Who is Behind the Mysterious Flying Triangles?

[zoobyshoe]

Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

OK, so the pilot may have made an order-of-magnitude error estimating the ground effect of the conveyor belt on lift. But I would be a lot more worried flying with a pilot who didn't know that ground effect was important, than somebody who made that mistake.

Oh come on. Ground effects are helpful but incidental. Thrust gets the plane moving forward, which gets air flowing around the wings which creates lift. If ground effects were required, jets couldn't take off, and prop planes couldn't fly above a very low altitude, nor could you launch a model glider with your hand.

 

[Mazulu]

Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.

Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm

It had started on the crazy night of November 29, 1989, during which 30 groups of witnesses, among them three police patrols, scattered over 800 square kilometers of territory between Liege and the German/Netherlands border, reported UFOs. All of the wit- nesses observed for hours a strange triangular object nearly silent, maneuver- ing at low speed and very low altitude, without creating the least amount of turbulence.

-30 groups of witnesses including police patrols
-observed for hours a strange triangular object nearly silent, maneuver- ing at low speed and very low altitude, without creating the least amount of turbulence.

At least 30 witnesses of slow moving and very quiet triangles (gliders?).

The range of the two radars is 300 KM, which is more than e nough to cover the area where the reports took place. In this region the land is fairly flat, rolling country without any prominent hills. The radar has a perfect view of all flying objects with an altitude above 200 meters over the ground. Nevertheless, Headquarters determined to do some very precise studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations for the radar images. Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions.

Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.[/QUOTE]

Pilots are looking at radar images. Witnesses on the ground are looking at triangles. What ties radar images to the triangles? This...

"In three cases the pilots managed to get their radar locked on the object, with the immediate result that the object's behavior drastically changed. The object literally played hide and seek with the fighters. It dived toward the ground to evade the airborne and ground radars. Then it climbed back into radar range in a liesurely manner, thus initiating a new chase. This fantastic game of hide and seek was observed from the ground by a great number of witnesses, among them 20 national policemen who saw both the object and the F-16s.

The Belguim policemen observed both the F-16's and the Triangle. The question then becomes: are the Beguim police lying or conspiring? If so, then what were the pilots chasing?

I believe that the Belguin police are telling the truth. If so, then the Triangle and the radar images are linked.

If you want a terrestrial answer, then it has to be a very high tech air craft, probably an American fighter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Oh come on. Ground effects are helpful but incidental. Thrust gets the plane moving forward, which gets air flowing around the wings which creates lift. If ground effects were required, jets couldn't take off, and prop planes couldn't fly above a very low altitude, nor could you launch a model glider with your hand.

Hehe. This is half jabbering.

Let me put it this way: no thrust, no ground effects, no lift. Thrust comes from the prop, not the wheels.

 

[Drakkith]

Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm

To play devils advocate, there's no real way of knowing how accurate this is. Not in that the person who wrote it is incorrect or lying (which is still a possibility. I can't get to that site from here at work so I haven't had a chance to read it.), but in the accuracy of the eyewitnesses. It is extremely common for people to misunderstand something they see in the sky. And trying to explain something you don't even understand to someone else only compounds the issue.

Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.

Pilots are looking at radar images. Witnesses on the ground are looking at triangles. What ties radar images to the triangles? This...

Assuming that the pilots never had visual contact, that puts the object at least several miles if not more beyond the aircraft. I find it hard to believe that eyewitnesses saw both the F-16's and the object playing "hide and seek" at somewhere between 200-1000 mph and varying altitudes with any real accuracy. People can easily give incorrect times where something that took 10-15 seconds can be reported as "In just seconds". There are plenty of other things that can make the eyewitnesses information inaccurate.

 

[Mazulu]

To play devils advocate, there's no real way of knowing how accurate this is. Not in that the person who wrote it is incorrect or lying (which is still a possibility. I can't get to that site from here at work so I haven't had a chance to read it.), but in the accuracy of the eyewitnesses. It is extremely common for people to misunderstand something they see in the sky. And trying to explain something you don't even understand to someone else only compounds the issue.

I thought I was the one playing devil's advocate?

There might be some witness testimonial (translated) somewhere on the internet. I'm looking at some pictures, desperately trying to read the handwriting.


http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1167.htm

In any population of observers, there is a chance that you might get some UFO enthusiasts. In a larger sample, you'll get testimonial from people who don't believe in such things. You just have to sift through the reports (if you can find them). If 90% of the observer population sees the same feature (like a triangle) then that particular feature is probably reliable.

