Skeptics' opinions of select UFO sightings

[bngbuck]

I am currently writing a monograph on UFO sightings and other similar events involving mass or large group perception of apparently anomalous phenomena - religious visions, conjurors illusions, mass hallucinations or "mass hysteria", and the like - my focus is not on individual narratives of unusual perceived events regardless of apparent credibility! I welcome your comments. Here is the question.

What is your view (or better, opinion) of The UFO Phenomenon? I do NOT mean anything regarding little grey men, alien abductions, or "encounters" of any kind.

I refer only to a small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial or space phenomena as reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts - sightings that have been thoroughly investigated and remain unexplained. Also those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other serious investigations - and NOT rejected as hoax, clouds, balloons, aircraft, planets, etc.

I am not advocating the existence of aliens, extraterrestrial visitation, or the like. It is not my intention to focus your attention on individual sightings. I am concerned with your general opinion of what observers may have seen in those cases where conventional explanation has failed, and possibly why the phenomenon has continued for over fifty years. "They may have seen aliens" is certainly an acceptable answer, as is "They may have seen something that is unexplained" Are there any other answers?

I have posted this question on other forums, and have addressed it to several high-profile skeptics. If that is considered rude or demeaning here, Moderator, please let me knowand I will desist. I will attempt to answer any question to the best of my ability.

[DRBUZZ0]

Alright, first of all it's just not possible to comment on any sightings which don't have at least some decent documentation and ideally photographs or videos or movies on record.

A person's word just cannot cut it. It's not that you necessarily think the person is a liar or crazy, but anything is really speculation. That's the problem.

If you have a photo, you may or may not be able to tell what it is or it may be inconclusive, but with a person's claims really don't give you much to go on.

Basically you have a lot of cases which cannot be conclusively disproven but also cannot be proven. The evidence may be interesting but not enough.

Lets say you have multiple witnesses who see something in the sky and you have radar tapes which show a brief blip which may or may not be related in the same general area and you have a photo which shows some blurred shape in the distance.

Could it be an atmospheric phenomena? yes. Could it be an aicraft as seen through some unusual optical conditions. Yes. Can you prove it? No

But no more could you prove the existance of it as an extra teresterial visitation.


From my own perspective, the implications and the logical extensions of it being extra terestrial are enough to assume it is not until all other alternatives have been investigated. It poses questions like: Why are they never seen by radar or good cameras, except in a few remote circumstances? Where do they come from? Certainly not in our solar system. If that is the case, how do they get here? Do they have a warp engine? If so, why don't we detect the massive gravity fluxes it would cause? Or do they relate to long periods of time differently? If so, then why would they want to expend all the energy coming here?


Okay, none of this *disproves* anything, but it's just looking at the implications and the logical extensions.

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. If it cannot be identified it's a UFO Some may be crazy people... certainly a few are. Some may be weather phenomena, some may be aircraft, balloons, planets, optical illusions. No doubt many are never able to be proven or disproven as anything.

Some of the more interesting things I've heard involve some sited by pilots and showing up on radar in Alaska. It so happens that many coincide with sunstorms and given that the area is very geomagneticly active it's been hypothysized that under the right conditions, large masses of ionized air could begin to glow and float around. This is theoretical and is not proven, but it's yet another possibility.

[GT/CS]

That's a fairly open-ended question. Can you post an example of:

.....a small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial or space phenomena as reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts - sightings that have been thoroughly investigated and remain unexplained.

For example the Phoenix lights were proven to be military flares. My guess is that most, if not all, of the sightings are military aircraft.

[steve s]

Here's what baffles me. Whenever it's pointed out that the UFOs were not picked up by either RADAR or satellites, the believers say "That's because they have advanced stealth technology that prevents them from being detected." Okay, so then why do the aliens cover their ships with bright flashing lights?

Steve S.

[hopfen]

The only thing that makes the UFO sightings special and fascinating to many people is the "F" part. Something "up there" in the sky seems to provoke a sort of special sense of awe. If it were UWOs (Unidentified Walking Objects) seen in a dense forest, for example, I doubt if there would be such a big deal about them. And no, I'm not referring to "Bigfoot."

