Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
birdguy

NASA to start UFO investigations...

Recommended Posts

One of the officers in my weather flight was also a forecaster at the NWS station at the old Stapleton airport in Denver.

When they first got doppler radar they were getting what they interpreted as false echos from a hilltop east of Denver.  It looked like rain, but when they went outside and physically looked in that direction they saw nothing but blue sky.

They finally figured it out.  As that hilltop warmed in the afternoon insects were being raised in the warm, ascending air.  The swarms of insects looked like rain on the doppler.

I imagine there are many other 'unseen' phenomena that appear on radar and have no immediate explanation.

Those insects could just as well have been a cloaked UFO.

Noel   


The tires are worn.  The shocks are shot.  The steering is wobbly.  But the engine still runs fine.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, sightseer said:

Did you know that some dogs (maybe all) can sense that a person is going to have a seizure?  Our best medical technology can't even pick up what some dogs can.  What do they see or smell?  What sense do they use to sense a seizure before it happens?

My question to martin was actually about my ghost story and how or why would my two friends chase something they couldn't see.

 

Some dogs have been reported to sense such things. Doesn't imply its anything paranormal though. A dogs sense of smell is tens of thousands of times more sensitive than ours. Fear and even sadness are associated with changes in body odour, so no reason why the same mechanism isn't at work with seizures. Sense of smell is almost like a form of eyesight to a dog.

As for your two friends, nobody said they didn't see anything, no doubt there would have been some kind of visual stimulus.

 

Quote

Why must something be "real, physical (tangible)" just because it can be seen or otherwise detected? 

 

It doesn't have to be a real physical object if seen.  An hallucination manifests as a visual image but there's no real object there. The eyes capture the light and it stimulates the retina, but the processing is done in the brain and the brain can manipulate it beyond what's relay there or create an image that isn't. What we shouldn't do is jump to the conclusion that some form of paranormal activity is at play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

science has always been boxed-in by its own definitions. It draws a line in the sand at the edge of current understandings and dismisses anything that falls outside / past the line as impossible

 

No that's not true at all. What is beyond our current understanding is precisely that, science does not say its impossible and just dismiss it. Take ghosts for example, science doesn't say its impossible, just that we have no evidence for its existence. Same for alien visitation, science doesn't say its impossible just that there's no definitive evidence. 

 

Quote

Science may be ill-equipped to investigate/understand this (and other) phenomena because it may be operating from a completely different (faulty?) paradigm. 

 

Err... the scientific method has proved its worth, we would still be in caves without the scientific method and you wouldn't be typing on your PC that relies on quantum physics. It works, its proven it works. It will continue to work, but if UFO's ghosts or anything else wishes to be accepted by science then it needs to provide PROPER evidence, not just hearsay and "what he said" and what "bob writing a book about aliens said".

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Some dogs have been reported to sense such things. Doesn't imply its anything paranormal though.

I didn't say it was 'paranormal'.  In fact, that's what I've been driving at and I think DaviiB would agree.  "Paranormal" is in the eye of the beholder -- or more to the point -- paranormal is the term applied to science not yet evidenced enough.  But not looking for evidence is certainly no way to find it.

"Spooky magic at a distance" -- it fairly well screams 'paranormal' -- but is it? today?  so what else is 'paranormal' that won't be when we get over our biases against such things as ghosts and actually figure them out?  

We surely never will figure them out but, to me, they are real while UFOs have only possibility.


|   Dave   |    I've been around for most of my life.

There's always a sunset happening somewhere in the world that somebody is enjoying.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Here's the problem...

Often UFO's are real physical objects. People see objects in the sky they cant identify all the time. Most of the time those objects can be explained. Its only a small percentage that cant, but that doesn't mean they are alien spacecraft or anything unusual at all. 

 

You are absolutely correct, except 2 things:

  1. The defense department reported that 143 out of 144 incidents / objects in question could not be identified. When dealing with trained observers (people who's job it is to identify objects in the sky), the percentages seem to swing the other way a bit.
  2. One trained observer, reporting an anomalous object is one thing. Dozens (or more) trained observers reporting similar anomalous objects and extremely unusual maneuvers is something very different.

