Comprehensive UAP Hypothesis

Alphadunk

Active Member
I was making a very obvious analogy. If you want to have a deep dive on rhinos this probably isn't the best place for it. The very very obvious point is that just because something is uncommon without a bevy of evidence doesn't mean it's off limits for scientific study. Science has to start somewhere.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Active Member
I was making a very obvious analogy. If you want to have a deep dive on rhinos this probably isn't the best place for it. The very very obvious point is that just because something is uncommon without a bevy of evidence doesn't mean it's off limits for scientific study. Science has to start somewhere.

Poor and scarce evidence has never lent itself to serious scientific scutiny. At best it whets the speculative appetite and risks theoretical over-indulgence. There are two main issues with poor and scarce evidence, testability (a.k.a. falsifiability) of the derived hypotheses and reproducibility of the tests. Lacking both, speculatively over-indulging in any odd piece of "evidence" is pseudoscience at best.

Observations of a phenomenon must be sufficiently informative for deriving testable hypotheses. The TRIANGLE footage, whilst still poor evidence for proper scientific testing and reproduction, was the closest we could get to testability. The triangle-aperture-bokeh-artifact-of-a-plane hypothesis quite comfortably predicted the shape and the behaviour of the main UFO in the footage.

But Mick didn't rest on his laurels. He went on an inferred from the overall bokeh-artifact-hypothesis that the background pyramids are stars. He then used Google Earth and found corroborating data, even naming the stars. The evidence lent itself to one testable prediction and the preliminary test result was positive. Rigorous scientific proof requires more than one testable prediction, as well as a replication of all the tests by independent research teams, preferably coming up with even new predictions and positive test outcomes.

Then there's the question of reasonable certainty (not requiring full-fledged scientific proof) and value for money. It would be overkill to hire the most brilliant minds from every Ivy League school to establish what Mick has already established with sufficient confidence as poor and unimpressive evidence. As I told Zerth earlier in the thread, as long as even the most advanced sensors available aren't all-perceiving (i.e. never), their capability has boundaries. The sensor-data acquired at the boundary of any sensor capability will always be low in its information content. It would be absurd to form a prestigious scientific college for investigating perennial sensory fluff.

Yet this fluff can't be dismissed either. And isn't. The DoD is constantly investing large sums of money in improving its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. But this ISR capability of the DoD does not equate to, nor rely on, the AATIP/UAPTF, nor does it need other outside entities. The Bigelow/Reid/Mellon/Lacatski lobby and late joiners and leakers such as Elizondo are the main reason such a fringe entity exists in the first place within the DoD.

P.S. Your earlier example of a ball lightning is in fact a great example of a scientifically unexplained phenomenon owing to the lack of sufficiently detailed and testable evidence.
 
Last edited:
One of the visions that the current report hints at could involve feeding all radar data worldwide into a processing AI in real-time and scrambling fighter jets to chase down any anomaly as it occurs. After many false alarms, the system would improve and there would be fewer false alarms.
Would there ever be a "real alarm"? Who knows.
How much would it cost? Better think big.
You have to be kidding?

That is just so far beyond unrealistic!

F-22 Raptor costs $70000/hr to fly, the F-15X is a comparative snip at just under $30000/hr, the F-35 is both expensive at $40000/hr and too slow to be of much use...Every hour wasted on this idiocy is one less that the aircraft can be used for doing its actual job.

