Rare things that have been documented much better than UFOs

[Todd Feinman]

ource is incredibly, purposefully elusive to evidence capture

That's what I think. Also the number of truly anomalous sightings is very small, and there is a lot of human crap in the sky and flying around the Earth today.

 

[JJB]

Do you think anything will come of it? Or is it a big scam?

I think something could come of it, but I'm not expecting confirmation of extraterrestrial visitation anytime soon.

There's a legitimate scientific and national-security interest in identifying unexplained sightings, but ufology is also full of grifters, exaggerated claims, and people confusing speculation with evidence.

I wouldn't call the whole thing a scam, but I'd certainly say there's an industry built around keeping the mystery alive.

 

[Mendel]

AARO has also never said that there was nothing to work on, nothing to analyse or that the issue itself is meaningless.
Tim Phillips himself said during the interview with Mick West that there were interesting cases, but that he obviously couldn't give any details.
Now, "interesting" can mean many different things, of which "aliens" is the less probable, and I have no idea of what exactly he could mean, but same thing with Kosloski, I don't know if Kirkpatrick said anything along those lines, but I still consider this significant.
They might know a bit more than we do on specific cases, that's all I'm implying, but at the same time I wouldn't bet any money on them holding any alien life truths.

The question is, does the government know more about UFOs than we do?
https://www.space.com/pentagon-ufo-...-report-no-emprical-evidence-alien-technology

"AARO found no evidence that any USG [U.S. government] investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology,"

NASA's UAP study team reached similar conclusions in its first public report, which was published in September 2023. "The NASA independent study team did not find any evidence that UAP have an extraterrestrial origin, but we don't know what these UAP are," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said at the time.

"No evidence" means they know nothing.

 

[JJB]

NASA's UAP study team reached similar conclusions in its first public report, which was published in September 2023. "The NASA independent study team did not find any evidence that UAP have an extraterrestrial origin, but we don't know what these UAP are," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said at the time.

I don't really like how UAPs are often lumped together as if they're all part of the same phenomenon.

UAP is simply a label for things we haven't identified, encompassing everything from balloons, drones and satellites to sensor errors, atmospheric effects and genuinely unexplained observations. These cases may have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

The fact that some remain unexplained doesn't mean they share a common cause, let alone that they point to extraterrestrial technology.

 

[Mendel]

The fact that some remain unexplained doesn't mean they share a common cause, let alone that they point to extraterrestrial technology.

"Pointing to extraterrestrial technology" would be an explanation.
The fact that they're unexplained means that they are not evidence of extraterrestrial technology.

 

[Ann K]

Also the number of truly anomalous sightings is very small, and there is a lot of human crap in the sky and flying around the Earth today.

Many of the sightings are of unidentified objects, some of them probably unidentifiable because they're in the LIZ. I'm not aware of ANY "truly anomalous" objects at all, and any anomalous sightings, such as your story, are only verbal and thus cannot provide anything else to study. They're dead ends, and we have no sure way to distinguish a factual statement from inventions, hoaxes, or hallucinations.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I think eyewitness reports are useful, especially if corroborative. All different kinds of reports, police reports for instance. A good way to transmit information, but physical evidence may not be present, or photos of what happened. Folks provide accounts here.. Usually Starlink.

 

[MapperGuy]

I suspect the biggest problem for the UFO community is that the people with the best tools and access to the most relevant data have yet to produce anything that settles the question. Instead, we keep getting told that the real evidence exists somewhere behind another layer of secrecy.

After decades of this, you have to wonder whether the mystery is being sustained more by what people imagine is being hidden than by anything that has actually been found.

But what could you FIND that would settle the question. When the answer is Nobody here but us Humans. It is the fact-of NOT FINDING things that is very hard to prove, without all that revelation of sources and methods. And if there are no aliens the answer will remain the same no matter how much sources and methods improve. Can't find what isn't here.

It is the people who are convinced things are being hidden that sustains the mystery.

