily fooled, but at least the video camera's memory of the event doesn't degrade over time, and it's not subject to re-interpretation.

 

[Pythagorean]

You can always go watch "The Men Who Stare at Goats" for a reminder of what kind of projects the military leaders were willing to believe in the past.

Though I am still perplexed about this scenario. If the members of the Iranian Air Force were all lying (or group hallucinating) then there's an interesting story there anyway about humans.

 

[FlexGunship]

Though I am still perplexed about this scenario. If the members of the Iranian Air Force were all lying (or group hallucinating) then there's an interesting story there anyway about humans.

I don't know how interesting it really is, though. I don't think there was much hallucination going on, more confusion with a light splash of illusion. Lying? Sure, what military leader wants to come out and say: "Wow, everyone, we were really silly there. Sorry about the scare. It's just that we don't really know what we're doing with this radar stuff, and these jets... sheesh, have you seen the number of buttons?! We only press the green ones for the most part."

As evidenced by our local flight experts, the report is (at best) wrong on the details. If you start there and keep in mind that 100% of the equipment involved (radar, jets, etc.) was very very new to the Iranians. There's not a whole lot to explain.

1) Someone saw something confusing in the sky
2) Someone confirmed something confusing on radar
3) Pilot did something confusing in the air
4) Everyone was embarrassed
5) General says: "uh, we didn't mess up; that's impossible... it was some crazy aerial phenomenon"

It really reads like a very hum-drum military gaff. I'm sure the same thing happened plenty of times in the U.S. we just didn't go bragging about it or kept a slightly better secret.

 

[jreelawg]

Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.

Why does everyone need to agree with you? Have you considered that your opinions are nothing more than speculation? You might as well be trying to convince someone that the universe is finite or infinite.

Your the one trying to compel the masses to a specific contrived idea. No matter how many people you recruit, you'll never beat Glenn Beck.

 

[FlexGunship]

Why does everyone need to agree with you? Have you considered that your opinions are nothing more than speculation?

See, I literally cannot find a way to sympathize with this type of thinking. I'm sorry. To speculate an extraordinary explanation for a mundane event is not scientific-thinking. I mean, this website is literally named after science. These are the forums in which intellectual discussion should be encouraged in the most vigorous manner.

I fully acknowledge that some of the sightings could truly have extraordinary explanations. That being said, there is no reason to believe those explanations right now. It's not a matter of opinion; really. Your choice of words seems to indicate we are discussing favorite bands, or best movies; something where everyone is equally entitled to have an opinion. But that's not the case.

Here we are discussing objective reality. The truth of human existence. The mere fact that we are so willing to accept such wild explanations for events that simply don't call for them should be a warning flag to everyone. I know precisely what evidence I would have to see to prove to me that a particular sighting is not a case of confusion, illusion, hallucination, or hoax. I know exactly what it would take.

But instead, we have a group here that freely accepts even the flimsiest precursor to evidence as "enough." This is not scientific discourse and it is not scientific thinking. Science is the best tool we have to understanding reality, and we need to resist the urge to throw it away or make exceptions when it is in danger of ruining our fun.

Don't get me wrong, I love UFO shows (HBO had the best series, and I have every episode), and I like watching Ghost Hunters, and Destination Truth. But I don't mistake it for scientific content; it's entertainment. There should be a lesson behind these shows: look how easily even the brightest humans are fooled. None of us are exempt from the plight of unreasonable thinking.

We need to admit that it's okay to think about it (fun, in fact), but that it's just not true. Not yet anyway. There is no evidence that UFOs are anything spectacular or unusual. The sheer number of reports should indicate to us how mundane and commonplace this experience is for humans; how easy it is for us to be tricked by our own senses. The variability of these reports should further prove to you that these are cases of confusion.

 

[jreelawg]

See, I literally cannot find a way to sympathize with this type of thinking. I'm sorry. To speculate an extraordinary explanation for a mundane event is not scientific-thinking. I mean, this website is literally named after science. These are the forums in which intellectual discussion should be encouraged in the most vigorous manner.

I fully acknowledge that some of the sightings could truly have extraordinary explanations. That being said, there is no reason to believe those explanations right now. It's not a matter of opinion; really. Your choice of words seems to indicate we are discussing favorite bands, or best movies; something where everyone is equally entitled to have an opinion. But that's not the case.

Here we are discussing objective reality. The truth of human existence. The mere fact that we are so willing to accept such wild explanations for events that simply don't call for them should be a warning flag to everyone. I know precisely what evidence I would have to see to prove to me that a particular sighting is not a case of confusion, illusion, hallucination, or hoax. I know exactly what it would take.

But instead, we have a group here that freely accepts even the flimsiest precursor to evidence as "enough." This is not scientific discourse and it is not scientific thinking. Science is the best tool we have to understanding reality, and we need to resist the urge to throw it away or make exceptions when it is in danger of ruining our fun.

Don't get me wrong, I love UFO shows (HBO had the best series, and I have every episode), and I like watching Ghost Hunters, and Destination Truth. But I don't mistake it for scientific content; it's entertainment. There should be a lesson behind these shows: look how easily even the brightest humans are fooled. None of us are exempt from the plight of unreasonable thinking.

