French National Assembly to host UAP seminar with true believers

[boguesuser]

Well, in my case I was driving the first time and my new phone was in my glove compartment; I hadn't taken a picture with it yet. I don't know if I would have taken a picture if it was handy, as I don't know what would have happened if I did. Seeing something really strange, your mind wants to find a mundane explanation but can't. Wanting to see something strange and taking a picture of a plane, your mind will want to see aliens.
The second time with the capsule-shaped object, I didn't even have my phone on me, it was in the house.
You do have people who want to see aliens taking pictures of every light they see, creating a lot of noise. The number of real experiences is quite small.

A year or three ago I saw a "tic-tac" gently floating across my yard, probably about 600 or 800 feet in altitude. I ran inside to get my camera and made it back out shortly after it had passed overhead. I then spent the next three or so minutes futzing with the camera because I had somehow completely forgotten how to focus it. By the time I got it in the right mode, the object was a tiny spec in the distance. Not one picture was taken.

On top of that, rather than writing down the time it happened, for some reason I decided "I'll remember later". I did not.

It was most likely a balloon or blimp but I'll never know for sure since I couldn't get that damn picture :/

 

[Ann K]

Yes but isn't this argument unfalsifiable?

If the situation is one person seeing one anomaly, it can't be falsified, but if several people see (or take pictures of) an event, that's not necessarily so. If A sees a bird but B, C, and D have a closer view or a better quality photo, they can certainly demonstrate that it was a balloon, not a bird.

 

[Ann K]

A year or three ago I saw a "tic-tac" gently floating across my yard, probably about 600 or 800 feet in altitude. I ran inside to get my camera and made it back out shortly after it had passed overhead. I then spent the next three or so minutes futzing with the camera because I had somehow completely forgotten how to focus it. By the time I got it in the right mode, the object was a tiny spec in the distance. Not one picture was taken.

On top of that, rather than writing down the time it happened, for some reason I decided "I'll remember later". I did not.

It was most likely a balloon or blimp but I'll never know for sure since I couldn't get that damn picture :/

I once saw a strangely shaped hot-air balloon, low down over my neighborhood, and as I was driving I followed it for a bit. I had no doubt of its identification and could clearly see the basket below and the people in it. But I wondered whether there were people who just caught a glimpse, and doubted their own sanity to see ...an enormous banana go past their window!

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

If the situation is one person seeing one anomaly, it can't be falsified, but if several people see (or take pictures of) an event, that's not necessarily so. If A sees a bird but B, C, and D have a closer view or a better quality photo, they can certainly demonstrate that it was a balloon, not a bird.

Exactly, multiple independent testimonies provide at least some corroboration, raising the claim from a simple anecdote to a pattern worth investigating.

I once saw a strangely shaped hot-air balloon, low down over my neighborhood, and as I was driving I followed it for a bit. I had no doubt of its identification and could clearly see the basket below and the people in it. But I wondered whether there were people who just caught a glimpse, and doubted their own sanity to see ...an enormous banana go past their window!

The banana balloon proves my point: human vision didn't fail or hallucinate in this case, it correctly registered a highly unusual, structured shape.

 

[Todd Feinman]

A year or three ago I saw a "tic-tac" gently floating across my yard, probably about 600 or 800 feet in altitude. I ran inside to get my camera and made it back out shortly after it had passed overhead. I then spent the next three or so minutes futzing with the camera because I had somehow completely forgotten how to focus it. By the time I got it in the right mode, the object was a tiny spec in the distance. Not one picture was taken.

On top of that, rather than writing down the time it happened, for some reason I decided "I'll remember later". I did not.

It was most likely a balloon or blimp but I'll never know for sure since I couldn't get that damn picture :/

How big do you think it was?

 

[John J.]

...apparent Instantaneous accelerations.

"Instantaneous acceleration" is one of my bugbears.
It's been used a lot in recent years by UFO enthusiasts to mean "suddenly appeared to move very fast", but never so fast that it couldn't be tracked by eye- if that were the case, the thing in question would simply disappear.

If you've ever seen a flea jump, you know it can't (always) be tracked by eye, it "disappears". A flea has high acceleration, but not instantaneous.
The huge shells of WW2-era battleships couldn't be tracked by eye as they left their guns, but we have very good models of their in-barrel acceleration. Again, not instantaneous.

I feel "instantaneous acceleration" has become a piece of jargon in the UFO community. It sounds more science-y than "suddenly seemed to move very fast". By applying it as a descriptor, it validates a sighting: "What was observed was highly unusual, because it displayed instantaneous acceleration, how can that be explained?" -Without having to define what instantaneous acceleration means, how it was assessed, or explain how the object remained visible.

Something in the sky making sudden, sharp directional changes or showing very rapid acceleration is interesting in itself.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

"Instantaneous acceleration" is one of my bugbears.
It's been used a lot in recent years by UFO enthusiasts to mean "suddenly appeared to move very fast", but never so fast that it couldn't be tracked by eye- if that were the case, the thing in question would simply disappear.

Yeah I said "apparent" because we haven't proved one so far.
I think "instantaneous" is based on witnesses describing a completely stationary object in the sky appearing to go from 0 to a perceived speed without gradually doing so.
Again, not implying these descriptions are necessarily accurate.
But I think that's the intended use of "instantaneous".
Also, there are cases where witnesses describe things suddenly disappearing as well.