Realistically you would need a dedicated tanker fleet, supporting worldwide standing air patrols of lightly armed but heavily fuelled high-supersonic interceptors, bristling with IRST pods & other sensors (MiG.31BSM would be a decent candidate)...The cost would not be big however, it would be astronomical!
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
F-22 Raptor costs $70000/hr to fly, the F-15X is a comparative snip at just under $30000/hr, the F-35 is both expensive at $40000/hr and too slow to be of much use...Every hour wasted on this idiocy is one less that the aircraft can be used for doing its actual job.
What it would almost certainly be doing instead would be sitting on tarmac. I can therefore only conclude from your final sentence is that you think its actual job is sitting on tarmac.
We scramble our jets sometimes several times a week because of transponderless non-planned and non-communicating Russian aircraft, and to be honest, I don't think the pilots/crew mind. We know deep down that they're almost certainly not a threat, they're just an international-law-breaking annoyance, to us they're just another spontanious drill to keep the machinery well oiled and on its toes. And we're a country with less than 1/6% of the GPD of the USA, so if we can do it at least monthly, the USA should be able to do similar every hour with the same burden.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I'll put this here because I don't see a better place for it.

In today's Times (UK) there is a letter from Steuart Campbell [NB spelling], who describes himself as a science writer. On searching Metabunk I did not find any previous reference to him.

His letter mentions recent reports on UFOs, and points out that he wrote a book, The UFO Mystery Solved (1994), in which he says 'I found explanations for even the hardest-to-explain cases'. He seems to emphasise misidentification of astronomical objects.

His book is available on Amazon and elsewhere. I'm not sure whether I'll invest in a copy. The book is relatively old, and of course was written before drones, helium balloons, IR cameras, etc, were widely available. It probably won't be much use in interpreting modern cases, but might still be useful in looking at historic cases like Rendlesham Forest.

Mr Campbell has a website here:

https://www.steuartcampbell.com/

This includes a list of numerous articles he has written. Unfortunately few of them are available online. This one, on ball lightning, is one of the exceptions:

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-23#feature
Campbell gives a contact link, and it might be worth contacting him about any of the historic cases he has researched, to save reinventing the wheel too often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LorentzHall

Member
This includes a list of numerous articles he has written. Unfortunately few of them are available online. This one, on ball lightning, is one of the exceptions:

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-23#feature

Well that aged poorly.

Just under 5 years later: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FatPhil

Active Member
Well that aged poorly.
Ouch. It contains a logical fallacy too. The variedness of the reports is not an indicator of falseness of any of the individual reports. He's creating an unneccessary grouping of all reports, no matter how bizarre or unbelievable, and dismissing them all in one sweep because clearly most of them are bizarre or unbelievable. Clearly different phenomena can have different noumena behind them, that some are mundane misinterpretations doesn't mean all are.
 
What it would almost certainly be doing instead would be sitting on tarmac. I can therefore only conclude from your final sentence is that you think its actual job is sitting on tarmac.
We scramble our jets sometimes several times a week because of transponderless non-planned and non-communicating Russian aircraft, and to be honest, I don't think the pilots/crew mind. We know deep down that they're almost certainly not a threat, they're just an international-law-breaking annoyance, to us they're just another spontanious drill to keep the machinery well oiled and on its toes. And we're a country with less than 1/6% of the GPD of the USA, so if we can do it at least monthly, the USA should be able to do similar every hour with the same burden.
Airframes do not last forever...You are essentially proposing maintaining a 24/7/365 wartime combat air patrol across your entire territory.

The cost for any nation (except Monaco, Andorra & the like) would be unimaginable and the wear to the aircraft unrestorable.

But for what? What would we actually gain by undertaking this colossal effort?
 

FatPhil

Active Member
Airframes do not last forever...You are essentially proposing maintaining a 24/7/365 wartime combat air patrol across your entire territory.

The cost for any nation (except Monaco, Andorra & the like) would be unimaginable and the wear to the aircraft unrestorable.

But for what? What would we actually gain by undertaking this colossal effort?

You have completely failed to get my point. Reread for comprehension. Start at the beginning.
 
And you seem to be completely ignoring mine.

Once again...What benefit would nations or their militaries receive in return for the tremendous expense and wear to valuable airframes that you propose?
 
Is that an echo?

You appear to support the suggestion that the military should investigate these 'UAPs', scrambling interceptors to do so...Yet you refuse to comprehend that the service life of an airframe has a fixed duration, which is drastically reduced by dramas such as supersonic dashes in pursuit of elusive radar contacts. It also costs an awful lot of money.