We need to admit that it's okay to think about it (fun, in fact), but that it's just not true. Not yet anyway. There is no evidence that UFOs are anything spectacular or unusual. The sheer number of reports should indicate to us how mundane and commonplace this experience is for humans; how easy it is for us to be tricked by our own senses.

Your ruling out scientific possibilities on the basis of "wildness". I consider where you draw the line, a matter of taste not substance. I've been anticipating the next argument to be Hitler believed in UFO's, and he's a socialist.

 

[alt]

No, alt is still talking. Can someone else take a whack at this for a while.

alt is still talking ? Did your alter ego write the following ?

By the way, "illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax" is hardly a quatrotomy (quadchotomy?). Illusion describes thousands of possible experiences. Confusion describes ever more! This is an entire spectrum of human interaction with reality and none of it requires aliens or super-high-tech secret military aircraft.

How is that not more reasonable? You need nothing extraordinary to explain it. Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.

The best human observer is hardly better than a mediocre video camera. Both can be easily fooled, but at least the video camera's memory of the event doesn't degrade over time, and it's not subject to re-interpretation.

OK - in sum, you have a low estimation of human capabilities and potentials, I have a high one.

 

[Andre]

Your ruling out scientific possibilities on the basis of "wildness". I consider where you draw the line, a matter of taste not substance. I've been anticipating the next argument to be Hitler believed in UFO's, and he's a socialist.

Anyway, after such a display of fallacies, certainly not the only ones in this thread, but inevitably ending in law[/url] and hence the closure of this thread; maybe I should emphasize for the third time, to read the last paragraph of the pigeon ufo's in http://edmontonskeptics.com/2010/06/amateur-astronomer-reporting-a-ufo-sighting-part-2/

The young fellow turned to me and said “WOW! Did you see that? A UFO just flew across the Big Dipper!” “Yes” I replied, “That happens occasionally up here, and it turns out that they are not UFOs, but pigeons.” I then launched into an explanation ...

this young fellow was not having anything that I was telling him. He knew what he saw (well perceived actually) and he certainly did not see any pigeon. It was written all over his face, the absolute disbelief at what he was hearing. ...

The expression on his face gradually changed from disbelief, through comprehension, to Eureka! as he was trying to figure out what was happening. He then took a step backwards, pointed a finger at me, and shouted “YOU’RE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!”...

And so he turned and walked away, apparently secure in the knowledge of two things. Firstly, there are Flying Saucers visiting us, and secondly, there is a grand conspiracy afoot to keep this knowledge from the general public

illustrating how hopeless it is to attempt breaking down the craving for (scary) mystics with rationality. If this was to be a industrious, dedicated and creative young man, we'd soon read in his webpage all about UFO's, the great conspiracy and the unambigeous conformation thereof.

 

[FlexGunship]

OK - in sum, you have a low estimation of human capabilities and potentials, I have a high one.

Your ruling out scientific possibilities on the basis of "wildness". I consider where you draw the line, a matter of taste not substance. I've been anticipating the next argument to be Hitler believed in UFO's, and he's a socialist.

I'm still happy with my final statement above.

 

[mugaliens]

It really reads like a very hum-drum military gaff. I'm sure the same thing happened plenty of times in the U.S. we just didn't go bragging about it or kept a slightly better secret.

I enjoyed your observations. Spot-on!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My word, 8 pages! I have a lot of reading to do.

I've been avoiding this thread as I couldn't afford the time to get sucked in.

 

[Pythagorean]

My word, 8 pages! I have a lot of reading to do.

I've been avoiding this thread as I couldn't afford the time to get sucked in.

to my mind, Andre's point about there not being an eject in F-14's should be addressed. A lot of the rest is us just speculating that there was some kind of incompetence cover-up on part of the general, which seems more valid to me than alien aircraft, but still... we could argue about that forever and get nowhere.

 

[FlexGunship]

to my mind, Andre's point about there not being an eject in F-14's should be addressed. A lot of the rest is us just speculating that there was some kind of incompetence cover-up on part of the general, which seems more valid to me than alien aircraft, but still... we could argue about that forever and get nowhere.

I have a hunch we'll be hearing from Ivan soon enough. Expect an 8-page response!

 

[jreelawg]

Anyway, after such a display of fallacies, certainly not the only ones in this thread, but inevitably ending in law[/url] and hence the closure of this thread; maybe I should emphasize for the third time, to read the last paragraph of the pigeon ufo's in http://edmontonskeptics.com/2010/06/amateur-astronomer-reporting-a-ufo-sighting-part-2/



illustrating how hopeless it is to attempt breaking down the craving for (scary) mystics with rationality. If this was to be a industrious, dedicated and creative young man, we'd soon read in his webpage all about UFO's, the great conspiracy and the unambigeous conformation thereof.

The fallacy is the belief that because one saw some pigeons and were fooled, all people who saw ufo's must have had a similar experience.

