Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

scientific study of UFO (UAP)

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#26 gregj888

gregj888

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,813
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 24 November 2021 - 11:09 PM

Precisely.

 

The absence argument is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.  You can't say we are alone, you can't see we are not alone.  So, no scientific study, no scientific observing.

 

Ummm, no it's a basic statement of logic and is what scientific reasoning is built on...  Think Schrödinger's cat...  no evidence, no science either way.  The same as "(If A then B) does not imply  (NOT A then Not B)".  

 

I'll also take exception to "science" saying there are no other intelligent civilization (if you grant that we are or take it to this level or higher).  AFAIK, the statement is and has been, "we have no evidence of other intelligent civilizations."  That is a very different statement. 

 

Are we alone (got it this time Bruce ;-) )... and  I agree with Bruce, this is a red herring.  If there is evidence. I haven't seen it.

 

Do I think there are other intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, yup, I do but probably not many.  Do I have proof, nope.  Do I think another civilization is visiting us, don't know but wouldn't blame them for passing us by.  Do I think our UFOs have little green men, no I suspect most/all are human made but I don't know that either nor do I have proof either way.   We know we have some spooky stuff and most that we know about is 20-40 years old...  So what can the new stuff do?

 

Here is one for you.  We've split the atom, have radio and we've gotten off the surface of our planet into space.  Now think of the sound barrier.  Suppose the speed of light is similar, there is a way to "beat it" and until you do, you are considered a primitive society.  Until you beat it, your world is not to be contacted, but like the zoo can be "observed".

 

If you start seeing marshmallows flying at you... :-)



#27 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,790
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 25 November 2021 - 12:03 AM

ihaventseenanycompellingexamplesandtherecentonesthatwerereleasedaresoeasilyexplainedthatiassumethepeoplereviewingthemhavelittlebasicknowledgeofimagingandgeometrysolackingasinglecompellingexampleidontexpectasystematicinvestigationtobeworthwhileatthesametimeitwouldhavehighrewardthoughlowchanceofsuccessfrank

I see Australia has a shortage of ASCII 32 due to the pandemic :)

Seriously, that's a good insight.


  • gregj888 likes this

#28 freestar8n

freestar8n

    Vendor - MetaGuide

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 11,569
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 25 November 2021 - 01:14 AM

I see Australia has a shortage of ASCII 32 due to the pandemic smile.gif

Seriously, that's a good insight.

We're doing ok here - plenty of spaces, commas, and capitals.

 

But I was really disappointed that there was a big fuss about newly released evidence of unexplained observations - yet the primary videos shown were obvious artifact of various kinds.  And I still see them shown all the time.  For years there was an impression that people in government who got to see the evidence found it compelling - so I was looking forward to something interesting.  Instead I guess the people involved in such studies just have no idea how even basic video cameras can do weird things like create iris artifacts when they view points of light out of focus.

 

In my case I have seen a wide range of things in the sky - most of which have simple explanations.  At the same time, I have seen faint objects make fast 90 degree turns - and I am not kidding here.  But I was alone and it was night and I just assume I imagined it.  It may be a common form of illusory observation since many people report it.

 

So - I don't think it's worth trying to capture such things because I think by now at least some would have been captured serendipitously.  But it would be cool if multiple cameras could capture a trail with a sharp bend in it - that can be triangulated to be an interesting distance away - and speed.

 

Frank


  • Michael Covington and Tweel like this

#29 dhkaiser

dhkaiser

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,703
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2019

Posted 25 November 2021 - 07:05 AM

ihaventseenanycompellingexamplesandtherecentonesthatwerereleasedaresoeasilyexplainedthatiassumethepeoplereviewingthemhavelittlebasicknowledgeofimagingandgeometrysolackingasinglecompellingexampleidontexpectasystematicinvestigationtobeworthwhileatthesametimeitwouldhavehighrewardthoughlowchanceofsuccessfrank

I refuse to read all of this.