If all a triangle does is hover, then it acts like a balloon. If it moves slowly, then it might be a balloon or glider. If it moves fast, it might be a plane. If it follows the observer (pilot) it might be an optical illusion. If it glows, it might be lightning. But what if it has behavior that crosses multiple categories?

Assuming that the pilots never had visual contact, that puts the object at least several miles if not more beyond the aircraft. I find it hard to believe that eyewitnesses saw both the F-16's and the object playing "hide and seek" at somewhere between 200-1000 mph and varying altitudes with any real accuracy. People can easily give incorrect times where something that took 10-15 seconds can be reported as "In just seconds". There are plenty of other things that can make the eyewitnesses information inaccurate.

I'm hard pressed to agree with the assumption that the pilot isn't going to look (with his eyes) at what he's chasing, at least once; just to make sure they're not chasing a software bug, a weather front or a bogey (Russian fighter jet for example).

What constitutes the observation of an aerial chase? First the triangle goes by really fast (silently); and then two fighter jets go by really noisily in the same direction. Even if the "chase" is happening at 1000mph, an observer on the ground can still see them go by.

I thought this testimonial was very detailed and thoughtful.

After having seen this dramatic sequence, I posed a number of questions to Col. DeBrouwer. First, could the object have been a radiosonde balloon? "No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds, and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorlogical conditions. This is why we did not publish the report until now. We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case. Our military defense system is not prepared for this sort of thing. We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters."

Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk? "No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numer ous changes in direction, and the atmosphereic conditions that prevailed pre cluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."

But I asked how about the famous F-117 the American Stealth airplane, which many people think may be responsible? "This airplane is absolutely designed for penetration at low altitude. On the other hand it has a minimum speed of 278 KPH and the UFOs speed went down to 40 KPH. The F-117 does not have engines that can be tilted down for very slow speed flight. Also no airplane is capable of flying at 1,800 KPH or so low to the ground without creating a sonic boom." Then he gave me a telex sent by the Military Attache of the U.S. Ambassador to the Commander of the Belgian Air Force confirming that the Stealth airplane was never stationed on European territory nor did it ever fly over that territory.

So maybe the US military has an unmanned plane that can hover, and also reach velocities of 1800km/hr (without creating a sonic boom).
http://osdir.com/patents/Aeronautics/Passive-aerodynamic-sonic-boom-suppression-supersonic-aircraft-06959896.html

 

[Mazulu]

That might not quite be the best debunk. Either way, you don't need to attribute all UFO sightings to something for it to be true of a few.

A very old post for you to review (notice that the quoted version has bad URLs, but if you follow the link provided just below, you can still visit each website).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2871349&postcount=11

I've been looking at the links that you provided. A lot of the material looks like junk. I found other articles that I liked. But what captivates my attention is your comment.

I'm sure people who see UFOs honestly believe whatever they say. ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.")

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

To avoid be accused of diverging from the topic, I contribute this debunky article. http://gmh.chez-alice.fr/RLT/BUW-RLT-10-2008.pdf
It's evidence that military crafts are being misidentified as UFO's. Enjoy.

 

[Mazulu]

Now here is a nice organized table that describes lots of weird things seen by pilots. No fluff or flaky observers, just the facts.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
The table has light, balls, glowing cylinders, airfoils, foo fighters, pink spheres, even a green parallelogram. Maybe this is the mother-lode. By my count, there are about a thousand reports from pilots of UFO encounters. In a nutshell, they're lights, cylinders, spheres, glowing geometric shapes.

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

 

[Dotini]

Yes, there is incontrovertibly a phenomenon of unidentified aerial objects.

With our best efforts over a period of decades, some 80-90% eventually can have prosaic explanations. There is a residuum of extremely well investigated but still puzzling unsolved cases.

From the late 1940's on, there have been some high profile US government investigations involving top physicists, astronomers and military folk. They have come to the conclusions that although the phenomenon is real, it poses no threat to national security. It is a nuisance so they don't bother investigating it anymore.

Institutions such as science and government having abandoned the problem leaves the field wide open for media and public speculation. Due to the many thousands of reports occurring daily for many decades, some even going back thousands of years, it makes more sense to think of it as terrestrial in origin rather extraterrestrial. It is absurd to think that nut-and-bolt objects from another planet can burn enough energy to come to Earth so often, cavort around doing essentially nothing, and remain resistant to our best efforts to confine even one, examine and understand it. It is a fool's errand to explain the UAP as a solid object.

