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.