  • Miguelo likes this

#30 tdfwds

tdfwds

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2021

Posted 25 November 2021 - 01:45 PM

If anyone is really going to play with this as systematic, they want to websearch for UFOcapture.

 

It's names a bit of a misnomer, whilst accurate, it identifies stuff in the sky.  Quite a diversity of them.

 

It was primarily designed by a Japanese gentleman for meteors, and is extensively used for massive allsky allnight monitoring of the sky by multiple observers in Japan and Europe as well, and BRAMON in Brazil use it too I believe.

 

They've discovered and published new meteor streams through its use, and have open access data that others have used to publish new streams for confirm suspected ones, meself not excluded.

 

It can be used systematically.  I believe it can detect 'planes, satellites, and I seem to remember either they or someone else using their software suite even had a serendipitous sprite or two that they'd captured, but can't remember the link.

 

It is systematic, it can be used systematically.  Lack of evidence points to massive wastes of time and resources and likelihood of bucketloads of negative results, but if you're going to go for it, do it pukka, you might even accidentally end up providing meteor data or something useful.

 

Sprites and Elfs and "Steve" and one or two other things I've forgot the name of were originally discovered serendipitously, I think without even being part of a survey, I get some bit of my memory telling me Sprites were caught by accident via ISS pretty picture photo's of the planet's limb, but my memory has lied to me before.


  • gregj888 and DHEB like this

#31 drollere

drollere

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,345
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2010
  • Loc: sebastopol, california

Posted 25 November 2021 - 09:01 PM

But I was really disappointed that there was a big fuss about newly released evidence of unexplained observations - yet the primary videos shown were obvious artifact of various kinds.

 

In my case I have seen a wide range of things in the sky - most of which have simple explanations.  At the same time, I have seen faint objects make fast 90 degree turns - and I am not kidding here.  But I was alone and it was night and I just assume I imagined it.  It may be a common form of illusory observation since many people report it.

 

So - I don't think it's worth trying to capture such things because I think by now at least some would have been captured serendipitously.  But it would be cool if multiple cameras could capture a trail with a sharp bend in it - that can be triangulated to be an interesting distance away - and speed.

i think skepticism is healthy. why not ask for better evidence on a question still undecided? but you should take into account the evidence that has been collected over the past seven decades.

 

however, frank omits two points. he buys into the bunkist claims of false attributions, which usually require you to ignore any information about the context. the "obvious artifact" explanation is always made by examining the photo documentation in isolation, excluding the testimony of the pilots and radar operators who made the observations -- and the response of the defense department to their reports.

 

"they're just mistaken." well, here's lieutenant Ryan Graves describing the missions that created two of the released us navy videos, along with some anecdotes about pilots so disturbed by their encounters they didn't even wait to strip off their sweaty flight suits to make a report, or an object that  appeared so close to a pair of jets that it passed between them at a distance of less than 50 feet, or the official report up the chain of command that a mid air collision with the UFO was "only a matter of time" (one of the reasons the defense department is taking these things seriously), and finally an "eyes on" description of one of the encounters that is "debunked" by Mick West:

 

https://www.youtube....3ntYkFM&t=6010s

 

the presentation earlier in the video by professor Kevin Knuth is also of interest. and graves's presentation is followed by Ted Roe of NARCAP describing incidents reported by commercial air pilots.

 

the second and more significant omission is that frank apparently hasn't examined the video i posted above, because he regrets that "at least some" have not been recorded. try looking at it objectively and tell me what kind of misattributed object you think it is:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Gu0EemWzZpM

 

(again, context matters: this thing paced the aircraft at a constant distance for about 20 minutes.) i don't see my role as trying to convince people of anything; this post simply pushes back on false declarations. it does seem odd that people who find this to be a waste of time would post misleading information here -- it's a waste of time, right?

 

but i take frank's point that a lot of astronomers will see this as a silly or deluded topic, and that's fine. he's right, and he's among them. and i am happy to leave them as they are with things they only "imagine" that they saw.


Edited by drollere, 25 November 2021 - 09:21 PM.