Accordingly, the phenomenon must be almost purely energetic (lacking mass) so that after it manifests it vanishes leaving no traces, and can never be captured and confined in a laboratory any more than could a bolt of lightning be captured and examined.

We are dealing with electromagnetic fields organized into cellular structures by DLs.

According to the evidence, they can change speed, altitude, direction, shape, size and color without a problem.

Yet they don't attack and do usually run away when probed with radar.

There are baby-sized versions of UAP which occur regularly in particular places on Earth, such as Hessdalen, Norway and the Yakama Indian Reservation, Washington State, USA.

Professional scientists have studied these junior-grade versions of the phenomena for decades now. Some of their reports are posted in the "Electrical Eccentricity?" thread. It's pretty clear they have the idea they are studying an electromagnetic plasma phenomenon.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[DaveC426913]

Accordingly, the phenomenon must be almost purely energetic (lacking mass)

How did you get to this conclusion? We've got unexplained phenomena, what leads you to conclude that - categorically - they all come from the same phenom and that they cannot have mass?

I can see massless objects being one plausible explanation for many of the incidents, but I don't see how it's categorically true of all unexplained aerial phenomena.

There is a line between what we know and what we surmise.

 

[Dotini]

How did you get to this conclusion? We've got unexplained phenomena, what leads you to conclude that - categorically - they all come from the same phenom and that they cannot have mass?

I can see massless objects being one plausible explanation for many of the incidents, but I don't see how it's categorically true of all unexplained aerial phenomena.

There is a line between what we know and what we surmise.

Dave, thanks for a very good post and question.

Yes, of course you are right and I have no basis for categorical statements of any kind. I do believe there is some small amount of mass involved in some cases, even if it is only dusty metallic particles.

Although there are a great variety of UAP phenomena manifested, I am looking for the common thread - in our favorite subject of physics - which unifies the problem and makes it more comprehensible. I want to drive out the mystery and BS which infects this UFO/UAP topic.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[zoobyshoe]

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

A couple/three seconds:

People see a huge variety of unexplained things. Any automatic assumption they are extra-terrestrial is bunk.

 

[Drakkith]

Now here is a nice organized table that describes lots of weird things seen by pilots. No fluff or flaky observers, just the facts.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
The table has light, balls, glowing cylinders, airfoils, foo fighters, pink spheres, even a green parallelogram. Maybe this is the mother-lode. By my count, there are about a thousand reports from pilots of UFO encounters. In a nutshell, they're lights, cylinders, spheres, glowing geometric shapes.

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

There's nothing to debunk unless someone claims those UFO's are alien spacecraft or something similar.

 

[Drakkith]

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

 

[FlexGunship]

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

This is a fundamental misconception about knowledge. Just because an idea is appealing doesn't make it true... or even reasonable. It's amazingly common that people will defend most strongly, the falsehoods they find most appealing (or the truths that are most shaky).

If you're going to objectively review UFO reports, you must remove the awe and wonder of it. Otherwise the topic might as well be considered myth instead of a scientific conjecture.

On the plus side, it should be a huge consolation that the things we are currently learning about our universe are amazingly interesting and mind-boggling! Some of them clearly overshadow the idea of aliens mucking about in our airspace. If nothing else, the reports of faster-than-light neutrinos should be mind blowing! It might not be true (just like the UFOs=aliens idea), but the research is real and happening RIGHT NOW!

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

 

[Mazulu]

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

I really can't call anyone "stupid" for believing that these are aliens or (insert popular cultural/religious icon). The phenomena is literally messing with people's heads. Just read down the table from any page of
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
I picked page 8 at random: fast moving yellow-white basketball (approximate size estimate, not an actual basketball); red-hot metal spheres follow plane, orange spheres, pink spheres maneuvering around plane, fireballs follow plane... Aluminum disk object, lights making sharp turns. I have a bachelors degree in physics. I know what plasma is (a stream of charged particles). Plasma gives off light. But none of my physics professors ever said that plasma could make sharp turns and maneuver around without the aid of an electric field.