 

[FlexGunship]

The fallacy is the belief that because one saw some pigeons and were fooled, all people who saw ufo's must have had a similar experience.

TURDS

The Unsinkable Rubber Duck Syndrome

 

[jreelawg]

While here I want to address the argument that UFO's are not often seen by astronomers.

What is obvious that we have to factor in, is the fact that some people see things like pigeons, satellites, planes, street lamps etc etc, and make ufo reports.

If the UFO phenomena is real, and it's not mundane, why should you expect different numbers when it comes to UFO report statistics and astronomers?

What percentage of people on Earth are astronomers? What percentage of people on Earth claim to have seen a UFO?

And then there is the issue of being professional. If you are an astronomer, and you see something strange, and don't know what it is. You probably use a different name than UFO to describe it.

 

[jreelawg]

TURDS

The Unsinkable Rubber Duck Syndrome

I think this post is very important to think about.

First point, what ducks have been sunk in this thread? We could go on for days, through pages of documents, and reports, and you could honestly address each case on it's own merit.

As it stands, the UFO phenomena has not been debunked.

I would argue that the rubber duck syndrome applies to so called "skeptics" as well. In my opinion some so called skeptics have a pet hypothesis, and sometimes use a double standard.

I for one, am skeptical of the idea that a person can debunk something like this using nothing but knowledge and assumptions of human behavior.

 

[FlexGunship]

If the UFO phenomena is real, and it's not mundane, why should you expect different numbers when it comes to UFO report statistics and astronomers?

Because astronomers are not often perplexed by what they see in the night sky. Send an astronomer into the depths of the ocean and you're likely to get reports of sea monsters and mermaids.

Phil Plait is an actual astronomer (not just an armchair astronomer), and he is a member of the International Astronomical Union. On matters pertaining to astronomy and things in the night sky, I will, in most instances, yield to the professional.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/

That is a link to an article literally addressing exactly the questions you pose. It couldn't be a more apt and poignant article for your post, Jreelawg.

So, unless you are willing to put your night-sky-observing, professional-astronomer-friend-knowing, IAU-shoulder-rubbing, telescope-eye-piece-time credentials up against Phil Plait's, you had best leave the questions of astronomer's claims and astronomical observations to Mr. Plait himself.

 

[FlexGunship]

I for one, am skeptical of the idea that a person can debunk something like this using nothing but knowledge and assumptions of human behavior.

I, for one, am skeptical of the idea that the hypothesis of alien visitation (sic) can be advanced based on nothing but notoriously unreliable human observation and photographs/videos with a SNR less than 1.

EDIT: I know what it would take for me to change my mind. There exists a set of evidence which is sufficient to change my mind.

For the UFO-faithfuls, what evidence would it take to change your mind?

The two positions are not at all equal. My duck certainly could be sunk. Can your's?

 

[jreelawg]

Because astronomers are not often perplexed by what they see in the night sky. Send an astronomer into the depths of the ocean and you're likely to get reports of sea monsters and mermaids.

Phil Plait is an actual astronomer (not just an armchair astronomer), and he is a member of the International Astronomical Union. On matters pertaining to astronomy and things in the night sky, I will, in most instances, yield to the professional.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/

That is a link to an article literally addressing exactly the questions you pose. It couldn't be a more apt and poignant article for your post, Jreelawg.

So, unless you are willing to put your night-sky-observing, professional-astronomer-friend-knowing, IAU-shoulder-rubbing, telescope-eye-piece-time credentials up against Phil Plait's, you had best leave the questions of astronomer's claims and astronomical observations to Mr. Plait himself.

But we are in agreement about what I posted then right. So if astronomers don't report ridiculous or sketchy sightings, and since they are a minority as well, that only 1% of UFO sighting are reported by astronomers makes perfect sense.

The failed logic in your argument is the idea that astronomers don't report UFO's. They do, it's just a smaller percentage, and because the files are so cluttered with lunies, pranksters, high people, etc. Well the rest is obvious.

So as your article argues the point that, if UFO's are buzzing around as commonly as we are led to believe, why aren't astronomers reports consistent with this. Answer is obvious, because UFO's aren't as common as you would be led to believe assuming every single UFO report ever made was an advanced spaceship.

But no rational person would expect this. We can expect a lesser percentage of astronomers to report sightings, based on their expertise. As well, I argue that a professional may be risking their reputation telling UFO stories.

You come up with different statistics when you ask astronomers if they have seen things they have tried but could not identify, and when you ask if they have seen a UFO.

The Article you posted is pretty poorly done. The title is contradicted by the first sentence.

 

[jreelawg]

"I have, from time to time, made a point that astronomers rarely if ever report UFOs."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...t-report-ufos/

First of all, the context of this sentence needs to be more clear. There are two possible contexts which I could postulate. The first is that an individual astronomer within their lifetime will either rarely report UFO's, or never report them. The second context is that which includes all astronomers. In this context he is unclear. It is either rare, or it is none? This implies he doesn't know how many astronomers report UFOs.

In my opinion, the article is leaking water fast. You what else doesn't hold water.