#32 drollere

drollere

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,345
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2010
  • Loc: sebastopol, california

Posted 25 November 2021 - 09:16 PM

If anyone is really going to play with this as systematic, they want to websearch for UFOcapture.

i looked at this and think it is better suited for UAP or "stuff" observations. the more UFO centered sites are UFOhunter and UFOstalker. (you need to zoom in on the maps to see the full detail.) i have not used either, but i believe there is talk to create cellphone apps that people can use to make quick reports that in turn can be pushed out to other users to confirm.

 

i don't know how effective or helpful that can be, but it suggests that people are casting around for literally any idea to assist in increasing citizen observations and the reliability of citizen observations, which is of course why i posted here.

 

the two things that strike me after a really exhaustive review of "UFO" videos available online is (apart from the hoaxes, which are often fun and clever) are that most people are not at all familiar with observing the night sky and make obvious misattributions for what appear to be ordinary things, and most people have no idea how to operate a video recording device to minimize tremor, focus and track accurately.

 

again, amateur astronomers are a little more adept at things optical, astronomical and photographic, and seem (to me at least) to represent a potentially very important cadre of citizen witnesses.


Edited by drollere, 25 November 2021 - 09:18 PM.


#33 drollere

drollere

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,345
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2010
  • Loc: sebastopol, california

Posted 25 November 2021 - 09:39 PM

Do I think our UFOs have little green men, no I suspect most/all are human made but I don't know that either nor do I have proof either way.   We know we have some spooky stuff and most that we know about is 20-40 years old...  So what can the new stuff do?

the "foreign/adversary/secret government program" has been proposed since the beginning, the 1944-45 "foo fighters" and the 1946 swedish "spokraketer" or "ghost rockets", which were at first believed to be soviet technology based on a secret captured nazi weapons program.

 

it has also consistently been rejected, and even today although it is offered as a merkin to distract from real issues, no one in the defense/intelligence establishment takes it seriously.

 

the argument is usually rejected on four grounds. first is the "historical record" argument that UFO have been reported in past eras when human aeronautical technology was at the level of dirigible and biplane. this requires you to accept sometimes dubious reports, and i don't put much weight on it.

 

second is the "old invention" argument that the failure rate observed is effectively zero. despite what you may read or hear, there are no known UFO crash retrievals. if UFO were a new invention, we'd expect to have evidence, either public or through espionage, of failures.

 

third is the "ineffectual penetration" argument. i mentioned above that the collective evaluation of UFO behavior is that they are pretty stupid. why would a foreign power deploy the technology so that the object could sit in a texas road stalling truck engines or hover over an airport? this has always been the strongest empirical argument.

 

the last argument is the "valuable technology" premise that any country that owned such "breakthrough technology" would make it public or utilize it commercially. but no country has done so.

 

i'm writing off my own topic, which i think means this post has run out its utility. but i do feel it is important to correct the record on misinformation that is still publicly quite common.


Edited by drollere, 25 November 2021 - 09:44 PM.


#34 gregj888

gregj888

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,813
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 25 November 2021 - 11:26 PM

the "foreign/adversary/secret government program" has been proposed since the beginning, the 1944-45 "foo fighters" and the 1946 swedish "spokraketer" or "ghost rockets", which were at first believed to be soviet technology based on a secret captured nazi weapons program.

 

it has also consistently been rejected, and even today although it is offered as a merkin to distract from real issues, no one in the defense/intelligence establishment takes it seriously.

"No one in the def..."---  bandwagon fallacy

"second is the "old invention" argument" ---  non sequitur    

"third is the "ineffectual penetration" argument."  ---  non sequitur

'last argument is the "valuable technology"  ---  non sequitur

 

I think the cat is both alive and dead, how about you?  Think we need to open the box.

 

Most of the sightings I know of by people I know (just a few) are serendipitous and seem to fall into 2 groups.  A shape, like the Oregon Star party or lights that are zig-zagging around in the distance as seen from their fixed position.  In both cases I would go first to a human made object.  Doesn't mean I'm right.