• three luminous spots followed the plane, the engine of which faltered
• a bright "shooting star" streaked downward without exploding then came back
• a white ball flying at 3,000 ft high
• one bright light split in two, moved towards the plane then disappeared
• a blue circular flame passed the plane, turned, then blinked

St. Elmos fire comes to mind, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Elmos_Fire
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...bnw=159&start=24&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:24

Does plasma in the atmosphere explain all of the observations? What about,

• one light seemed to take off and moved at 300 mph, made a turn. No specific shape.
• one blimp-shaped object outdistanced the planes at high speed.
• two orange lights rotating about a common center which Maneuvered.
• one silver object moved off immediately when pilot made a bank turn to approach it.
• one object with several lights moving very slowly followed the plane for 20 miles and turned back.
• a red-orange light, hovered one hour, then crossed the sky rapidly

If there was a light (St.Elmos fire?) flashing prime numbers at the pilot, I must have missed it. Are there balls of plasma in the sky that are curious about planes and want to take a better look? Or is the plane sharing an electric field with the atmosphere? In either case, the atmospheric plasma phenomena must be truly dazzling and beautiful. That is, until the plasma gets sucked into the engines and causes the electrical systems to go haywire. I wonder if the flying disks, cylinders and saucers have this problem.

 

[Mazulu]

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion. We still have silvery saucers, disks and cylinders to explain.

• one flying saucer at about 16,000 ft
• near-collision with a flying disc
• a red saucer flying very fast, dived, then made a 45° turn
• a shiny disc
• a saucer-shaped object (diameter: 30 meters)
• a luminous metallic-looking disc
• a disc (diameter: 30 meters) with 9-12 portholes and a light on the top
• an "aluminium"disc (diameter 40 ft) flew under the plane at 4,000 ft high.

Instead of making people feel stupid for telling you what they think they saw, why not ask them: how do you know it's an alien spaceship? Maybe something broke off the plane. Maybe it's St.Elmos fire on a sunny day.

 

[FlexGunship]

Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion.

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

 

[Mazulu]

• a huge turtle-shaped object at 7,000 ft high.

I got this one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamera

 

[Mazulu]

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

• one silver cigar-shaped object flying slowly and vertically.
• one saucer-shaped object leaving a vapor-like trail, disappeared from sight in 3 mn.
• one cream-colored disc-shaped object, flying at 1,500 ft (diameter : 20 ft).
• a saucer-shaped object followed by the pilot for about 20 miles
• a domed-disc
• four groups of round metallic silver objects
• two large flying discs, with a silver mirror surface, 600-700 ft diameter
• a silvery elongated object motionless

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

How do you know?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.

 

[FlexGunship]

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

1. Yes, so "most likely" is a fair assessment of the probability. It is not an opinion. Regardless, that's a silly comparison.
2. You forgot to provide citations for all of those things you listed.
3. Fortunately I don't have to explain any of them, but if I had to guess... probably reflections, balloons, lighting anomalies, space debris, and general misidentification.

 

[FlexGunship]

How do you know?

Well:
People make mistakes often. On an almost minute-to-minute basis.
There are already an ungodly number of terrestrial aircraft in the sky.
Balloons! Everywhere!
Pilots are made out of the same human materials as other humans (including brains).
Mass hallucinations are well documented.
The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!
There are known cases of people misidentifying the MOON as a flying saucer.
There are known cases of people misidentifying the SUN as a flying saucer.

On the other hand:
No extraterrestrial life has even been found.
Despite millions of claims, there's absolutely no evidence that the Earth has been visited by life that didn't originate on this planet.
Given radio telescopes that can detect quasars on the edge of the visible universe, we are unable to detect a single radio signal of interest in the entire universe (granted, so little of it has actually been checked).
There are no known means to traverse interstellar distances.

I mean, the two sides aren't even close when it comes to probability.

 

[Mazulu]

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence. http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
I've been going down the list for the last several messages. Did you look at the list, even for a few seconds? I found the list while looking at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805 There are countless reports of people seeing shiny metallic objects in the sky. Just go to the article and FIND: saucer.
There are plenty of pictures out there. Unfortunately, there are lots of hoaxes, CGI and Photoshop. Flying saucers, disks and cigar shaped objects catch us unprepared for taking measurements. What kind of measurements would you like? What kind of evidence? Should we instruct our US Air Force to shoot them down?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence.

(You won't get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).

No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;

"What are these UFOs?"
"Aliens"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"

To put it another way look at this example;

I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".

Do you see the problem now?

