Aguadilla Infrared Footage of 'UFOs' - Probably Hot Air Wedding Lanterns

[Fritzkquzerk]

If they should firmly debunk some instance that has already been anointed as The Best UFO Evidence ever they risk being exiled from community.

Not a very serious way to study UFOs then.

 

[FatPhil]

It shouldn't though, and it shouldn't stop them if they are trying to turn 'UAP Studies' into a serious and honest scientific effort. Identifying Type I errors (false positives) is one of the most important aspects of scientific research because it helps prevent scientists from concluding that something is true when it actually isn't. And yes, although it may be slightly embarrassing for them it would demonstrate their integrity, rigour and honesty to the wider scientific community.

If they would find demonstrating their integrity, rigour, and honesty to the wider scientific community "embarassing", that would scream cognitive dissonance to me - "I'm happy doing science properly, but I'm embarassed doing science properly" would have to have to be their internal dialogue. So I hope they wouldn't find it embarassing at all - I welcome more people doing things scientifically.

 

[jarlrmai]

They went on Newsnation with Ben Hansen to talk about the Robert Klein - Fairfield County, CT - 2022 Orb UFO

And did they a presentation at the conference when they were sure it wasn't a plane.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ne...ield-county-ct-2022-orb-ufo.13792/post-339853

We found the actual data for the case in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard one of the researchers githubs by random chance

Using it we showed them it was a plane and they were looking in the wrong direction and didn't validate the video with the witness statement, possible using Google street view, even though they'd visited the actual site several times.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ne...klein-fairfield-county-ct-2022-orb-ufo.13792/

However for some reason this was not considered worthy for presentation at the 2026 version of the conference.


Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1uwpokm/scientific_coalition_for_uap_studies_scu_live_ama/oxlkghx/

Jarlrmai2, thank you for your question regarding Dr. Buettner's work on the Saugatuck CT Reservoir UAP case. Dr. Buettner indicates that the Saugatuck case is not considered closed due to the corroborating sightings in the area, and that they are planning to have further excursions to the area. We note that Dr. Buettner submitted an abstract to discuss this case with Mr. Ben Hansen at this year's conference, but since there were approximately 40 abstracts submitted and only 19 accepted, many qualified abstracts couldn't fit in, including Dr. Buettner's. Dr. Buettner expects to provide additional updates from future excursions as new data is analyzed.

The public who watched the Newsnation report will apparently have find the few extra slides tucked away in Dr Buettner's Github if they want to be accurately updated on this case.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ne...klein-fairfield-county-ct-2022-orb-ufo.13792/

We acknowledged the great detective work of flarkey to identify the object in the video as an aircraft in the updated slides on my website.

officer Kleins sighting has not been the only sighting in that area.

And aliens are still real and no conclusion can be drawn until every report of a light in an undefined radius has been identified by the people that spent huge amounts of effort looking in the wrong direction for multiple years, when this forum gave the correct answer within a few days and probably within hours had the relevant data been made public.

Conclusion; in my opinion the SCU are not a serious organisation although they do a great job of pretending to be one.

 

[FatPhil]

officer Kleins sighting has not been the only sighting in that area.

I would note that, at least to me, that does not satisfy your "of what exactly" question. Such evasion is disingenuous, so that particular individual doesn't seem to be acting 100% in good faith.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Conclusion; in my opinion the SCU are not a serious organisation although they do a great job of pretending to be one.

Unfortunately, they remind a lot of church leaders attempting to validate miracles. The church believes God can perform miracles, the Bible records actual miracles and miracles happen. Their job is not to prove miracles, but to decide which events are true miracles. If they constantly show claimed miracles are not true miracles, at some point that negates the starting point.

There's no point in having a UFO conference and discussing all the things that aren't UFOs. It questions the premise.

 

[JMartJr]

Unfortunately, they remind a lot of church leaders attempting to validate miracles. The church believes God can perform miracles, the Bible records actual miracles and miracles happen. Their job is not to prove miracles, but to decide which events are true miracles. If they constantly show claimed miracles are not true miracles, at some point that negates the starting point.

Yet note the effort the Church has made over her history to weed out fake miracles... not perfectly, and sometimes (humans being humans) a favorite miracle gets a pass.

And to be fair, there HAVE been instances of UFO groups weeding out a hoax or tow, and the odd plane or balloon or planet, historically.

If one wanted to learn more about "real" miracles, or "real" UFOs, it would seem obvious to most or all of us that an early step is to clen up the data set -- toss the reports that do not belong in the "real" category in the bin so as not to put faulty data into your studies and conclusions. (If you leave a lot of planes in your UFO data set, you might conclude that "real" UFOs have blinking nav lights when this may not be true!)