How much expert eyewitness testimony would it take to pass the point of reasonable doubt in court? (not a rhetorical question). Healthy skepticism is extremely useful....but how much expert testimony is needed to get over the hump and acknowledge that a phenomenon is very real and deserving of a serious look?

The defense department has poured a lot of time and money into investigating this phenomenon, in secret. The Navy is throwing flags citing air safety as an issue. They are taking a very serious look.....and the discourse online is arguing over pixels on a grainy video...

Perhaps we're missing the forest for the trees? On that note:

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

You mean like the green triangle UFO, shot by an IR cameras from the deck of a ship? This is a prime example of how we can refrain from assuming anything alien or mysterious when they say "we don't know what they are".

Some of the videos don't seem to show anything particularly extraordinary, and lend themselves to fairly easy scrutiny. But let's flip the script here for a minute. Let's say the defense department were to announce the following incident:

  • Trained observers (fighter pilots) witnessed a known craft, operating in a normal fashion, exhibiting traditional propulsion and performing normal maneuvers.
  • Trained radar operators witnessed the same craft, on sophisticated radar systems, performing the same normal maneuvers that pilots witnessed.
  • Aircraft radar recorded the same
  • (grainy) FLIR footage was recorded, at a distance, of the craft demonstrating said normal maneuvers and normal propulsion.
  • Audio accompanies the video, describing the same.

Would you have any trouble believing the facts of the incident, as reported? As I see it, there would be little need to question it, as all of the information is congruent.

Now: Lets flip the words around:   known > unknown      normal > abnormal / seemingly impossible     traditional > exotic/unknown

With the same level of evidence, we're now reduced to analyzing pixels on the video only (in the case of the Gimbal), and potentially dismissing the incident altogether, implying:

  • The trained observers completely misidentified a craft (some at close range) and misinterpreted the maneuvers it was performing as they were looking at it
  • Radar operators misread their displays, misinterpreted the data or extremely sophisticated ship-borne radar malfunctioned
  • Aircraft radar malfunctioned in the same manner

All at the same time.....

There's the popular assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".....but would a mountain of ordinary evidence suffice? 

There are some complications here in that:

  1. It's never in the defense department's best interest to publicly admit it doesn't know something, or to fully admit what it knows.
  2. Releasing hi-res photos or videos may inadvertently demonstrate to the world the exact (currently classified) capabilities of some US weapons / imaging systems.
  3. Same as above for radar information.

 

But at some point, we need to rip the band aid off. Either the videos do not show anything particularly anomalous, and dozens/hundreds of trained military pilots and radar operators are incompetent, poorly trained, or flat out lying (in perfect unison), or there is a prevalent phenomenon, that has been witnessed for decades, and defies explanation.

Either way, something significant is happening. I actually find the former possibility much scarier than the latter lol.

DB

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Err... the scientific method has proved its worth,

NO, he's completely right.  Science is limited by its own findings and the tools that have been built that are based on those findings.  We simply have no idea how to look for what we completely unaware of and we have no tools to do it.


|   Dave   |    I've been around for most of my life.

There's always a sunset happening somewhere in the world that somebody is enjoying.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, martin-w said:

 

No that's not true at all. What is beyond our current understanding is precisely that, science does not say its impossible and just dismiss it. Take ghosts for example, science doesn't say its impossible, just that we have no evidence for its existence. Same for alien visitation, science doesn't say its impossible just that there's no definitive evidence. 

Without going too deep on this....scientific study requires money. Try getting funding to do a serious study the phenomena and you'll very quickly find where the line is drawn. Call it bias, dogma, or whatever you like....but why has serious study of the UFO phenomenon had to be carried out in secret by credible scientists? (look it up, it's been happening for decades). 

Evidence of the paranormal does exist....some of which might even meet the requirements to qualify as proof. It is often ignored.

There is much to be said about how attitudes toward a subject significantly influence the ability to study it. Just look up how long it took to convince doctors to wash their hands between procedures (spoiler: literally decades)....after which a mysterious affliction killing new mothers right after birth suddenly disappeared.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Some dogs have been reported to sense such things. Doesn't imply its anything paranormal though. A dogs sense of smell is tens of thousands of times more sensitive than ours. Fear and even sadness are associated with changes in body odour, so no reason why the same mechanism isn't at work with seizures. Sense of smell is almost like a form of eyesight to a dog.