 

[Todd Feinman]

It is the people who are convinced things are being hidden that sustains the mystery.

People have been convinced that things were being hidden from the public since the beginning of modern era of the phenomenon. Roscoe Hillenkoeter, was one, Keyhoe another.
What ultimately drives the periodic emergence into the public stage with various actors, is the phenomenon itself. Civilian and military pilots would report them back in the day; the "flaps" I prefer to call waves. Then witnesses start talking and folks start taking about it, and it starts all over again. The "airship" wave of the 19th Century had pretty much every feature of later events, complete with skeptics.

 

[Mendel]

People have been convinced that things were being hidden from the public since the beginning of modern era of the phenomenon. Roscoe Hillenkoeter, was one.

Yeah. However.

1. That was in the 1950s. Project Blue Book is Hillenkoeter's disclosure.
2. Hillenkoeter has been spectacularly wrong in his career (soviet nukes, korean war).

It's a different generation of UFO flap.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Yeah. However.

1. That was in the 1950s. Project Blue Book is Hillenkoeter's disclosure.
2. Hillenkoeter has been spectacularly wrong in his career (soviet nukes, korean war).

It's a different generation of UFO flap.

He joined NICAP, wanted congressional hearings and a probe.

People can be wrong about things sometimes. There is no shortage of it.

It's pretty clear looking at what was going on back in the day that UFOs were being taken seriously. Admiral Fahrney was another individual who also took UFOs seriously:

"Retired Rear Adm. Delmer S. Fahrney, once head of the Navy's guided missile program, said Wednesday reliable reports indicate thst "there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds. Fahrney told a news conference that "no agency in this country or Russia is able to duplcate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radar and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve."
He was NICAP's Chair.
http://www.nicap.org/jan16.htm

There was also apparently an "Estimate of the Situation" of which no copies have survived.

Of course there were also skeptics like yourself! I'm just saying that the situation and controversy has always existed around "UFOs", and had been incredibly similar from flap to flap.
When I was going through the old newspapers, I found a real gem! A group of ladies in Rhode Island were were excitedly looking through a little scope at what they thought was an airship; H.P. Lovecraft walked up to them and told them they were looking at Venus!

 

[Mendel]

He joined NICAP, wanted congressional hearings and a probe.

Yes, and he got it.

 

[Mauro]

"Retired Rear Adm. Delmer S. Fahrney, once head of the Navy's guided missile program, said Wednesday reliable reports indicate thst "there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds. Fahrney told a news conference that "no agency in this country or Russia is able to duplcate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radar and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve."

And he's right on each point. They are called meteors.

 

[JJB]

Yes, and he got it.

That is one thing I never could understand. Why elevate these stories to a congressional stage before establishing whether there's anything extraordinary behind them in the first place? It's embarrassing to see Congress give unsubstantiated claims about retrieved alien craft and bodies this level of attention, lending them credibility they haven't earned.

 

[Andreas]

To get back to the main point of this thread, I have a bit of a problem with the whole concept of "rare things that have been documented much better than UFOs". Sure, I understand the argument, and I think there's a valid point in there. But the fact that these particular rare events HAVE been documented doesn't really tell us much, since we have no idea how many equally rare or unusual events have gone completely undocumented.

If we select an event (a falling tree, a meteor, or whatever) precisely because it was captured on camera, we can't then use that same event as evidence of how unlikely it is for something rare to be documented. That's a form of selection bias. We're only looking at the successes while ignoring the potentially enormous number of events that nobody happened to photograph or film. Without knowing something about that larger pool, the comparison becomes rather meaningless.

That said, it's obviously a huge problem for proponents of the ET hypothesis that we still don't have a single clear, convincing photo or video of an alien spacecraft. The proliferation of smartphones hasn't changed that, and when it comes to clear daylight photographs, we're still left with the fake images from the golden age of flying saucers.

But I don't think we need to compare UFOs with other "rare events" to make that point. The lack of convincing photographic evidence for the ET hypothesis is a serious problem in its own right, regardless of how often falling trees, meteors, or other unusual events happen to be caught on camera.