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

Okay, so then why do the aliens cover their ships with bright flashing lights?

And did they steal this technology from Sir Joseph Wilson Swan, or was Swan an alien?

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by steve s

Here's what baffles me. Whenever it's pointed out that the UFOs were not picked up by either RADAR or satellites, the believers say "That's because they have advanced stealth technology that prevents them from being detected." Okay, so then why do the aliens cover their ships with bright flashing lights?

Steve S.

They do show up on radar. They just make sure that it's only briefly and preferably on a radar system of low reliability and/or resolution. They especially like to do this during times of high ionospheric activity, electrical storms, unusual atmospheric conditions, in areas where there is a lot of high terrain....

Apparently this is done just to frustrate us. It's why they only come out of invisible mode long enough for someone with a Polaroid camera and really shaky hands to snap a picture of a point of light from a few miles away. And then they always end up doing the spectacular displays when the person is fumbling for their camera or out of film or something

"Oh I saw a mass with large glowing orbs of an amber color in rows and it came above me and.... I managed to take this image as it was leaving.."


But would they ever do that kind of stunt in good lighting, on a clear day, for someone with a good stabilized zoom lens and Kodachrome 800 film or a 12megapixel DSLR and a tripod Of course not...


They're such freakin teases, they just show you the goods when you can't get a good look. It's like a crappy strip club.

[bngbuck]

DRBUZZO.....

Here is one typical example of a filtered report:


UFO Case 3: Ocala Radar-Visual Case


Pinecastle Electronic Warfare Range Tracking Station, a restricted facility operated by the U.S. Navy 32 miles east-southeast of Ocala, Florida (in the north central part of the state) was the site of a puzzling, still-unexplained UFO incident late on the evening of Sunday, May 14, 1978.

The incident began with a phone call from a civilian. At about 10:05 p.m., she called from nearby Silver Glen Springs to ask if the installation was shooting off flares. She had just seen something that looked like a flare. The duty officer, SK-1 Robert Clark, assured her no such operation was going on at that moment. A second call came a few minutes later. A man, later identified as Rocky Morgan, said that he and seven other persons traveling on Highway 19 near Silver Glen Springs had just seen an oblong-shaped flying object, some 50 to 60 feet in diameter and "almost the color of the moon," pass over the top of his car. It had a flashing light which was intensely bright at its center.

Clark checked with the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center, which told him no aircraft were in the area. He and the base air controller, Gary Collison, climbed up an observation tower next to a van containing the base's radar equipment. Clark contacted external security and directed them to contact TD-2 Timothy Collins, a radar technician. Collins rushed to the tower. The personnel already there were watching a cluster of glowing lights off to the west-northwest. They were at eye-level and seemed to be just above an old Civil Defense tower three miles away. Even though it was a clear, quiet night, the witnesses heard no noise emanating from the lights, which apparently were attached to a single object.

After watching them through binoculars, Collins went down to warm up the track radar, which took five minutes, and the acquisition radar, which took 20 minutes. As he waited, he looked for the object with a periscope on the van and saw it again. At around 11:20 radar locked on to the target. The object was located at 0.2 degrees elevation, or just a hundred or so feet off the ground, at the assumed distance:"treetop level," Collins would say. Its image on radar was "as strong [as] or stronger than" the image of the tower. The object seemed to be the size of a jetliner.

Ten to 15 minutes later it abruptly vanished from both sight and radar. But at around 11:40 the same or a similar object appeared 15 degrees to the north. Collins located it visually, but the second, computer-assisted radar did not track it for some reason. He also saw it through the periscope. A few minutes later it disappeared suddenly from both instrumented and visual observation.

Around midnight it or another object was seen three miles to the northwest. For five seconds it moved at more than 500 knots on a course, then accelerated for two seconds, and executed a hairpin turn in one second. When it made that turn, it was 15 miles south of the base, which meant it had covered 15 miles in seven seconds; most of that distance was covered in the last two seconds (a speed of 7700 mph is required to cover this distance in that time). The turn was a radical reversal of direction; now the UFO was shooting northward and toward the observers at the base. Its speed had slowed almost instantaneously to a mere two knots. It was at this point that Collins's radar locked on to it. After a little more than a minute, the object vanished. The sighting was over.