 

Then you get the Radar reports (and sonar reports) of "fast movers."  Your guess is as good as mine... but there are a lot of possibilities including testing the operators...  Yes, I know or have known guys that have claimed to be the operators at the screens of both.  Some are now thought to have been SR-71s that were not publicly known for what 20 yrs after they were first flying?  So much for 2, 3 and 4...

 

Additionally, none of the four offer "proof" and none account for a less than honest set of reports.  Misinformation, misdirection, stress tests of various information channels... have nothing to do with UFOs but may have a lot to do with their reports. 

 

Cell phone app, coordinated all sky cameras, lots of observers all make a lot of sense, bet they don't pay observers...  Will let you know if I see something I can't ID.  Yes, I would like to see one...


Edited by gregj888, 25 November 2021 - 11:27 PM.


#35 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,790
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 25 November 2021 - 11:31 PM

drollere, good observations.

I think it's fairly clear, though, that *some* secret high-altitude experiments were widely considered UFOs at the time, and also that the Air Force wanted to know if these were being seen, and also if people were seeing anything that could be some other country's secret high-altitude experiments.

This is not by any means a complete explanation of UFOs, just one thing that was mixed in with them.



#36 freestar8n

freestar8n

    Vendor - MetaGuide

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 11,569
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 26 November 2021 - 12:44 AM

i think skepticism is healthy. why not ask for better evidence on a question still undecided? but you should take into account the evidence that has been collected over the past seven decades.

 

however, frank omits two points. he buys into the bunkist claims of false attributions, which usually require you to ignore any information about the context. the "obvious artifact" explanation is always made by examining the photo documentation in isolation, excluding the testimony of the pilots and radar operators who made the observations -- and the response of the defense department to their reports.

 

"they're just mistaken." well, here's lieutenant Ryan Graves describing the missions that created two of the released us navy videos, along with some anecdotes about pilots so disturbed by their encounters they didn't even wait to strip off their sweaty flight suits to make a report, or an object that  appeared so close to a pair of jets that it passed between them at a distance of less than 50 feet, or the official report up the chain of command that a mid air collision with the UFO was "only a matter of time" (one of the reasons the defense department is taking these things seriously), and finally an "eyes on" description of one of the encounters that is "debunked" by Mick West:

 

https://www.youtube....3ntYkFM&t=6010s

 

the presentation earlier in the video by professor Kevin Knuth is also of interest. and graves's presentation is followed by Ted Roe of NARCAP describing incidents reported by commercial air pilots.

 

the second and more significant omission is that frank apparently hasn't examined the video i posted above, because he regrets that "at least some" have not been recorded. try looking at it objectively and tell me what kind of misattributed object you think it is:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Gu0EemWzZpM

 

(again, context matters: this thing paced the aircraft at a constant distance for about 20 minutes.) i don't see my role as trying to convince people of anything; this post simply pushes back on false declarations. it does seem odd that people who find this to be a waste of time would post misleading information here -- it's a waste of time, right?

 

but i take frank's point that a lot of astronomers will see this as a silly or deluded topic, and that's fine. he's right, and he's among them. and i am happy to leave them as they are with things they only "imagine" that they saw.

So the first video appears to be someone giving an eyewitness account - and with all that technology there is no video of any kind?  Multiple advanced fighter jets rippling with sensors and no data presented?

 

The second one is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  I don't feel motivated at all to go into the rich details of all these observations when the ones promoted as truly compelling are painfully obvious and should have been culled completely - and certainly not shown up front.

 

If you look in the comments for that youtube you can see at least one person knows what it is.  It is just an autofocus search by the poor videocamera as it goes out to infinity (good focus) and lingers a bit - then decides to search again.  I would want details of the camera (rather important info not provided) to confirm.  Many of the examples touted up front as amazing are just camera artifacts - including iris and autofocus routines.  You can hear the other person in the video saying that it's weird it is pulsing in the camera - but to the naked eye it isn't.  Indeed - that would be weird if it were truly blowing up in size and doing weird things.