 

[FatPhil]

To get back to the main point of this thread, I have a bit of a problem with the whole concept of "rare things that have been documented much better than UFOs". Sure, I understand the argument, and I think there's a valid point in there.

If some evidence causes an increase in the believability of the claim "everything that exists can be documented", then what has changed about the believability of the claim "everything that cannot be documented does not exist"? Do you not consider the former to changed positively by the contributions to this thread? If not, I'd like an explanation why it either stays the same or lowers.

 

[Todd Feinman]

said, it's obviously a huge problem for proponents of the ET hypothesis that we still don't have a single clear, convincing photo or video of an alien spacecraft. The proliferation of smartphones hasn't changed that, and when it comes to clear daylight photographs, we're still left with the fake images from the golden age of flying saucers.

I hear that point raised a lot, but is it possible to prove every old photo is a hoax?
Also, I don't think there would be "a" convincing photo for some skeptics. I think if it was clear, it would automatically not be accepted and considered a hoax, even if that could not be proven. And witnesses are always mistaken and Occam's Razor and stuff.. How do you get out of that box?
And now with AI….

 

[JJB]

I hear that point raised a lot, but is it possible to prove every old photo is a hoax?
Also, I don't think there would be "a" convincing photo for some skeptics. I think if it was clear, it would automatically not be accepted and considered a hoax, even if that could not be proven. And witnesses are always mistaken and Occam's Razor and stuff.. How do you get out of that box?
And now with AI….

The goal isn't to find one photo that nobody can argue against; it's to build a body of evidence that becomes increasingly difficult to explain through ordinary causes or fabrication.

I think the answer is multiple, independent lines of evidence: photographs or video, radar data, other sensors, reliable chain of custody, and independently documented observations that agree with one another.

 

[Gary C]

The goal isn't to find one photo that nobody can argue against; it's to build a body of evidence that becomes increasingly difficult to explain through ordinary causes or fabrication.

I think the answer is multiple, independent lines of evidence: photographs or video, radar data, other sensors, reliable chain of custody, and independently documented observations that agree with one another.

This ^^^ is important and is what happens in the generally recognized scientific disciplines:

• The results from astronomy agree with those from geology
• The results from geology agree with those from chemistry
• The results from chemistry agree with those from condensed matter physics

and you keep going down through quantum chromodynamics and up through cosmology.

Within each discipline, the laws of nature are measured to be consistent.

• Mass-Energy is conserved
• linear and angular momentum are conserved
• the laws of thermodynamics are obeyed

UFO/UAP/NHI reports are inconsistent, both with the demonstrated laws of nature and with each other.

Documenting rare things and events demonstrates that it has been and continues to be done using already available technologies and techniques and anyone can do it. It demonstrates for a general audience the there isn't really much of a space at all for aliens to hide in.

IMO that makes it worth doing.

 

[JMartJr]

Of course there were also skeptics like yourself! I'm just saying that the situation and controversy has always existed around "UFOs", and had been incredibly similar from flap to flap.

I am trying to think of an instance where a series of UFO-style waves or flaps of reports of some purported unknown phenomenon was followed by the discovery of a new phenomenon. It has not happened to UFOs or bigfoot or sea/lake monsters or ghosts...

For less esoteric examples, it hasn't happened for surviving thylacines reported in Tasmania when interest goes up, it didn't happen with the Creepy Clowns of 2016, the recent Mystery Drone Flaps seem to be lacking anything in the way of drones -- these are known phenomena (thylacines were real, clowns do exist for some reason, drones are real) but the phenomenon does not seem to be a part of the flaps reporting sightings of them.

Gorillas were reported, mostly second hand, as in "our guide Ishimwe told us about these big hairy ape things that lived near the farm where he grew up." * The reports were treated skeptically until a type specimen was put into the process, then the world knew there were, in fact, gorillas -- but I don't get the sense that there was a previous flood of reports from excited "gorilla experiencers!" Rather local folks knew they were there and science didn't embrace them until the proof was supplied.