A dozen or so personnel had seen the object or objects. One of them, TD-AA Carol Snyder, told a newspaper reporter, "We saw three very blurry lights: red, white, and green. We watched them for about 30 minutes. We couldn't see how fast they were traveling. We were holding the binoculars, and the lights appeared to be bouncing,"

The Navy conducted an investigation out of the Jacksonville center but came to no conclusions. Allan Hendry of the Center for UFO Studies interviewed several of the witnesses and gathered radar, meteorological, and astronomical data. He considered, then rejected, various prosaic alternatives before declaring this a CUFOS case of "high merit."

This account has been adapted from the book The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning, by Jerome Clark (1998), Omnigraphics. Further details can be found in the articles by Allan Hendry "Navy Radar-Visual in Florida," International UFO Reporter 3 (6), June 1978: 4-5 and "A Second Look at the Ocala Sighting," Second Look 1 (7), May 1979: 29-31.


May I ask you a hypothetical question? Assume there are many more filtered examples such as the above, some with far more observers and much more documentation.

What is your general opinion of this sighting and others that involve multiple observers and are equally or better qualified and investigated?

[bngbuck]

GT/CS.....

Please see my response to DRBUZZO above.

[bngbuck]

DRBUZZO.....

Thank you for your posts. One way to illustrate my view of these matters is by metaphor.

Nessie emerges from the depths of Loch Ness one day and remains swimming around the surface in plain view for several days. Tourists gather by the hundreds with cameras, video cameras, binoculars, and tape recorders. World wide news organizations quickly arrive with live television coverage, boats, helicopters and famous anchormen to tell us what we are seeing. Full color, closeup and aerial views, and action footage is plentiful, and is broadcast to millions around the world.

Famous scientists congregate to observe and pontificate on the phenomenon. Thousands of photographs and videos are made, eyewitnesses at the Loch run into the hundreds of thousands.

The spectacle is, by any definition of the word, self-evident.

Nessie finally submerges, but returns again and again with varying degrees of documentation. She does not leave any part of her self, she is not captured and studied in a laboratory, when a boat approaches to within twenty feet or so, she dives; only to resurface at another location.
Sonar confirms her underwater presence and location.

No tangible evidence is collected, only abundant visual obsevation and
photo/video/audio/sonar documentation.



Would the above constitute scientific proof that Nessie exists?

If so, at what point in the narrative would proof be established?

If not, what further events would be needed to establish acceptable scientific proof of Nessie's existence?



I would appreciate you considering this hypothetical event, answering the question, and giving the reasons for your answer

[Czarcasm]

How many different boards are you going to cross-post this exact same thread on, bngbuck?
Btw, from what I've seen of his responses all the other times he's cut and pasted about this supposed "monograph", he's definitely looking for true believers , not differing opinions.

[DRBUZZ0]

Um to be totally honest I do not know enough about this event beyond what you have posted with may/maynot be the whole story. Sorry to be skeptical ;-)


But I'll have to reserve my opinion until I can get a bit of research in on this one. Maybe this weekend.

[bngbuck]

Czarcasm.....

I have not received an answer to the e-mail that I sent you. If it is convenient for you, I would appreciate an e-mail in response. I need the information to more effectively communicate on Internet forums.

Unless it is contrary to accepted Internet practice and considered offensive, I intend to attempt to find a variety of forums in which ask the same question. I explained to you that I was utilizing this method of gathering information for the first time, and was naive' as to convention or netiquette. I asked for clarification.

The book I am writing is indeed real, and is in early development. In a few months I would be pleased to send you a copy of the rough manuscript of the monograph concerned with mass sightings of UFOs. The monograph will become a chapter in the finished book.

I most definitely am looking for opinions. I am not a "true believer" in UFOs nor am I particularly interested in true believers' responses unless they are true skeptics also. I, like you, feel that these two categories are probably mutually exclusive.

I appreciate your advice regarding the high profile skeptics that I have addressed questions to, and have changed my OP accordingly - note the beginning of this thread.