What kind of measurements would you like? What kind of evidence? Should we instruct our US Air Force to shoot them down?

If I had enough resources and was told to find out what UFOs were I would
A) Hire a group of experts to go through and filter out all the case studies where there is an explanation
B) Get the group to speculate* on possible reasons for the remaining cases and get them to research this
C) Repeat ad infinitum

*Speculation is an important part of the scientific method when making a hypothesis. It does not mean that any explanation goes! A good hypothesis will be based on all the current known science from which a reasonable proposal can be formulated.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence.

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

1. When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
2. When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum: ​

 

[FlexGunship]

(You won't get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).

No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;

"What are these UFOs?"
"Aliens"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"

To put it another way look at this example;

I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".

Do you see the problem now?

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

1. When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
2. When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum: ​

Spooky.

 

[Mazulu]

Well:
People make mistakes often. On an almost minute-to-minute basis.
There are already an ungodly number of terrestrial aircraft in the sky.
Balloons! Everywhere!
Pilots are made out of the same human materials as other humans (including brains).
Mass hallucinations are well documented.
The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!
There are known cases of people misidentifying the MOON as a flying saucer.
There are known cases of people misidentifying the SUN as a flying saucer.

On the other hand:
No extraterrestrial life has even been found.
Despite millions of claims, there's absolutely no evidence that the Earth has been visited by life that didn't originate on this planet.
Given radio telescopes that can detect quasars on the edge of the visible universe, we are unable to detect a single radio signal of interest in the entire universe (granted, so little of it has actually been checked).
There are no known means to traverse interstellar distances.

I mean, the two sides aren't even close when it comes to probability.

Let's cut out the bull crap. If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space. It should look like this,
Dear Space Aliens,
We don't know if you exist. But if you do, we would really like to meet you. It would be great if you could RSVP with SETI and let us know that you're coming. You can land at xyz airport. We can meet, share culture, technology and discuss philosophy and mathematics. Look forward to meeting with you.

This is how you test the hypothesis that space aliens exist. If they RSVP, you can have whatever video cams, and test equipment you need. If there is no response, then you can publish a paper entitled: Are We Alone? Or are they ignoring us?

 

[Mazulu]

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

1. When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
2. When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum: ​

Where did I say flying cigar monkey?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Let's cut out the bull crap. If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space.

Two points:

1) "Aliens flying around in spaceships" is a bad hypothesis as an explanation for anything.
2) If aliens did exist and did fly around in spaceships then any of them within ~50 lightyears could have detected the radio transmissions we've been leaking into space. The content is irrelevant, they're hardly going to understand any Earth language are they?

 

[Dotini]

I have a bachelors degree in physics. I know what plasma is (a stream of charged particles). Plasma gives off light. But none of my physics professors ever said that plasma could make sharp turns and maneuver around without the aid of an electric field.

• three luminous spots followed the plane, the engine of which faltered
• a bright "shooting star" streaked downward without exploding then came back
• a white ball flying at 3,000 ft high
• one bright light split in two, moved towards the plane then disappeared
• a blue circular flame passed the plane, turned, then blinked

Does plasma in the atmosphere explain all of the observations? What about,

• one light seemed to take off and moved at 300 mph, made a turn. No specific shape.
• one blimp-shaped object outdistanced the planes at high speed.
• two orange lights rotating about a common center which Maneuvered.
• one silver object moved off immediately when pilot made a bank turn to approach it.
• one object with several lights moving very slowly followed the plane for 20 miles and turned back.
• a red-orange light, hovered one hour, then crossed the sky rapidly

If there was a light (St.Elmos fire?) flashing prime numbers at the pilot, I must have missed it. Are there balls of plasma in the sky that are curious about planes and want to take a better look? Or is the plane sharing an electric field with the atmosphere? In either case, the atmospheric plasma phenomena must be truly dazzling and beautiful. That is, until the plasma gets sucked into the engines and causes the electrical systems to go haywire. I wonder if the flying disks, cylinders and saucers have this problem.

Yes, plasma explains beautifully everything you listed, given the presence of the electric field. I consider the physics of the objects in ALL those cases potentially solved by the plasma hypothesis. Precisely why and how the plasmoids react and behave as they do remains to be explained. But the observed performance and physical characteristics can now be understood. For instance, ball lightning, a form of plasma, has been infrequently seen and videotaped around thunderstorms, tornadoes and volcanoes. It is a primitive type of UAP which nevertheless embodies the most important features of the more exotic UAPs.