It is almost as if the excitement that generates a flap/wave phenomenon is contingent upon the thing being reported not existing, or at least not being involved in generating reports


*Popular boy's name in Rwanda, means "I thank/am thankful" or "gratitude."

When I was going through the old newspapers, I found a real gem! A group of ladies in Rhode Island were were excitedly looking through a little scope at what they thought was an airship; H.P. Lovecraft walked up to them and told them they were looking at Venus!

That is amazing, if you happen to have the ability to share a copy, I'd love to have it.

 

[Todd Feinman]

That is amazing, if you happen to have the ability to share a copy, I'd love to have it.

I kick myself for not saving it somewhere. I know it was in one of the big newspaper databases. I might try to look for it again.
There is a cool old article from the end of 19th early 20th Century that raised the same questions about airships that are being raised about modern UFOs. I'll try to post it later. There was less clutter and crap and satellites and drones flying around back in the day.

 

[Ann K]

That is one thing I never could understand. Why elevate these stories to a congressional stage before establishing whether there's anything extraordinary behind them in the first place? It's embarrassing to see Congress give unsubstantiated claims about retrieved alien craft and bodies this level of attention, lending them credibility they haven't earned.

Because congress members are in a sort of perpetual campaign to be seen and to be perceived as doing something useful. If a part of their voters are into UFOlogy (or they themselves are) then this sort of thing happens. It would be a mistake to think that congress only does the serious business necessary to keep the country going. These are the people who won a popularity contest to have their jobs, remember? Some of them have no other qualifications.

 

[yoshy]

I actually think things would play out much as they are if there was a reality to the UFO phenomenon.

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Mendel]

I am trying to think of an instance where a series of UFO-style waves or flaps of reports of some purported unknown phenomenon was followed by the discovery of a new phenomenon. It has not happened to UFOs or bigfoot or sea/lake monsters or ghosts...

Ball lightning is a recent example. Scientists found various methods to create it in the lab before it was documented by a science team (looking for something else), and it's still not well understood.

Meteorites (aka "rocks falling from the sky") is a historical example, where it took less than a decade from a collection of witness reports to physical evidence to a theory being established.

 

[Mendel]

I hear that point raised a lot, but is it possible to prove every old photo is a hoax?

It's not necessary. If a "first contact" ever happened decades ago, where's the second and third contact? The more that photo stands alone, the less believable it becomes as time passes.

Also, I don't think there would be "a" convincing photo for some skeptics. I think if it was clear, it would automatically not be accepted and considered a hoax, even if that could not be proven. And witnesses are always mistaken and Occam's Razor and stuff.. How do you get out of that box?
And now with AI….

Discussed in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-evidence-of-aliens-would-convince-skeptics.12366/ with some good answers.
The short answer is that a photo needs context.

 

[Mendel]

That is one thing I never could understand. Why elevate these stories to a congressional stage before establishing whether there's anything extraordinary behind them in the first place? It's embarrassing to see Congress give unsubstantiated claims about retrieved alien craft and bodies this level of attention, lending them credibility they haven't earned.

I think it was ok to elevate it to that stage once; that happened 60 years ago.
However, there's no point to doing it again when the evidence hasn't progressed much since then.

 

[JMartJr]

Ball lightning is a recent example. Scientists found various methods to create it in the lab before it was documented by a science team (looking for something else), and it's still not well understood.

Meteorites (aka "rocks falling from the sky") is a historical example, where it took less than a decade from a collection of witness reports to physical evidence to a theory being established.

Remember, though, we're not just talking about "things people reported seeing/experiencing before science figured out that they were real," I'm specifically thinking of instances where a "class" of reports generated flaps.

You may have a good case to make around meteors/meteorites, I recall a case with a town getting showered with pebbles, presumably after a larger meteor broke up at a low enough altitude that the "buckshot" did not spread too much. The multiple reports there might qualify as something that looked like a flap/wave, though there was only the one triggering event. (Otherwise, while there had been a steady trickle of reports, there was nothing flap-like, at least not of which I am aware.)