I responded to your concern about "sticking around" the Straight Dope message board in my e-mail to you. When you answer me, I will take appropriate action to correct that unavoidable mistake.

Thank you for your interest.

[bngbuck]

Dr. Buzzo.....

Why not try the questions in the "Nessie" metaphor anyway? It makes you think a little bit about what constitutes scientific proof.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think that group thought is natural and comforting for humans in almost all circumstances. When thinking about groups of people seeing something unidentified they will tend to rely on views that have previously been presented to them by the group. This is why individual people within large groups will perceive the same conclusion as the group regardless of the individuals interaction with the group concerning the specific incident.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by bngbuck

Dr. Buzzo.....

Why not try the questions in the "Nessie" metaphor anyway? It makes you think a little bit about what constitutes scientific proof.

Okay fine the nessie metaphore is pretty good. You have an area which there is a reputed monster. We have a couple photos which show a shape of some sort. We have one good photo of a head... but it turns out that's an admitted hoax.

We have thousands and thousands of people who come to the area expecting to see something and therefore assuming anything they see is nessie. Despite this, I would say there are surprisingly few sitings.

We have a small fresh water lake which has been studied with sonar, rov's and many other methods looking for either nessie or just studying the unique aspects of the lake.

NOTHING. Nada. A few "strange sonar returns" or "something moved" that's it.


The area has been inhabbitted for centuries. No bodies ever washed up. Nothing snared.


The Loch may or may not even have enough marine life to feed a hypothetical living animal of such a large size.


If there is such an animal it is of completely unknown nature. A pleasisaur? (sp) They have not been established to exist anywhere in the past 50 million years. They were air breathers... makes it hard to think one would not be seen. They probably were not able to live in a lake that cold or in those conditions.

No known fish or marine animal even comes close to the required traits for a large rarely-seen, breeding-stock level, successful animal which could live in the area and have the traits of nessie.

Based on this massive amount of knowledge of biology, the history of the Loch and so on, you can come to almost no other conclusion than there is no Nessie. I don't mean to start the whole debate of "science can't prove a negative." But this sure as hell comes close, given the basic logical extensions.


Thus, for me to be convinced otherwise would take some extremely extraordinary proof.

[bngbuck]

Buzzo.....

Well, all you said was well and good, but what I wanted you to do was respond to my Hypothetical Nessie metaphor. Like, imagine for a moment that all I stated was true and actually happened! Then answer the questions! At what point in the (imaginary) narrative would there be Scientific Proof of the existence of Nessie?

[ynot]

A “UFO” is just that. An Unidentified Flying Object. If by definition it's unidentified, how can it be said to be from outer space? Surely the default assumption should be that it’s from Earth. An Unidentified Flying Object From Outer Space should be called a “UFOFOS“.

[CLD]

Originally Posted by bngbuck

DRBUZZO.....
Nessie emerges from the depths of Loch Ness one day and remains swimming around the surface in plain view for several days. Tourists gather by the hundreds with cameras, video cameras, binoculars, and tape recorders. World wide news organizations quickly arrive with live television coverage, boats, helicopters and famous anchormen to tell us what we are seeing. Full color, closeup and aerial views, and action footage is plentiful, and is broadcast to millions around the world.

Famous scientists congregate to observe and pontificate on the phenomenon. Thousands of photographs and videos are made, eyewitnesses at the Loch run into the hundreds of thousands.

The spectacle is, by any definition of the word, self-evident.

Nessie finally submerges, but returns again and again with varying degrees of documentation. She does not leave any part of her self, she is not captured and studied in a laboratory, when a boat approaches to within twenty feet or so, she dives; only to resurface at another location.
Sonar confirms her underwater presence and location.

No tangible evidence is collected, only abundant visual obsevation and
photo/video/audio/sonar documentation.

Would the above constitute scientific proof that Nessie exists?

If so, at what point in the narrative would proof be established?

If not, what further events would be needed to establish acceptable scientific proof of Nessie's existence?

I would appreciate you considering this hypothetical event, answering the question, and giving the reasons for your answer

I would say if a boat can approach within thirty feet or so (20 being the creature's signal to dive), the contingent of Marine Biologists (who would have time to gather if the episode lasted several days) would have enough data to make at least a preliminary evaluation of whether or not it is a known fish, reptile or mammal being observed. However I don't think they'd confirm it as "Nessie" or use any language of that ilk.