 

I'm perfectly open and interested to see really compelling evidence.  But I don't need eyewitness accounts since I already have my own odd observations I can't explain.  The earth is now covered with videocameras at the ready for weird things that suddenly appear - even in low light conditions.  But unfortunately most humans don't have experience pointing those cameras at isolated lights against a dark sky - and don't know what an unhappy camera searching for focus looks like.

 

A first step would be for someone to point me to something truly interesting.  Hasn't happened yet.

 

Frank


  • frank5817 likes this

#37 tdfwds

tdfwds

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2021

Posted 26 November 2021 - 09:50 AM

i looked at this and think it is better suited for UAP or "stuff" observations. the more UFO centered sites are UFOhunter and UFOstalker. (you need to zoom in on the maps to see the full detail.) i have not used either, but i believe there is talk to create cellphone apps that people can use to make quick reports that in turn can be pushed out to other users to confirm.

 

i don't know how effective or helpful that can be, but it suggests that people are casting around for literally any idea to assist in increasing citizen observations and the reliability of citizen observations, which is of course why i posted here.

 

the two things that strike me after a really exhaustive review of "UFO" videos available online is (apart from the hoaxes, which are often fun and clever) are that most people are not at all familiar with observing the night sky and make obvious misattributions for what appear to be ordinary things, and most people have no idea how to operate a video recording device to minimize tremor, focus and track accurately.

 

again, amateur astronomers are a little more adept at things optical, astronomical and photographic, and seem (to me at least) to represent a potentially very important cadre of citizen witnesses.

This again in many ways shows significant points.

 

UFOcapture has been used in Japan and mainland Europe and Brasil using multiple station sites having equipment paid for voluntarily by true citizen scientist and often mounted at their homes.  No one pays them, they add it to public databases freely.  Granted, costs mean personal affordability, but probably cheaper than most here have spent on a telescope.  Of course, some pre-processing of data has to be done, it isn't all automatic, however that's not unique either, variable star people do it all the time, DSO of both DSes (deep sky and double star) people stack their images to get the best image, and some use video style imaging and wade through their frames.  Planetary imagers especially so.

 

For things like UFOcapture to work you need at least two stations within a certain distance of each other.  The start height and end height of meteors can then be parallaxed.  You'll say that's not likely to happen, but it has happened for meteors at relatively limited cost outlay, done by people who are really interested, maybe ufo people are only interested in going "ooooh! means something" and conspiracy theories and re-interpretation of anecdote and written word like a fundamentalist reads any religion's scripture whilst ignoring the rest of reality?

 

UFOcapture is unfortunately misnomered, it is not always clear what Japanese people mean when they use the USA English loanwords they like, as it is not necessarily what we think, although its original source may have been more akin to what we think.  For instance, 'yankee' doesn't mean someone from the USA, it means a loud and ostentatious person, from anywhere nowadays.  A more aggressive person can be alluded to as a 'rambo', and I've heard that 'full monty' is popular with them too, which is a UK English loaned word.  In fact, the few I've heard of or come across over the years increasingly seem to be related to so called pop-culture.

 

So, you need a bunch of interested people to set up some networks, use some software like ufocapture that already does the image processing stuff for you (of course, you have to learn how to use it, and plenty of people can afford to run websites on "ufo" stuff and go around spending personal time collecting "data" for evidence.  Others have a spare few quid from their books and/or documentaries they could chuck into the pot, or could at least publicise it with a nod.  And the data would be public and amenable to the scientific community to critique.  Of course if they failed to identify some strange phenomenon, it'd be "ooooh!", even if the phenomenon remained unidentified.  Unidentified appears to instantly mean [insert twilight zone theme tune here] to many, when it actually means unidentified, ironically enough.

 

But all these people can't setup an easy network like this?

 

And then you go on about there must be enough on cameras out there.

 

Well there is.

 

The orbit of the Chebalynsk meteor and its likely strewn field came a lot from dashcams, and even if the cars had no gps, the streetview of the cams image could be used to get the lat long, and was.