I can't recall any sort of ball lightning flaps/waves (where suddenly a lot of people in an area started seeing ball lightning and making excited ball lightning reports), which would not be expected to happen anyway as it is such a rare/isolated phenomenon. Last I looked, I was also not yet convinced it is a thing that happens "in the wild," though I have not looked into it much recently and my knowledge on the topic may be out of date! ^_^

 

[Todd Feinman]

Can you elaborate on this?

Sure. If it was real and the military for example collected the Roswell debris, I'd think it would be considered at least as important as the atomic bomb, and not knowing where these objects were coming from, and seeing them around sensitive military sites, you aren't going for disclosure.
I'd expect over time things would fracture and some would come out with stories, if not evidence. Meanwhile the phenomenon continues.

 

[Todd Feinman]

It's not necessary. If a "first contact" ever happened decades ago, where's the second and third contact? The more that photo stands alone, the less believable it becomes as time passes.

Discussed in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-evidence-of-aliens-would-convince-skeptics.12366/ with some good answers.
The short answer is that a photo needs context.

Contact or surveillance might occur without ongoing photographic evidence.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't think a photo or even a number of similar photos would convince skeptical scientists. Certainly not Trump making some declaration. In fact I think it would take something like a crashed vehicle that was transparently analyzed by a number of countries. Peer review. Decades go by. Not good or bad, but I think this might be the case.
If data was uncovered about something that appeared to be under control and more advanced than what's known, it would just be set on a shelf as possibly adversaries' technology. You'd need a body or a vehicle.

 

[Andreas]

If some evidence causes an increase in the believability of the claim "everything that exists can be documented", then what has changed about the believability of the claim "everything that cannot be documented does not exist"? Do you not consider the former to changed positively by the contributions to this thread? If not, I'd like an explanation why it either stays the same or lowers.

I agree that examples of rare events being photographed demonstrate that such events can be documented. But there's an important difference between showing that something is possible and establishing how probable it is.

My point is that we're looking at events selected precisely because they were documented, while knowing nothing about how many comparable events went undocumented. Without that information, it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about the likelihood of rare events being captured on camera.

And even if we accept that everything that exists can, in principle, be documented, it doesn't follow that everything that hasn't been documented doesn't exist. The possibility of documentation is not the same as the expectation that it will actually occur.

I certainly agree that the lack of convincing photographic evidence for alien spacecraft is a serious problem for the ET hypothesis. I just don't think comparisons with other rare events add much to that argument.

 

[yoshy]

I agree that examples of rare events being photographed demonstrate that such events can be documented. But there's an important difference between showing that something is possible and establishing how probable it is.

My point is that we're looking at events selected precisely because they were documented, while knowing nothing about how many comparable events went undocumented. Without that information, it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about the likelihood of rare events being captured on camera.

And even if we accept that everything that exists can, in principle, be documented, it doesn't follow that everything that hasn't been documented doesn't exist. The possibility of documentation is not the same as the expectation that it will actually occur.

I certainly agree that the lack of convincing photographic evidence for alien spacecraft is a serious problem for the ET hypothesis. I just don't think comparisons with other rare events add much to that argument.

I think the comparison with rare events is useful for specific arguments, such as "UFOs are really hard to video so that's why we only have blurry videos." This thread shows examples of how that's not a very good argument. The claim is that UFOs have been coming here relatively frequently for close to a century, possibly longer. That claim is discordant with the lack of good video/pictures.

I certainly agree that the lack of convincing photographic evidence for alien spacecraft is a serious problem for the ET hypothesis. I just don't think comparisons with other rare events add much to that argument.

I think comparisons with other events just demonstrate the reasoning well. So basically the second sentence provides examples for why we think the first sentence is true. Due to the selection bias inherent to the examples, we can't use these examples in an empirical (e.g. as evidence in Bayesian posterior probabilities) or decisive fashion though.