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
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