What is more difficult for the plasma hypothesis to explain is the Rendlesham Forest case. Here we have the problem of what appears to be a solid metallic craft with some kind of script engraved upon it, which, it is claimed, is touched and photographed by an airman. Can plasma be made to assume a solid shape with writing and porthole features? Our physics doesn't go there. So maybe this case is a hoax cooked up by AFOSI to test the officers and airmen or to manipulate the media and the public. Things like this have been done before.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Mazulu]

*Speculation is an important part of the scientific method when making a hypothesis. It does not mean that any explanation goes! A good hypothesis will be based on all the current known science from which a reasonable proposal can be formulated.

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

*http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf

 

[Mazulu]

Two points:

1) "Aliens flying around in spaceships" is a bad hypothesis as an explanation for anything.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

2) If aliens did exist and did fly around in spaceships then any of them within ~50 lightyears could have detected the radio transmissions we've been leaking into space. The content is irrelevant, they're hardly going to understand any Earth language are they?

Announce the experiment to the media; maybe they watch CNN.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

*http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf

You are missing the point. I am saying that hypotheses must be made using known science and tested appropriately. Invoking an explanation with no evidence is fallacious and explains nothing.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

We have evidence of astronauts. Not of aliens.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!

Eh? You have to be careful how you define "hallucination". The phenomenon of seeing color rather than shades of grey, for example, shouldn't be lumped into the category of "hallucination".

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

Pretty much. The existence of the giant squid wasn't confirmed by the number of anecdotal sightings and the credibility of the witnesses, by any means.

 

[FlexGunship]

If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space. It should look like this,
Dear Space Aliens,
We don't know if you exist. But if you do, we would really like to meet you. It would be great if you could RSVP with SETI and let us know that you're coming. You can land at xyz airport. We can meet, share culture, technology and discuss philosophy and mathematics. Look forward to meeting with you.

Okay, that was done in 1974. Not to mention the countless broadcasts that have been coming from Earth since the radio was invented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

This is how you test the hypothesis that space aliens exist. If they RSVP, you can have whatever video cams, and test equipment you need. If there is no response, then you can publish a paper entitled: Are We Alone? Or are they ignoring us?

So then the test can't fail?

Uh oh! You just outlines an unfalsifiable experiment! That sets off my troll detector!

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

You cannot point to a preponderance of non-evidence in lieu of actual evidence. Pick one, let's discuss it. If there's a hole in it, throw it out and pick another. But don't keep appealing to the large number of reports. That type of proof doesn't work for proving that gods exist, or that vampires exist, or that faeries exist, or that Atlantis exists, or that Nibiru exists, or that Nemesis exists, or that XXXXX exists, or that YYYYY exists!

Reports of California Condor sightings number much fewer than UFO reports annually, and yet we have much better photographic evidence of them.

Explain.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

Or rocks, for that matter. At least we have evidence that bird exist. Aliens on the other hand...

Announce the experiment to the media; maybe they watch CNN.

Wait... what?

 

[FlexGunship]

Eh? You have to be careful how you define "hallucination". The phenomenon of seeing color rather than shades of grey, for example, shouldn't be lumped into the category of "hallucination".

While falling asleep and waking up, humans normally experience auditory and visual hallucinations. Furthermore, sleeping, itself, can often lend itself to hallucinatory experiences.

Most importantly, though, are the common hallucinations we disregard. Hearing your voice called, or feeling a cell phone vibrate, or even the famous person-out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye. There's even a term for it: "hallucinations in the sane."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_the_sane

 

[zoobyshoe]

While falling asleep and waking up, humans normally experience auditory and visual hallucinations.

I am not normal, I guess. This has happened to me so rarely I have a very short list of all the times it's ever happened.

Furthermore, sleeping, itself, can often lend itself to hallucinatory experiences.

Eh? This just doesn't happen to me. I dream, of course, but dreaming isn't considered hallucination.

Most importantly, though, are the common hallucinations we disregard. Hearing your voice called, or feeling a cell phone vibrate, or even the famous person-out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye. There's even a term for it: "hallucinations in the sane."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_the_sane

Here, again, these things just aren't a daily occurrence in my life. I get this kind of thing only when I'm overly tired or stressed.

 

[FlexGunship]

I am not normal, I guess. This has happened to me so rarely I have a very short list of all the times it's ever happened.