So...Once again...For what?
 

FatPhil

Active Member
You have said it's budgetarily impossible. I've provided a real world case where something equivalent is currently being done.

Scissors beat paper, and counterexample beats assertion.
 
No.

You are talking about routine activities performed by the military when they are NOT scrambling interceptors to investigate reports of UAPs on a regular basis.

What you propose/support is of an entirely different order of magnitude.

If those aircraft are off chasing Chinese Lanterns, they aren't available when an airliner goes off transponder, or a foreign aircraft probes your AIZ...Which, given the role of the military, is more important?

You can't do it all without spending a lot more money and placing a lot more strain on already creaking airframes.

You still have not explained the benefits of this extraordinarily expensive proposal...Kindly do so, or retract.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
No.

You are talking about routine activities performed by the military when they are NOT scrambling interceptors to investigate reports of UAPs on a regular basis.

What you propose/support is of an entirely different order of magnitude.

If those aircraft are off chasing Chinese Lanterns, they aren't available when an airliner goes off transponder, or a foreign aircraft probes your AIZ...Which, given the role of the military, is more important?

You can't do it all without spending a lot more money and placing a lot more strain on already creaking airframes.

@Sgt.Squarehead is probably right in pointing out the gratuity and cost-ineffectiveness of maintaining special airframe readiness for every UAP sighting, for which perennial LIZ sensor fluff accounts more often than not (and on which point both of you agree wholeheartedly).

@FatPhil is probably right in pointing out that (judging by the diminutive number of Navy-observed UAPs analyzed by the AATIP/UAPTF over the course of 16+ years), even if such a readiness were to be maintained, it wouldn't amount to scrambling special interceptors all that often. Sure, an improved UAP reporting process and reduced reporting stigma may increase the tally, but I seriously doubt exponentially.

Internally, the DoD core organization may well have already, as a rule, ascribed most UAPs to sensor capability limitations and human misperceptions. It should be telling that the Pentagon has never pushed for any significant budgetary allocations for UAP interception or investigation. Only the Congress has, after lobbied by the UFO college, and with very modest appropriations at that.
 

Ravi

Active Member
Just out of curiosity, are there actually UFO/UAP cases where it was crystal clear that they were a threat? Meaning, that there were "attacks" of some kind, or at least real serious situations? I cannot recall any (possibly it could be hidden from public). And if that is so (not having any threat), why would we want the army to spend even more money on the planes to be chasing blobs of light?
 
It should be telling that the Pentagon has never pushed for any significant budgetary allocations for UAP interception or investigation. Only the Congress has, after lobbied by the UFO college, and with very modest appropriations at that.
I'd agree that this is likely to be the most fruitful area of investigation regarding the current 'UAP Flap'...Always follow the money!

I wonder how many of the major shareholders in the news organisations promoting this drivel are also major shareholders in the defence industry...Quite a few, I suspect.

Just out of curiosity, are there actually UFO/UAP cases where it was crystal clear that they were a threat? Meaning, that there were "attacks" of some kind, or at least real serious situations?
Any of the alleged incidents relating to nuclear weapons facilities could be considered an 'extreme threat'.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
No.

You are talking about routine activities performed by the military when they are NOT scrambling interceptors to investigate reports of UAPs on a regular basis.
It wouldn't be regular, do the maths. Heck, you don't need to do the maths - I already did it for you, whilst you were in comprehension-avoidance mode.

What you propose/support is of an entirely different order of magnitude.
Yes. Smaller than what's already being done here.

If those aircraft are off chasing Chinese Lanterns, they aren't available when an airliner goes off transponder, or a foreign aircraft probes your AIZ...Which, given the role of the military, is more important?
Who says they should be chasing chinese lanterns? Most chinese lanterns are very easily identifiable as such - have you not read metabunk? Small, slow moving, following the wind, some difffuse light, more focussed heat: dont' scramble.