As for your two friends, nobody said they didn't see anything, no doubt there would have been some kind of visual stimulus.

Agree with Martin on this. The nose of the dog is so sharp it could be construed  as something paranormal. I've read several descriptions that dogs actually 'see' smell and I would say it is an apt description. 

One example; my sister and her family lives next door to a police officer that always worked with dogs in the line of duty. The dog she was working with was capable of sniffing out drugs inside a vacuum jug submerged in a barrel of diesel (granted I could probably provide a theory of how that was possible outside of actually sniffing the contraband in that environment). 

Our own pooch has no problems sniffing out which way our two kids took when they go outside. And he has had no training what so ever and isn't even a tracking breed (just a humble 14 y/o poodle).

Dogs, truly, are mans best friend. 🥰


Richard Johansson

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Err... the scientific method has proved its worth, we would still be in caves without the scientific method and you wouldn't be typing on your PC that relies on quantum physics. It works, its proven it works. It will continue to work, but if UFO's ghosts or anything else wishes to be accepted by science then it needs to provide PROPER evidence, not just hearsay and "what he said" and what "bob writing a book about aliens said".

The scientific method is very useful.... to a point. 

Science has established standards for what is 'real', what exists, and what qualifies as evidence. All of the tools and techniques for finding and measuring that evidence are based within the established standards (physical evidence, EM spectrum, sound etc etc). 

What if something exists outside of that paradigm? Say, perhaps outside the current measurable EM Spectrum? If you can't measure it, how do you know it's 'real'? Thusfar, science has not found a hard limit to knowledge..... there's been always a deeper level, or more complexity to be explored/understood, so the edges of what's 'real' are fuzzy at best, because the limits of understanding are constantly expanding. 

To best illustrate.... How would you demonstrate the existence of radio waves to a farmer in the year 1200AD, using the available scientific tools/understanding at the time? You would probably sound quite crazy, because they would not have even the beginnings of the necessary basic knowledge to build on.... to eventually get to understanding radio waves. 

To insist on PROPER evidence implies that the paradigm you're operating within, and the tools you're using are complete, and correct, and nothing can exist outside of it. It ignores the possibility that something may exist well outside of the bounds of current understanding, which does not leave 'proper' evidence of its existence because we're not looking in the right way. 

 

A radio wave is invisible, does not leave physical tracks, yet it is very real, and easy to prove IF you have the right tools. 

 

DB

Edited by DaviiB

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2022 at 5:21 PM, sightseer said:

I didn't say it was 'paranormal'.  In fact, that's what I've been driving at and I think DaviiB would agree.  "Paranormal" is in the eye of the beholder -- or more to the point -- paranormal is the term applied to science not yet evidenced enough.  But not looking for evidence is certainly no way to find it.

 

 Well you could argue that there are two kinds of paranormal. 1: Stuff we regard as paranormal that turns out to have some evidence in its favour. 2: Utter nonsense that's has no bearing in reality at all. As for not looking for evidence, there are numerous examples of science doing just that. There have been scientific studies into telepathy, precognition, telekinesis and yes, even research into ghosts and haunted houses. Now you might argue that more funding needs to be directed this way but the issue is that scientific funding for research is finite, its not a bottomless well, so it tends to be spent less on the fringes and more on research into diseases that kill and aspects of reality that we are trying to puzzle out, like what is dark energy and dark matter, in other words what makes up 95% of the universe. If you would like more funding into research into the paranormal then overall scientific funding needs to be increased and I for one am all in favour of that. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304295/

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2022 at 5:31 PM, DaviiB said:

You are absolutely correct, except 2 things:

  1. The defense department reported that 143 out of 144 incidents / objects in question could not be identified. When dealing with trained observers (people who's job it is to identify objects in the sky), the percentages seem to swing the other way a bit.
  2. One trained observer, reporting an anomalous object is one thing. Dozens (or more) trained observers reporting similar anomalous objects and extremely unusual maneuvers is something very different.

 

Regarding "1"

You need to consider that the defence department was incapable of recognising a simple photographic effect and aircraft anti-collision lights, something any photographer and aircraft enthusiast could have told them instantly.  So how much confidence does that give you in terms of the other 143 incidents? They have still failed to identify a simple de-rotation mechanisms effect and have still failed to recognize that the so called "tic tac" video did not display physics defying acceleration. How many more of those 143 UAP reports also have a simple explanation? If this is an example of their investigative expertise, I don't think we should be too confident that the other 143 cases are as mysterious as claimed. 