 

[boguesuser]

How big do you think it was?

It's too long ago for me to remember clearly. If I had to guess, it was not larger than a standard Cessna. I don't remember thinking it was absurdly large or small so I think it's a good guess.

 

[Andreas]

Exactly, multiple independent testimonies provide at least some corroboration, raising the claim from a simple anecdote to a pattern worth investigating.

Sadly, this isn't necessarily the case. One problem with UFO reports is that they often begin with someone claiming to have seen something extraordinary. An article is then written asking whether anyone else saw a large glowing triangular craft, or something similar. More often than not, a whole bunch of people come forward claiming to have seen the same thing.

Most of them aren't lying—they honestly believe they did. But in reality, they may be retelling the story they read in the newspaper, unconsciously incorporating it into their own memory of an actual sighting they experienced. UFO witnesses also tend to speak to one another before giving statements, which makes them far less useful as independent witnesses.

My point is that thousands of people reporting mysterious drones flying around doesn't necessarily mean there were any drones. That said, I agree that, in some cases, several genuinely independent witnesses can be an indication that something is worth investigating. Even then, however, I believe we need corroborating evidence to examine. Otherwise, we end up conducting a thorough investigation based on hearsay and subjective interpretations.

 

[JMartJr]

The banana balloon proves my point: human vision didn't fail or hallucinate in this case, it correctly registered a highly unusual, structured shape.

The argument is not that humans never perceive and subsequently recall/report what they perceived correctly... it is that they do not always do so. And lacking any way to determine which parts of which reports are correct, and which are not, such anecdotes are not much use in trying to figure out if there is a new and unique phenomenon here, nor, if so, to characterize it

 

[FatPhil]

I understood the question. If a bird can fool someone into seeing a UFO, it means the bird is the trigger. I'm saying that trigger has never worked on me. A bird always looks like a bird to my eyes.

How would you know?

Oh, wait, @Mick West's already asked you that identical question, so I conclude you are just avoiding answering the question rather than trying to be a genuine interlocutor.

Ticks too many "troll" boxes - I'm out.

 

[FatPhil]

The argument is not that ...

Deliberate misinterpretation of what's being said is one of the things I consider trollish. This has happened several times of every page of this thread. I suspect you're wasting your time.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

How would you know?

Oh, wait, @Mick West's already asked you that identical question, so I conclude you are just avoiding answering the question rather than trying to be a genuine interlocutor.

Ticks too many "troll" boxes - I'm out.

I don't understand your conclusion that I'm a troll.
I think you're saying I'm a troll for having said that we cannot know for sure if birds have fooled me or not.
What I meant by that is, by watching stuff in the sky I never had the impression I saw anything extraordinary, probably because I can at least identify some mundane stuff.
So yes, one witness can be more reliable than another, we sorta all agreed that you cannot always rule out accurate descriptions, because people make those as well as absolute wrong descriptions, and there's no real way to distinguish the accurate and the inaccurate.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Deliberate misinterpretation of what's being said is one of the things I consider trollish. This has happened several times of every page of this thread. I suspect you're wasting your time.

Where is my "deliberate" misinterpretation?
Why can't it be just a discussion?
Off topic, sure.
But I wasn't "trolling" people just expressing my thoughts on the matter.
If you think I was deliberately annoying you, just tell the moderators.

 

[Eburacum]

Soon after the Nimitz incident was first described on the internet, (probably in Above Top Secret, but long before Elizondo got involved) I saw a 'tic-tac' of my own.

I was a passenger in a plane flying at ~37000 feet above Northern France and I noticed a small airfield down below; from that height it was easy to see the whole runway. Approaching the north end of the runway was a small object, which looked exactly like a tic-tac, but I presumed that it was a small light aircraft. Interesting, I thought at the time; a small flying object really does resemble a tic-tac if you see it at a sufficiently large distance.

I watched this presumed plane fly all the way down the runway, and it overshot the far end without landing for some reason. Slightly mysterious, but it taught me two things; first, distant objects in the air really can look just like tic-tacs, and secondly, things in the air don't always do what you expect them to.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Soon after the Nimitz incident was first described on the internet, (probably in Above Top Secret, but long before Elizondo got involved) I saw a 'tic-tac' of my own.

I was a passenger in a plane flying at ~37000 feet above Northern France and I noticed a small airfield down below; from that height it was east to see the whole runway. Approaching the north end if the runway was a small object, which looked exactly like a tic-tac, but I presumed that it was a small light aircraft. Interesting, I thought at the time; a small flying object really does resemble a tic-tac if you see it at a sufficiently large distance.

I watched this presumed plane fly all the way down the runway, and it overshot the far end without landing for some reason. Slightly mysterious, but it taught me two things; first, distant objects in the air really can look just like tic-tacs, and secondly, things in the air don't always do what you expect them to.

I've been spotting and photographing a lot of planes in the distance, sometimes the wings are in shadow or simply not visible and it looks just like a tic tac.
I'm sure lots of tic tac sightings (also pumped up by Fravor's experience becoming so viral) are actually just that.
Some others are very likely balloons as well.
But honestly, never occurred to me to have thought I saw a genuine weirdly shaped craft.