 

The strewn field of a recent Gloucester meteor was accurately defined using doorbell cams of all things!  Of course you know where the house is.  However you also know what time an image was taken and smartphones have a spying gps or cell tower interpolator to figure out where you are and what you are up to in most countries (not for the governments to spy on you, worse, the "big evil corporates" who don't want to supress your freedom, just that of the freedom of your spending habits.  Without these corporates and new technology I doubt big money advertising would have survived much into the 21st Century, as we've become inured to it).

 

Most of the chewy amateur network data used by the NHM (Natural History Museum) came from UKMON, which if I remember rightly uses UFOcapture (although to be honest I do get it confused with NEMETODE, another UK one.  Why they haven't merged for more coverage I dunno).

 

But you seem to dismiss ufocapture out of hand.

 

Your topic was the SCIENTIFIC etc.

 

However, your responses are full of "but"s and geared towards evidence based on unscientifically acquired and assessed data.

 

GMN, Global Meteor Network, amateur, though possibly with pro guidance, and SETI CAMS, definitely with pro guidance, intend to do as allsky as possible every clear night monitoring, almost exclusively, if not exclusively, with volunteers, many of them amateur, or if connected to something academic the meteor stuff is their hobby not their discipline.

 

SETI CAMS amazes me, as SETI can be seen to manage a load of drivel at times, like pointing at M13 about 13,000 lightyears away and sending a signal.  What was all that about?  I'll eat my words when the reply comes on my 26,100th birthday...

 

I dunno, I'm preaching to the unconvertable, and you'll do what you want.

 

However, your topic word was SCIENTIFIC, and when folk try to aid you in that area, all we get is "but" and "it would be nice if".  It's doable now!  Has been for some time.  Just no interest.  Allsky imaging is becoming standard and frequent at several magnitude ranges.  Ask apass for all their images so you can get someone to write a script to wade through them.

 

The odd youtube video doesn't cut it.  In the UK some years ago the two, now elderly, once the little sisters of the fairies at the bottom of the garden image of around the early 20th Century finally admitted it was a hoax done by some bloke who knew their family.  The papers made a big thing of this, whereas the rest of us kind of went "oh, it's a fake is it, what a shock".  Although most folk will have actually never have heard of it, as pop-culture changes every two minutes nowadays, not on decade long or multi-decade intervals.

 

Go for it.  Scientifically.  What you're on about with youtube etc is tantamount to conspiracy theory games, not scientific discourse.



#38 rgsalinger

rgsalinger

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 11,543
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Carlsbad Ca

Posted 26 November 2021 - 11:23 AM

"A much more likely source of explanation is some natural optical phenomenon in our own atmosphere. In my 1949 sightings the faintness of the object, together with the manner of fading in intensity as it traveled away from the zenith towards the southeastern horizon, is quite suggestive of a reflection from an optical boundary or surface of slight contrast in refractive index, as in an inversion layer.[27]"

 

from Wikipedia quoting Clyde Tombaugh about the "UFOs" that he saw. Just to keep the discussion fact based.

 

Rgrds-Ross


  • Organic Astrochemist likes this

#39 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,790
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 26 November 2021 - 12:42 PM

Given the amount of tracking of satellites and space debris that goes on, I find it hard to believe that alien spaceships get into our atmosphere without being tracked.



#40 Organic Astrochemist

Organic Astrochemist

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,249
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2015

Posted 26 November 2021 - 01:30 PM

Given the amount of tracking of satellites and space debris that goes on, I find it hard to believe that alien spaceships get into our atmosphere without being tracked.

Satellites and space debris are irrelevant. We are talking about “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon”.
Some people want to find something “in the air” so they need only to look within our atmosphere.

#41 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,790
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 26 November 2021 - 04:33 PM

Satellites and space debris are irrelevant. We are talking about “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon”.
Some people want to find something “in the air” so they need only to look within our atmosphere.

I'm all for looking for new atmospheric and astronomical phenomena.  I just don't think there's any substantial chance that they're alien spaceships.