Regarding "2"

Dozens of trained observers still isn't something that could be called "scientific evidence". You and I have the luxury of being impressed by such things, scientists don't. The bar for scientific evidence is set much higher, by necessity, it has to be. For example, what if those dozens of trained observers are part of a disinformation campaign? I mean there are examples in history of the UFO phenomenon being used by government to distract from the truth. I'm not saying that is happening, just that its why we cant be definitive and why science needs more than just "what observers said".

We also need to understand that "trained observers" aren't infallible. For example, Chad Underwood himself who claimed the "tic tac" object accelerated off his screen rapidly, admitted in a latter article that it was ambiguous and he couldn't say definitively that it did so, and of course, we now know it didn't. He was a trained observer that was wrong.

Then we have the discrepancies in the testimony of Fravor and Kevin Day, with Day claiming  the tic tac did things that Fravor said it didn't. Then we have claims that the tic tac vanished in front of Fravor and reappeared at the CAP, so multi Mach speed in a instant. But it wasn't tracked all the way so we have no idea if the object at the CAP was the same object, it may not have been, so zero physics defying mega G and multi Mach, physics defying acceleration.

So yes, you and I can be impressed by "trained observers" claiming things, but science needs more... with good reason. 

 

On 6/23/2022 at 5:31 PM, DaviiB said:
  • Trained observers (fighter pilots) witnessed a known craft, operating in a normal fashion, exhibiting traditional propulsion and performing normal maneuvers.
  • Trained radar operators witnessed the same craft, on sophisticated radar systems, performing the same normal maneuvers that pilots witnessed.
  • Aircraft radar recorded the same
  • (grainy) FLIR footage was recorded, at a distance, of the craft demonstrating said normal maneuvers and normal propulsion.
  • Audio accompanies the video, describing the same.

Would you have any trouble believing the facts of the incident, as reported? As I see it, there would be little need to question it, as all of the information is congruent.

 

Well, no, of course I wouldn't have trouble believing the above... because its mundane, believable, and something we understand and witness all the time.  Its not an extraordinary claim. Physics defying manoeuvres that suggest our physics is garbage and needs to be thrown in the bin is an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence. 

 

On 6/23/2022 at 5:31 PM, DaviiB said:

There's the popular assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".....but would a mountain of ordinary evidence suffice?

 

No! Of course not. This "mountain of evidence" this "look at the bigger picture attitude" is a red herring, its distracting and misleading and not the way research is done.

We know that 95% plus of UFO reports are mundane, natural phenomena and that only a very small percentage are truly without explanation, mysterious and potentially alien visitation. Now here's the thing, if you just lump all of that together you end up with a polluted data set with 95% of it garbage. This is why it is essential to analyse each and every report in detail, that includes things like "did the gimbal UFO really rotate" and "did the "tic tac" UFO accelerate rapidly", and "was the object filmed by the Navy really dropping into the sea or did it really just drop below the horizon". By analysing in detail each and every report and eliminating the explainable, you end up with the true mystery and decent quality data that can be analysed and conclusions drawn.

 

On 6/23/2022 at 5:31 PM, DaviiB said:

Either way, something significant is happening. 

 

Agreed. Something significant has been happening for a very long time, And we still haven't a clue what it represents. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2022 at 5:37 PM, sightseer said:

NO, he's completely right.  Science is limited by its own findings and the tools that have been built that are based on those findings.  We simply have no idea how to look for what we completely unaware of and we have no tools to do it.

 

True and science is aware of that and admits it. But its a good idea if we non-scientists don't believe without proper evidence, because there's a very high probability we are wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Regarding "1"

You need to consider that the defence department was incapable of recognising a simple photographic effect and aircraft anti-collision lights, something any photographer and aircraft enthusiast could have told them instantly.  So how much confidence does that give you in terms of the other 143 incidents? They have still failed to identify a simple de-rotation mechanisms effect and have still failed to recognize that the so called "tic tac" video did not display physics defying acceleration. How many more of those 143 UAP reports also have a simple explanation? If this is an example of their investigative expertise, I don't think we should be too confident that the other 143 cases are as mysterious as claimed. 