You can't do it all without spending a lot more money and placing a lot more strain on already creaking airframes.

You still have not explained the benefits of this extraordinarily expensive proposal...Kindly do so, or retract.
It's not expensive, as it's already doable, as it's already done when something worth investigating is worth chasing after.

All kinds of things can go wrong if you do a job badly. So don't do the job badly. You do realise that some of our Sukhoi visitors are being collected by USAF pilots? The USAF is perfectly capable of responding sensibly and not panicking at every turn.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Doesn't it come back to a sort "what is the current reality" point, if any of these UAP were really considered a threat they would already be scrambling interceptors as per whatever normal procedures they have for these things (post 9/11 etc)

So if it a UAP even were considered a real threat we would already be doing it, thus because we didn't do it in some cases it means no-one really thought they were a real threat. Or we never heard about those cases.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
Doesn't it come back to a sort "what is the current reality" point, if any of these UAP were really considered a threat they would already be scrambling interceptors as per whatever normal procedures they have for these things (post 9/11 etc)

So if it a UAP even were considered a real threat we would already be doing it, thus because we didn't do it in some cases it means no-one really thought they were a real threat. Or we never heard about those cases.
Indeed. And remember that fast-moving jets are literally the *worst* things to be investigating slow-moving phenomena with, which a lot of these are. It's like trying to do a figure of 8 round a pair of cones in a dragster.
 
@FatPhil I think I misunderstood what you were proposing...I was assuming that you were proposing a dedicated 'UAP Task Force', with fighters either on stand-by or loitering near a tanker/AWACS waiting for UAPs to investigate (SHADO without the moonbase & submarine).

Either way, as you state above, fighters are a terrible choice for investigating this phenomenon...Quite apart from being ludicrously expensive, they also have much better things to be doing. Also, in the extremely unlikely event that these are visitors from another world, sending our most modern weapons systems as a greeting could be taken the wrong way IMHO.
 
On original post +1.
I pretty much agree. I came to the overall conclusion below by applying really high level filtering of data to the 'data' and the scientific method. My hobbying was on the overall phenomenon, not just the FLIR stuff. IMO, the lack of investigation of the FLIR stuff really points to a non-extraordinary cause. Boy did I read some stuff o_O though some was actually well researched.

On "stars and astronomical phenomena" being UAP, Hynek himself used this during blue book. Valid debunk.


After 8 years of on and off study, I have concluded almost all sightings can be explained without invoking extraordinary causes. There are a very few exceptions damaged by the unrepeatable nature of sightings and UFO pseudoscience. The common explanations are listed below.

1.) Hoaxes, stunts, and pranks, especially movies and photos posted on the internet.

2.) Weather, misidentified aircraft, balloons, satellites, and mistakes by the observer. Note that before satellites and high altitude aircraft, lots of weather balloons were used and they move fast in the jet stream.

3.) Some night reports are a result of the auto-kinetic vision effect, where a light source under dark conditions without other objects for reference can appear to move to the human eye. See link and additionally, I experimented and can vouch for it.

4.) Many reports are classified military hardware under test and thus “are” UAP in a sense. This filter is especially true in the American Southwest at night but may be true anywhere. See the CIA’s “overhead intelligence” program. Phil Patton’s book “Dreamland” gives a good summary of this. Also see “Have Blue” and “Tacit Blue,” the stealth F-117, and the B-2 project. Undoubtedly, UAV/drone development is in progress and will involve stealth, new technology, and new configurations. I have to wonder if “deceptive lighting” was ever rigged to hide a new aircraft or drone under the UFO Aegis. LED’s along the wings to match the latest Enquirer article?
4a.) The CIA reported U2 and SR71 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft were often identified as UFO’s while still “black” programs. This was accepted as good cover. Was it exploited?
5.) Some UAP sightings in certain locations may be “earthquake lights,” a possible piezoelectric luminous effect caused by the compression of quartz formations. I was fascinated by this idea and since photos exist, it is less anecdotal than “ball lightning.”
6.) Some UAP sightings are the result of witnesses with physical or mental issues of one type or another. If 1-1.2% (that is 1 – 1.2 in a hundred) people are functioning with schizophrenia/paranoia, and this mental disease can cause visual and aural hallucinations, that can reduce the number of “good” sightings. Remove single witness accounts and any reports of telepathy/contact/voices, etc.
7.) Ball lightning is an iffy explanation – it has all of the anecdotal and mysterious qualities of UFO’s and is an explanation I find difficult. I know two people who claim to have seen it during severe weather. Sound familiar? Sightings during storms are discarded.
8.) The lack of reliable physical evidence is most damning given the time elapsed (1947-1990). 47 years should be long enough to get something solid and completely negates the Roswell story.