Eh? This just doesn't happen to me. I dream, of course, but dreaming isn't considered hallucination.

Sleep related hallucinations are considered parasomnia (i.e. dream-like).

Here, again, these things just aren't a daily occurrence in my life. I get this kind of thing only when I'm overly tired or stressed.

http://www.sleepassociation.org/index.php?p=hallucinationsduringsleep

The American Sleep Association defines two types:

Hypnogogia:

Hypnogogic hallucinations occur just before sleep, and may be accompanied by sleep paralysis, a state in which the subject is physically immobile, but fully conscious. Hypnogogia and sleep paralysis often cause fear, more so than in sleep paralysis during hypnopompia which is often considered as part a dream by the subject, as well as feelings of difficulty breathing and muscle tightness.

And hypnopompia:

Hypnopompia occurs upon waking, and may also be accompanied by sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis is much more common in hypnopompia than in hypnogogia. Sleep paralysis is often confused by the person experiencing it as part of a lucid dream, which accounts for the high number of recalled dreams with elements of being frozen in place, or being unable to move. Common hypnopompic experiences include the sensation of falling and the feeling of a presence in the room.

I should redact my statement of "While falling asleep and waking up, humans normally experience auditory and visual hallucinations" and alter it to say that "It is not abnormal for humans to experience auditory or visual hallucinations when entering or leaving a sleep-state."

 

[Mazulu]

Okay, that was done in 1974. Not to mention the countless broadcasts that have been coming from Earth since the radio was invented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

Uh oh! You just outlines an unfalsifiable experiment! That sets off my troll detector!

You cannot point to a preponderance of non-evidence in lieu of actual evidence. Pick one, let's discuss it. If there's a hole in it, throw it out and pick another. But don't keep appealing to the large number of reports. That type of proof doesn't work for proving that gods exist, or that vampires exist, or that faeries exist, or that Atlantis exists, or that Nibiru exists, or that Nemesis exists, or that XXXXX exists, or that YYYYY exists!

Reports of California Condor sightings number much fewer than UFO reports annually, and yet we have much better photographic evidence of them.

Falsifiable experiment? OK, here goes.
Abstract: Over the last 70 years, there have been sightings of saucer/cylindrical/cigar shaped metallic objects in the sky. There are several famous accounts of alien abduction (Link Removed), alien implants (Link Removed), and an organization of witnesses of alien activity (Link Removed). There is plenty of speculation that the metallic objects in the sky and the accounts of alien activity might be linked. In other words, maybe they got here in a spaceship. There is a mountain of pictures and stories, but there is no hard evidence. I propose that we try to get hard evidence.

Hypothesis:
If alien intelligence exists and it got here in a flying saucer, can we get it to land at an agreed upon location by transmitting a request for a meeting? An experiment team would announce to the media their intent to invite an alien in a spaceship to land for a meet and greet. Watching CNN is a perfectly reasonable way to monitor what is happening on planet Earth; if aliens are observing us, then they might watch CNN or other news reports. The invitation will be transmitted as an audio/video signal from point x aimed at point y. The invitation will be cordial, friendly and it will be broadcast repeatedly for a period of 3 months until the aliens find it. We want the aliens to feel welcome so we will afford them plenty of time to find the invitation.

If the team invites aliens in their spaceship to land at a designated location: will they land? If they do land, then the issue is resolved. If they don't land, then why? Is it because they don't exist?

 

[FlexGunship]

Falsifiable experiment? OK, here goes.
Abstract: Over the last 70 years, there have been sightings of saucer/cylindrical/cigar shaped metallic objects in the sky. There are several famous accounts of alien abduction (Link Removed), alien implants Link Removed), and an organization of witnesses of alien activity (Link Removed). There is plenty of speculation that the metallic objects in the sky and the accounts of alien activity might be linked. In other words, maybe they got here in a spaceship. There is a mountain of pictures and stories, but there is no hard evidence. I propose that we try to get hard evidence.

Hypothesis:
If alien intelligence exists and it got here in a flying saucer, can we get it to land at an agreed upon location by transmitting a request for a meeting? An experiment team would announce to the media their intent to invite an alien in a spaceship to land for a meet and greet. Watching CNN is a perfectly reasonable way to monitor what is happening on planet Earth; if aliens are observing us, then they might watch CNN or other news reports. The invitation will be transmitted as an audio/video signal from point x aimed at point y. The invitation will be cordial, friendly and it will be broadcast repeatedly for a period of 3 months until the aliens find it. We want the aliens to feel welcome so we will afford them plenty of time to find the invitation.