Regarding "2"

Dozens of trained observers still isn't something that could be called "scientific evidence". You and I have the luxury of being impressed by such things, scientists don't. The bar for scientific evidence is set much higher, by necessity, it has to be. For example, what if those dozens of trained observers are part of a disinformation campaign? I mean there are examples in history of the UFO phenomenon being used by government to distract from the truth. I'm not saying that is happening, just that its why we cant be definitive and why science needs more than just "what observers said".

We also need to understand that "trained observers" aren't infallible. For example, Chad Underwood himself who claimed the "tic tac" object accelerated off his screen rapidly, admitted in a latter article that it was ambiguous and he couldn't say definitively that it did so, and of course, we now know it didn't. He was a trained observer that was wrong.

Then we have the discrepancies in the testimony of Fravor and Kevin Day, with Day claiming  the tic tac did things that Fravor said it didn't. Then we have claims that the tic tac vanished in front of Fravor and reappeared at the CAP, so multi Mach speed in a instant. But it wasn't tracked all the way so we have no idea if the object at the CAP was the same object, it may not have been, so zero physics defying mega G and multi Mach, physics defying acceleration.

So yes, you and I can be impressed by "trained observers" claiming things, but science needs more... with good reason. 

Please watch these two short videos when you have time. 

The lead scientist / investigator behind the DoD report (RE: 143 unexplainable reports).... has been identified, and interviewed. Look up his credentials if you like. 

Here, he explains the processes they used to investigate the cases, and the corroborative evidence they were working with. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2022 at 7:28 PM, DaviiB said:

What if something exists outside of that paradigm? Say, perhaps outside the current measurable EM Spectrum? If you can't measure it, how do you know it's 'real'? Thusfar, science has not found a hard limit to knowledge..... there's been always a deeper level, or more complexity to be explored/understood, so the edges of what's 'real' are fuzzy at best, because the limits of understanding are constantly expanding. 

 

Well of course. Science doesn't pertain to know everything. Its a work in progress and probably always will be. That wasn't why I responded to you, I was referring to your claim that science regards things as "impossible". It doesn't, its simply says we don't have evidence for its existence. And personally, for me, to believe in something without proper evidence for its exitance is misguided.

 

On 6/23/2022 at 7:28 PM, DaviiB said:

To insist on PROPER evidence implies that the paradigm you're operating within, and the tools you're using are complete, and correct, and nothing can exist outside of it. It ignores the possibility that something may exist well outside of the bounds of current understanding, which does not leave 'proper' evidence of its existence because we're not looking in the right way. 

 

No, that's wrong. It doesn't at all imply that "nothing can exist outside of it". And it does not "ignore the possibility that something may exist well outside of the bounds of current understanding". That's absolutely not what science does. Science, absolutely, most certainly, accepts that something can exist outside of our bounds of understanding.

Scientists speculate about what could exist outside of our bounds of understanding all the time. In fact quite a few scientists have speculated about how an alien spacecraft could function with exotic physics we don't fully understand yet. Michio Kau and many others have done such a thing. But that's speculation, not provable fact.

However when science is trying to determine definitive facts then obviously it requires solid evidence, not speculation, not creative interpretations, not allowing  imaginations to wander of into fanciful realms that may or may not exist. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

Please watch these two short videos when you have time. 

 

I'm not a fan of Travis Taylor to be honest. After watching that Skinwalker Ranch TV show I'm not impressed. But I'll watch them later. 

 

Sorry a fem minutes in and not impressed already. He criticizes other people that claim its Bokeh because they don't have other data sets. Huh... there was only one video where Bokeh was claimed and that has now been confirmed in the Congressional Hearing to be exactly that and an aircraft, just as Mick West and others claimed. So he can criticise de-bunkers all he likes, but they were absolutely 100% correct.

 I studied photography for 3 years and gained qualifications and recognised Bokeh immediately. Flashing aircraft anti collision lights, flying in a know airway, at the speed of an airliner... and he complains when de-bunkers claim the obvious. 🙄

Same for the gimbal rotation, this is now pretty much 100% definitive it didn't rotate and it was glare. 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...