• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

If we're going to talk science and UFOs there are a number of obstacles. First, 95% an investigation occurs after-the-fact. You to the location, talk to the witness, go back to the location at the same time, check flight logs, star charts, and so on to determine if what they saw has an explanation. Most of the time the object is identified. You're at the mercy of the eye-witness, whom you must pay attention to so you can determine if they are being honest, and that takes a long conversation where questions are carefully asked.

That other 5% might have video of varying quality, and maybe some radar. Even then there is a lot of sifting through the tech. Cameras can record stars and airplanes at night. Radar is not the slam-dunk UFO cultists believe it it. And this is all still after-the-fact.

UFO cultists pick on science because the big missing piece is a UFO passing into an area where scientific sensors are waiting (like the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind ). The USAF, Raytheon, Sandia Labs, and White Sands has places where that could happen, just a matter of some alien getting lost, or over-curious I guess. But until that happens all science has to work with are essentially ghost stories. The idea that science is close-minded on this subject demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is about. The bar isn't as high as UFO cultists claim.

Edited to add: Those places are test-ranges in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico where missiles, and ECM are put through their paces.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
If we're going to talk science and UFOs there are a number of obstacles. First, 95% an investigation occurs after-the-fact. You to the location, talk to the witness, go back to the location at the same time, check flight logs, star charts, and so on to determine if what they saw has an explanation. Most of the time the object is identified. You're at the mercy of the eye-witness, whom you must pay attention to so you can determine if they are being honest, and that takes a long conversation where questions are carefully asked.

That other 5% might have video of varying quality, and maybe some radar. Even then there is a lot of sifting through the tech. Cameras can record stars and airplanes at night. Radar is not the slam-dunk UFO cultists believe it it. And this is all still after-the-fact.

UFO cultists pick on science because the big missing piece is a UFO passing into an area where scientific sensors are waiting (like the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind ). The USAF, Raytheon, Sandia Labs, and White Sands has places where that could happen, just a matter of some alien getting lost, or over-curious I guess. But until that happens all science has to work with are essentially ghost stories. The idea that science is close-minded on this subject demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is about. The bar isn't as high as UFO cultists claim.

Edited to add: Those places are test-ranges in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico where missiles, and ECM are put through their paces.
Click to expand...
There are places in the world that have all-sky camera networks. Vide: https://aquarid.physics.uwo.ca/research/allsky/overview.html for one.

Or you can set up an all-sky camera for yourself. See: https://www.allskycams.com/

Let me know when someone gets a clear picture.
 
Just out of interest and in the interests of skepticism in general, I checked out the evidence that subsequently determined fairly conclusively that the McMinville report was a hoax.

There have been several pieces of new evidence studies, based on the scrutiny of the two photographs that were submitted, and although some of the math/s is quite detailed and complex to follow, the basic premise behind the methodology could itself be the subject of skepticism. For the record, I am inclined to think that the report was probably a hoax, but at the same time, although the research was on the surface thorough, I had a couple of queries that some of it was not quite kosher. I am posting the link, and without any prompts from me, I wonder if others picked out possible flaws in the photographic analysis, and equally important, the accuracy of the methodology.

 
Ex NASA Engineer Claims Cloaked Devices Hidden Across The Earth, Daily Mail

In the interview, Banduric described a covert effort by the US government and private research groups to study advanced materials allegedly recovered from unidentified flying objects.

He claimed that many of these mysterious objects were not simply crash debris, but part of what he suspects is a vast, invisible sensor network scattered around the world.

The engineer admitted he didn’t know who had placed the devices, but said they were unlike anything ever seen, not just decades ahead of current technology, but hundreds of years beyond it.

He described one such device as a 'sliver of metal' that could reconfigure and camouflage itself depending on its surroundings. 'It would cloak itself and try to blend into the environment,' he said. 'That's how we could tell it was extraterrestrial.'

Despite the bold claims, Banduric offered no physical evidence to support them.
Click to expand...

Well... At least he's got implausible acceptability working in his favor.
 
He described one such device as a 'sliver of metal' that could reconfigure and camouflage itself depending on its surroundings. 'It would cloak itself and try to blend into the environment,' he said. 'That's how we could tell it was extraterrestrial.'
Click to expand...

<tentatively raises hand> If it keeps disguising itself as different things, how did he know it was "a sliver of metal"?
 
Explorer said:
Whether or not it was a hoax, and I did mention this as it was considered a possibility in the Condon report, was not the subject matter of my post, it was only concerning the relative clarity of the shots, I think three in all were produced., compared to many others. I am not suggesting that it was the alternative, i.e. an extraordinary aerial object.
Click to expand...
Why yes, you did try to pass off a hoax as genuine, and why yes, I did catch you out on it and why yes, you are now trying to obfuscate your previous error.
 
Jeez, Avi Loeb is back at it, an the Daily Mail took the bait: https:

//www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14973597/Mysterious-interstellar-object-aiming-Earth-not-natural-scientists-rule-comet-theory.html

The appearance of a mysterious interstellar object has reignited debate over whether extraterrestrial technology could be hiding in our solar system.

NASA detected the object, dubbed 3I/ATLAS, on July 1, sparking a flurry of scientific analysis to determine its origin.

While more than 200 researchers have concluded it is likely a comet, Harvard physicist Avi Loeb has raised doubts in a newly released pre-print paper, pointing to one glaring omission: 3I/ATLAS has no visible tail.
Click to expand...
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Why yes, you did try to pass off a hoax as genuine, and why yes, I did catch you out on it and why yes, you are now trying to obfuscate your previous error.
Click to expand...
Nope. There was no error, I don't feel in the slightest "caught out", and I stand by how I phrased my post. How does quoting the Condon report suddenly become an error? The clarity of the shots, whether hoax or otherwise, were widely considered to be comparatively good, which was what prompted me to post in the first place. Clarity of shot, does not make any given report, any more or less of a hoax. Sometimes, sceptical verve is misplaced and applied when obviously inappropriate. I was simply trying to correct someone else's error.
 
Explorer said:
Nope. There was no error, I don't feel in the slightest "caught out", and I stand by how I phrased my post. How does quoting the Condon report suddenly become an error? The clarity of the shots, whether hoax or otherwise, were widely considered to be comparatively good, which was what prompted me to post in the first place. Clarity of shot, does not make any given report, any more or less of a hoax. Sometimes, sceptical verve is misplaced and applied when obviously inappropriate. I was simply trying to correct someone else's error.
Click to expand...
You posed the photo as a genuine extraterrestrial object and only tried to row back on your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ claim when you belatedly realised that such a claim wouldn't fly on a sceptics forum. This same pattern will repeat in the next six months if you continue posting here, in fact I wouldn't put it past you to make the exact same claim to genuineness you did when originally posting the hoax photo, and I'm also 0retty confident you've pulled the same nonense elsewhere on the internet.

So forgive me for taking your protestations with the disbelief they so richly deserve.
 
Solitaire said:
Well... At least he's got implausible acceptability working in his favor.
Click to expand...

Whenever I see someone refered to as being an "ex engineer" for some prominent government agency, I can't help but remember a fantasy novel in which a wizard tried to magically summon an "engineer" from Earth to his world to help with a threat and got a "sanitation engineer" (janitor) instead.
 
I suppose that could be a good thing depending on what threat his planet faced. If it was the threat of some kid having thrown a load of paper in the toilet and blocked it, it's probably ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom