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.