If the team invites aliens in their spaceship to land at a designated location: will they land? If they do land, then the issue is resolved. If they don't land, then why? Is it because they don't exist?

I don't know what to say. Do you not see what's wrong with all of this? Am I getting dragged into a troll-trap?

Most of your citations have been from crackpot (or crackpot-associated) websites. When you put a link to "ufocasebook.com" on the PhysicsForums, just so you know, no one looks at that link. I did, however, open up "disclosureproject" because I was unaware of it. Let me provide a quote directly from the site; it's the first thing I saw:

The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems.

Another site dangerously close to crackpottery. They are starting with the presumption that there are facts to be known about extraterrestrial intelligence. Not a good way to start an investigation, is it?

Then you go on to use the word "hypothesis" to describe your experiment. You're all over the place! Organize your thoughts.

Lastly...

oh my god

What don't you get about the fact that it does not matter what the content of the message is?! If an alien received the message how could it possibly understand any of the content? Have you ever seen an analog video transmission? Would you know how to decode it? Even if you could decode it, how could you guarantee the result was what was intended by the receiver?

Any radio transmission from Earth (dating back over a hundred years now) would be sufficient evidence of life on earth. Have you read about the first pulsar discovered? They dubbed it "LGM" for "little green men" because it's pulsed output was so regular that it defied known cosmological physics.

Here is an analog video signal as measured on an oscilloscope. Find the content. Go!

Okay, I've proven my point. Please stop talking about broadcasting a video "message." It's a stupid idea. Sorry. There. I said it. You might be smart, but that idea is stupid.

So we can agree that it doesn't matter what the content of a video signal is.

However, you could send a much much much much more basic signal. One with the simplest data encoded in it. And this was done... exactly as you've asked... back in 1974. It was called the Aricebo message, and Carl Sagan himself helped design the message.

00000010101010000000000 00101000001010000000100 10001000100010010110010 10101010101010100100100 00000000000000000000000 00000000000011000000000 00000000001101000000000 00000000001101000000000 00000000010101000000000 00000000011111000000000 00000000000000000000000 11000011100011000011000 10000000000000110010000 11010001100011000011010 11111011111011111011111 00000000000000000000000 00010000000000000000010 00000000000000000000000 00001000000000000000001 11111000000000000011111 00000000000000000000000 11000011000011100011000 10000000100000000010000 11010000110001110011010 11111011111011111011111 00000000000000000000000 00010000001100000000010 00000000001100000000000 00001000001100000000001 11111000001100000011111 00000000001100000000000 00100000000100000000100 00010000001100000001000 00001100001100000010000 00000011000100001100000 00000000001100110000000 00000011000100001100000 00001100001100000010000 00010000001000000001000 00100000001100000000100 01000000001100000000100 01000000000100000001000 00100000001000000010000 00010000000000001100000 00001100000000110000000 00100011101011000000000 00100000001000000000000 00100000111110000000000 00100001011101001011011 00000010011100100111111 10111000011100000110111 00000000010100000111011 00100000010100000111111 00100000010100000110000 00100000110110000000000 00000000000000000000000 00111000001000000000000 00111010100010101010101 00111000000000101010100 00000000000000101000000 00000000111110000000000 00000011111111100000000 00001110000000111000000 00011000000000001100000 00110100000000010110000 01100110000000110011000 01000101000001010001000 01000100100010010001000 00000100010100010000000 00000100001000010000000 00000100000000010000000 00000001001010000000000 01111001111101001111000

Here's what it looks like if you mess up the decoding (color added):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/Arecibo_shifted.png/220px-Arecibo_shifted.png

But here's what it looks like if you decode it properly (color added):

I got all of that information directly from Wikipedia. You can get it there, too. But, before you go to the Wikipedia website, see if you can decode the meaning in the message. It was designed, specifically, to be readable by any species and does not require base-10 math, or any knowledge of any language.

It is the simplest message possible. MUCH simpler than a CNN broadcast.

Your experiment was done more than 35 years ago. You can now write your paper. Are they ignoring us? Or are we alone?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This is going nowhere good. There has never been any scientific evidence for aliens or alien technology. Proposing something for which there is no evidence as an explanation for something is fallacious. Thread closed