A very few sightings may be special; my favorites are in the “sightings and data” portion of this report, as is an example of a faulty report that has become “UFO” canon.

Real UAP sightings (with no explanation) are extremely rare. I do carry bias for either a solid and measurable phenomenon, or a purely psychological one, reasoning as follows: “if UAP are a solid and measurable phenomenon, you should be able to photograph, video, and track them.” If they are a psychological phenomenon, then we should be able to figure that out, too.

Using scientific method means that ya gotta filter, and after filtering there are still a few that are worth thinking about.

Cheers / Robert
 

Meat5000

Member
(4) Contradicts (1) as (1) is speculative. According to Dr Greer and Co, most if not all the 'unidentified' were never unidentified, especially if they were actually US tech. Despite their lack of evidence it opens up a parallel and equally speculative path of thinking.
 

Meat5000

Member
the word ‘object’ wasn’t a blow to the UFO community.
I speculate, but I notice that 'interdimensionality' has started appearing in the narrative a lot more recently, just slipped in there out of nowhere. This de-solidifying of the object to a phenomenon could be part of the bigger 'ploy' to have a non-existent or invisible enemy made real.
I base this on my personal experience; after watching all the rabbit-holed content, feeling a little freaked out that these invisible things are flying around us in the hundreds. Its how I felt despite level headed logic and fuller 'understanding' of the bigger picture.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
(4) Contradicts (1) as (1) is speculative.

Both are speculative as it's a hypothesis. But it's an attempt at a plausible hypothesis, although I'd tweak it a little in retrospect (I did put it together a while back). Overall, I would say the chief claims of the hypothesis remain plausible.

4 does not really contradict 1 since 4 outlines a range of phenomena that were initially (according to 1) regarded unidentified by the immediate observers. 'Initially' here can signify a very short period or a longer one. In some cases it can denote literally a period of a few minutes between a pilot or a radar operator shouting in amazement at a fast-moving blip, and the on-scene commander confirming from other (classified) observers/sensors it's a balloon or a plane. Luis Elizondo and his predecessors might have been able to still acquire such initial reports or unclassified sensor data despite the DoD having identified the objects soon after the initial observation.

It's however even likelier that many incidents were reported to the UAPTF/AATIP as 'unidentified' due to low security clearance, bureaucratic red tape, communication delays between DoD departments and branches, or other non-sinister factors, preventing the reporting unit from receiving a confirmation on the identity of the object. Even in such cases, the reporting units might have arrived at a range of mundane phenomena as the likeliest explanations. Meanwhile the other branches/agencies of the DoD to whom these technologies belong have obviously 'identified' their own 'objects', and would have no reason to file a report on their classified capabilities. At least not to the UAPTF/AATIP.

According to Dr Greer and Co, most if not all the 'unidentified' were never unidentified, especially if they were actually US tech. Despite their lack of evidence it opens up a parallel and equally speculative path of thinking.

Indeed. We shouldn't get too hung up on the term 'unidentified' in the UAP reports since it's more of a working term for the UAPTF/AATIP than an accurate description of what the DoD, in toto, really knows or doesn't.
 
Top