I'd argue it is wise to err on the side of tossing data that MAY not belong, that MIGHT be explained as a plane or a balloon, on the grounds that it is preferable to have less data with less noise than to have more data with more noise -- in other words, toss the cases that are definitely identified, and also those for which there is a plausible but unproven explanation -- while recognizing the difficulty this creates in UFOlogy (and perhaps thaumatology, if that's the right word) is that you may wind up with no data at all, if in fact you are trying to study something which does not exist.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

Conclusion; in my opinion the SCU are not a serious organisation although they do a great job of pretending to be one

Being perceived as unserious was always going to be danger. It is ill-advised to use fence-sitting as a strategy to conceal an informed position. It doesn't work for politicians (I call it Schrödinger's policy) and it has no place in true science.

 

[Ann K]

Conclusion; in my opinion the SCU are not a serious organisation although they do a great job of pretending to be one.

I think it would take a person with scientific training AND a belief in UFOs to do their job, although the strength of that belief might be small. The reason I think that is the unlikelihood of a serious scientist willingly entering something that is generally thought to be a deeply unserious field. His whole career would be colored by the reputation of that field. One's participation in the study of UFOs is a thing that a scientist might be highly embarrassed to discuss with former classmates and professors, or to later put on a resumé for another job.

If that is the case, it would explain their reluctance to give a conclusive debunk, and instead merely labeling some of the events with an evasive "Well, maybe...".

 

[flarkey]

I think it would take a person with scientific training AND a belief in UFOs to do their job, although the strength of that belief might be small. The reason I think that is the unlikelihood of a serious scientist willingly entering something that is generally thought to be a deeply unserious field. His whole career would be colored by the reputation of that field. One's participation in the study of UFOs is a thing that a scientist might be highly embarrassed to discuss with former classmates and professors, or to later put on a resumé for another job.

If that is the case, it would explain their reluctance to give a conclusive debunk, and instead merely labeling some of the events with an evasive "Well, maybe...".

to be fair to some of the SCU members I've spoken to recently, I think there are some who do try to take the correct scientific position and err on the side of probability of the prosaic, but they are swimming against the current of the other members who are very pro-UAP. It is a difficult and odd position to be in - because in science those who have made a name for themselves (Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein etc) have pushed the boundaries of existing knowledge, and UAPologists want to do the same, but they are held back by a lack of good, constant data and poor evidence. They cling to the hope of there being a 'there' there, but with the mass reports of sightings stretching back 80 years it is impossible to demonstrate that there's nothing there, even if there isn't.

 

[Mick West]

And I think you're right @MapperGuy - the initial SCU Aguadilla report avoided definitive conclusions, other than saying the object was definitely unidentified and that the team couldn't explain it's apparent movement. Maybe the new analysis will conclude that a possible alternative trajectory for the object's movement means that it is even more unidentified?

They did have rather definitive statements of elimination.

Power Source

The unknown in the video displayed qualities that require some type of power source. Over
the course of more than four miles the object reached speeds of almost 120 mph, made
multiple changes in direction, reduced and increased its speed, entered and exited the ocean
at speeds of over 100 mph, and finally split into two parts. In this thermal video, black
represents the hotter objects in a given frame and white the cooler objects. The unknown in
the video emits more heat than the ambient air and even after submerging in the ocean it
continues to emit heat after it exits. However the heat generated is generally less than what is
seen from jet engines and automobiles in the video. There is no exhaust plume or any other
indication of an aircraft. This is not characteristic of objects with ordinary power sources.
The object's speed, maintenance of momentum, directional changes, and its ability to sustain
high velocities in water eliminates all aircraft, blimps, balloons, wind-blown objects, any
species of bird, mammal, or other natural/man-made phenomenon. See pages 40 to 41.

And what they think they know:

We believe that there is sufficient information in the video to characterize this object as: three
to five feet in size; the shape is circular to oval but changes; air speed varies from 70 to 120
mph; capable of changing direction; internal temperature of about 105 degrees Fahrenheit
usually in the center of the object and exterior temperatures above the ambient air
temperature; capable of traveling at low altitude through a residential area; able to enter the
water with no obvious splash or impact; underwater speed varies from 39 to 95 mph; ability
to exit and re-enter water; and the capability of splitting into two independent parts that
appear to be the same size as the original object based on its infrared signature.

Most of this, as now largely confirmed by Dr. Bostick's work, was wrong. Yet they stuck with it for 13 years, and probably some still do.