#42 tdfwds

tdfwds

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2021

Posted 26 November 2021 - 06:00 PM

I'm all for looking for new atmospheric and astronomical phenomena.  I just don't think there's any substantial chance that they're alien spaceships.

There's no experimentally backed theory chance either.  The nearest star is 4.3 years away at light speed, and any mass travelling at light speed will have zero length and some serious mass (a black hole in fact).  If you accelerated up to near any portion of lightspeed that'd take time and you'd have to spend as long slowing down.  That's why Einstein's twins thought experiment doesn't quite work in practice, the accelaration and deceleration cancel out.  However, it does work for freefall orbit, as has been shown for a NASA astronaut who spent a long time on some mission and had a twin who wasn't an astronaut (I forget the details, and the difference was miniscule).  Sure you can invent hyperspace and immense longevity (a thousand years journey with nothing but travel scrabble to pass the time...), suspended animation that actually works if you're clever aliens (or overgrown tardegrades (shove a galactic penny in the bank and wait for the interest to accrue over time whilst you're away, and if there is still a home when you get back you'll find a galactic penny chew now costs a million galactic bucks due to inflation).

 

Not to mention this constant insistence of bipedalism, even some 50s space horror fics had more imagination at times.  Fossil evidence has shown that vertebrate pentadactylism wasn't necessarily unique, despite the fact that it has ended up being unique and has been so for a long time.

 

Yes, new atmospheric phenomena, the sprites, the blue forget the names, the elfs, steve, all nice stuff, and needing the digital age to be imaged in some cases they're so fast.  I wonder if Minnaert's Light and Color in the Outdoors is still in print?  Lovely little book, any astronomer interested in viewing should get a copy.  There's a "poor man's spectroscopy" colour plate too (defocused image of the naked eye Plough and environs).  It's a good book for anyone interested in a one stop shop on atmospheric phenomena or an interest in nuances of optical physics!

 

The sheer presentation of the "it must be aliens then" is so unreal a jump.

 

But if the OP or others want to study it scientifically through observation, they can do so, they have to organised, thorough, set up a network, and follow the data NOT LEAD IT!


Edited by tdfwds, 26 November 2021 - 06:01 PM.


#43 ButterFly

ButterFly

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,289
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2018

Posted 26 November 2021 - 06:53 PM

I'm all for looking for new atmospheric and astronomical phenomena. I just don't think there's any substantial chance that they're alien spaceships.


Unidentified means unidentified - not alien. Militaries are more concerned about foreign spaceships, whose workings we don't understand. Whether they are foreign or alien doesn't really matter.

People need to stop equating "I don't know what it is" with "It's aliens".
  • SabiaJD, Haze, Michael Covington and 1 other like this

#44 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 27 November 2021 - 10:21 PM

i think skepticism is healthy. why not ask for better evidence on a question still undecided? but you should take into account the evidence that has been collected over the past seven decades.

 

however, frank omits two points. he buys into the bunkist claims of false attributions, which usually require you to ignore any information about the context. the "obvious artifact" explanation is always made by examining the photo documentation in isolation, excluding the testimony of the pilots and radar operators who made the observations -- and the response of the defense department to their reports.

 

"they're just mistaken." well, here's lieutenant Ryan Graves describing the missions that created two of the released us navy videos, along with some anecdotes about pilots so disturbed by their encounters they didn't even wait to strip off their sweaty flight suits to make a report, or an object that  appeared so close to a pair of jets that it passed between them at a distance of less than 50 feet, or the official report up the chain of command that a mid air collision with the UFO was "only a matter of time" (one of the reasons the defense department is taking these things seriously), and finally an "eyes on" description of one of the encounters that is "debunked" by Mick West:

 

https://www.youtube....3ntYkFM&t=6010s

 

the presentation earlier in the video by professor Kevin Knuth is also of interest. and graves's presentation is followed by Ted Roe of NARCAP describing incidents reported by commercial air pilots.