Your hypothetical seems to be arguing in favor of the "shyness effect", i.e. a phenomenon that actively resists providing testable evidence, or has some supernatural ability to evade conclusive observations.

PS: It would be really cool if, in your hypothetical, Nessie would surface with Bigfoot riding on her back and a UFO hovering above her.

[DRBUZZ0]

Originally Posted by bngbuck

Buzzo.....

Well, all you said was well and good, but what I wanted you to do was respond to my Hypothetical Nessie metaphor. Like, imagine for a moment that all I stated was true and actually happened! Then answer the questions! At what point in the (imaginary) narrative would there be Scientific Proof of the existence of Nessie?

That would depend very much on the situation. Obviously, in any case, a full body would be proof beyond doubt. "Proof" in the sense of extremely compelling and irrefutable tangible evidence is not really required for things which are not "extraordinary"

For example. Lets say that there is a lake and several people claim there is brook trout in the lake. There are stories of people catching them. People have claimed to have seen them in the lake or hooked them.

In this hypothetical situation the lake is in a region where many bodies of water have brook trout. The lake is roughly the temperature and ph you would need to sustain brook trout. There's no reason to think it unusual that no specimens have been produced, because not that many people fish there.

In that case, I'd say that "It probably does have brook trout" and I'd accept it almost as fact, because it's totally what you would expect. There's nothing extraordinary or even slightly unreasonable.

So if we take Nessie. It would depend on the context. Lets say that several new species of fish are found in Loch Ness. Now, it seems more plausible that there might be organisms there that are not previously known. Then some fossils of nessie-like creatures are found in the northern hemisphere and in relatively recent geological history. Now it's looking like maybe there's a chance such a creature exists. Then a survey of loch ness finds large, previously unknown caverns. Now this is providing some insite into how an animal might be able to "hide" and not be seen very often or captured.

If (hypothetically) these events were to come it would seem more and more reasonable that yes, maybe it could be. Thus the burden of proof is less. A good photo might even convince me that it's probably true.

But in order to classify a new species you would still probably need a specimen. Either a dead one or some good documented observations of one in the wild.

[imjohn]

Seems to me that the OP is trying to lay some sort of trap.

The simple answer to the original post is that a group of people saw something that they could not explain in the sky.

The Nessie metaphor is not analogous to the original question.

[Creekfreak]

I look at it like I looked at bigfoot before I saw it myself . I would like to beleave they are real but untell I see one with my own eyes I cant say they are . The reason I would like them be is I think it would be pretty cool to go for a ride in one or to fly it ! Untell then I can only hope that one lands in my back yard and takes me for a ride .

[sthomson]

Originally Posted by Creekfreak

I would like to beleave they are real but untell I see one with my own eyes I cant say they are.

That's a dangerous stance to take. Even if I saw a UFO with my own eyes, I would not automatically believe that it was extra-terrestrial. Even if I saw what looked like a monster in a lake with my own eyes, I would not automatically believe that it was cryptozoological. My brain has fooled me in the past.

DrBuzzo's post pretty much exactly describes the amount of evidence that scientists require before they establish whether or not a phenomenon or a creature exists. It's not just a "Nessie spotting", but also the phenomenon that would present if Nessie existed.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by imjohn

Seems to me that the OP is trying to lay some sort of trap.

The simple answer to the original post is that a group of people saw something that they could not explain in the sky.

The Nessie metaphor is not analogous to the original question.

I think you are correct in that the metaphor is not analogous. I know that you are incorrect about the OP being a trap.

[arthwollipot]

I think this is probably the most pertinent response so far.

Originally Posted by imjohn

The simple answer to the original post is that a group of people saw something that they could not explain in the sky.

Even if the "something" is seen by many people and verified on radar, it's still unidentified until it can be demonstrated to be a specific thing. It may have been a Chinese experimental rocket. It may have been a flock of birds. It may even have been an extraterrestrial spaceship.

Until a firm identification can be made, it will remain - well, unidentified.