 

the second and more significant omission is that frank apparently hasn't examined the video i posted above, because he regrets that "at least some" have not been recorded. try looking at it objectively and tell me what kind of misattributed object you think it is:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Gu0EemWzZpM

 

(again, context matters: this thing paced the aircraft at a constant distance for about 20 minutes.) i don't see my role as trying to convince people of anything; this post simply pushes back on false declarations. it does seem odd that people who find this to be a waste of time would post misleading information here -- it's a waste of time, right?

 

but i take frank's point that a lot of astronomers will see this as a silly or deluded topic, and that's fine. he's right, and he's among them. and i am happy to leave them as they are with things they only "imagine" that they saw.

If you freeze the second video referenced and zoom in you can clearly see the UFO is a small little crescent shaped object. KInda like Venus in my scope. But I'm no expert. 



#45 Mister T

Mister T

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 28 November 2021 - 08:09 AM

ihaventseenanycompellingexamplesandtherecentonesthatwerereleasedaresoeasilyexplainedthatiassumethepeoplereviewingthemhavelittlebasicknowledgeofimagingandgeometrysolackingasinglecompellingexampleidontexpectasystematicinvestigationtobeworthwhileatthesametimeitwouldhavehighrewardthoughlowchanceofsuccessfrank

Could you repost that in all caps?

I'm getting hard of hearing.



#46 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,574
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 29 November 2021 - 07:12 AM

I certainly hope and think the most feasible answer to the UFO problem is; if they exist in the physical world then they must be ET.  I am quite sure if they were Chinese or Russian we would now be happy CCP and/or USSR commies.  If it is us then either one or both would be happy speaking American English.  If they come in another dimension then that too is okay since they have yet to learn how to defeat Einstein's speed limit. 


Edited by Jeff B1, 29 November 2021 - 07:14 AM.

  • Miguelo likes this

#47 FloridaFocus

FloridaFocus

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 26 May 2016
  • Loc: Gainesville, FL

Posted 29 November 2021 - 05:00 PM

I certainly hope and think the most feasible answer to the UFO problem is; if they exist in the physical world then they must be ET. I am quite sure if they were Chinese or Russian we would now be happy CCP and/or USSR commies. If it is us then either one or both would be happy speaking American English. If they come in another dimension then that too is okay since they have yet to learn how to defeat Einstein's speed limit.


I don't quite agree with that, respectfully. Looking at past/recent US military involvement in affairs around the globe, aerial dominance is quite different from achieving dominance on the ground and within populations. To say an advanced aerial capability would result in a vastly different geopolitical landscape is unlikely, imho.

However it would be quite helpful in defense.

Personally, I hope that it IS our govt aircraft engaging in test flights, and that our "investigatory" efforts are mere subterfuge to throw off geopolitical adversaries.

I hope...

#48 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,574
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 29 November 2021 - 05:29 PM

I don't quite agree with that, respectfully. Looking at past/recent US military involvement in affairs around the globe, aerial dominance is quite different from achieving dominance on the ground and within populations. To say an advanced aerial capability would result in a vastly different geopolitical landscape is unlikely, imho.

However it would be quite helpful in defense.

Personally, I hope that it IS our govt aircraft engaging in test flights, and that our "investigatory" efforts are mere subterfuge to throw off geopolitical adversaries.

I hope...

May I ask; have you served?



#49 FloridaFocus

FloridaFocus

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 26 May 2016
  • Loc: Gainesville, FL

Posted 29 November 2021 - 06:15 PM

May I ask; have you served?


I have not, although I respect all those who have.

#50 Mister T

Mister T

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 November 2021 - 07:17 AM

I am beginning to think that the myraid complexities and obstacles to space exploration anre going to prove to be too much for mankind to overcome before we overpopulate this planet and have a mass exctinction event of our own.

Maybe it takes several "evolutions" of intelligent species on a planet before one gets smart enough to take care of it's ecosystem and not die off, choked by it's own waste, to gain the insight into the ability to spread across the universe.

A comet gave us our niche and we are wearing it out.

in another BY or so the cockroaches or rats or tardigrades will spread into the galaxy...




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics