Is there a “UAP phenomenon” worth studying?

[Carling 4737]

Not sure if this is the most appropriate thread to post this scan (I did consider a few others), or if it breaks the posting rules (which I'm still learning), but here is an interesting set of numbers published last month in the UK's Spectator magazine.

 

[Stryder]

View attachment 91530
Not sure if this is the most appropriate thread to post this scan (I did consider a few others), or if it breaks the posting rules (which I'm still learning), but here is an interesting set of numbers published last month in the UK's Spectator magazine.

Obviously the United States is doing a fantastic job "studying" UFOs. ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Gary C]

Hopefully this does not giver offense, but since you're human like the rest of us, I'll float the possibility that this observation of a sharp-edged object may have been influenced by your brain initially seeing what it thought was an OBJECT, an illusion that failed as you had more time to observe, and particularly when you realized what you were seeing, and how a fuzzy-edge was pretty likely, given that clouds were involved.

Of course, that could be wrong. The lighted patch may have looked sharper, earlier, for example if the plane was closer to the clouds, or the clouds were denser, or there was a layer of have between you and the cloud base initially, but it petered out, etc.

It would be impossible at this point to estimate even very loosely what the chances are for each of those scenarios. Which is, of course, the problem with witnesses and their memories as sources.

I'm sure much of that is correct. From memory I'd say it was 2-3 seconds at the most, just enough time for my jaw to drop open, but I expect the rapid motion created a smoothing effect as it crossed about 40-60 degrees of sky in that time span. I assume the abrupt cut off was due to the light being blocked by the next higher cloud layer between myself and the plane. The presence of the multiple layers wasn't immediately apparent as the moon wasn't up yet.

 

[JMartJr]

I'm sure much of that is correct. From memory I'd say it was 2-3 seconds at the most, just enough time for my jaw to drop open, but I expect the rapid motion created a smoothing effect as it crossed about 40-60 degrees of sky in that time span. I assume the abrupt cut off was due to the light being blocked by the next higher cloud layer between myself and the plane. The presence of the multiple layers wasn't immediately apparent as the moon wasn't up yet.

I'll tell on myself, with a vaguely similar experience, posted here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-tic-tac-shaped-ufo-near-lake-michigan-plane.12105/#post-261565

Had a very vaguely similar experience just last night, while relaxing in the hot tub and saw something huge and silent and fast flying over the trees in the backyard, dark and oblong... and then it landed on a lower branch if one of the trees. It was much closer and lower than I'd assumed in the first second or two, and was one of our friendly neighborhood barred owls. If he had not perched where I could see him, I like to think I'd have figured it out anyway, but maybe not, the illusion of something volkswagon sized high above the trees was very strong.

The illusion was striking, until suddenly it wasn't. I am interested to note that my current memory does not include it landing on a branch, but merely flying under some, showing it was lower than assumed. I suppose the earlier memory as recorded above might be more accurate, but who knows, memory is tricky stuff.

 

[Ann K]

I'll tell on myself, with a vaguely similar experience, posted here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-tic-tac-shaped-ufo-near-lake-michigan-plane.12105/#post-261565


The illusion was striking, until suddenly it wasn't. I am interested to note that my current memory does not include it landing on a branch, but merely flying under some, showing it was lower than assumed. I suppose the earlier memory as recorded above might be more accurate, but who knows, memory is tricky stuff.

My neighborhood barred owls decided that the tree immediately outside my bedroom window was an ideal place to raise a family. And although I never mistook it for the sight of a UFO, the sound of it, especially the night the little ones flew the nest, was decidedly "otherworldly". I cheerfully forsook a couple of hours of sleep to listen to the family calling frantically to each other from several different directions.

 

[Carling 4737]

According to the BBC, us Brits may have a 'blind spot' when it comes to UFOs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3929kk7gdjo

 

[Rationalman]

According to the BBC, us Brits may have a 'blind spot' when it comes to UFOs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3929kk7gdjo

Is there a thread analyzing that image in the photo? Was pertinent data provided?

 

[beku-mant]

Well the short version is, I saw a glowing ellipse moving silently thought the night sky. It was quite large and vanished after only a few seconds. I kept scanning the sky to see if it came back and finally turned far enough to spot a plane though a gap in the higher cloud layer. My UFO had been a projection from a landing light onto the lower cloud layer that wasn't otherwise visible against the layers above it. The plane was initially too far away to hear either.

That's fair, I am sure there are many similar miss-identifications. I still don't think it is a sound argument that all other UFO witnesses, should they become as enlightened and humble as you are now are after you realized your mistake, would also realize their mistakes.

What you don't actually know, is what types of conclusions you would have come to had you seen what others had seen. You assume or guess you do, because you assume you are a little smarter or more critical and rigorous, which you probably are compared to most. But, I can also rationally judge that I am probably a lot more intelligent and rigorous and careful in my thinking than you are. Where does that leave me, when you think you are smarter than me and I would have come to your conclusion if I was you given my experience, and I think you would likely have come to a worse conclusion about my own experience than I already did if you had experienced it?

It doesn't really get us very far. What would be helpful to those who have observed something, is to address what they could have seen given what they claim they observed while staying in the bounds of, or at least trying to appreciate, a reasonable amount of uncertainty about how far their interpretation or perception could have strayed from what actually happened (which other witness's observations, or sensor measurements might also help inform). This is where everyone who doesn't consider an extraordinary hypothesis as viable for the core types of cases of interest, falls short, and it is an intellectual problem, not a LIZ problem.

 

[JMartJr]

This is where everyone who doesn't consider an extraordinary hypothesis as viable for the core types of cases of interest, falls short, and it is an intellectual problem, not a LIZ problem.

Viability does not seem to me to be the problem. An extraordinary hypothesis supported by the very weak evidence of an anecdote may or may not be correct, but it can never be proven (or even strongly supported) using just anecdotes.

Where does that leave me, when you think you are smarter than me and I would have come to your conclusion if I was you given my experience, and I think you would likely have come to a worse conclusion about my own experience than I already did if you had experienced it?

It does not matter. The point is not who is smarter, or a better thinker. The point is that people can and do make errors in observation, regardless of how smart they are. People can and do experience changes in memories over time, regardless of how smart they are.

It is not possible to know how much such human tendencies impact any given UFO anecdote. The answer may be "not at all, this anecdote is relayed 100% accurately" but it is impossible to KNOW that. Therefore, anecdotal evidence is not useful without supporting evidence to back it up.

The experience can be valid for the experiencer, it can be profoundly meaningful for the individual. It can be life changing. It just can't be useful scientific evidence to prove the existence of (much less characterize) an unknown phenomenon.

 

[Andreas]

Viability does not seem to me to be the problem. An extraordinary hypothesis supported by the very weak evidence of an anecdote may or may not be correct, but it can never be proven (or even strongly supported) using just anecdotes.

Exactly, I totally agree with you. This is the important thing to remember. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. And it has nothing to do with them not being trustworthy, intelligent enough, having poor eyesight, or anything like that. It's simply the way the human mind works.

In the late 19th century, people who saw a light in the sky often reported mysterious zeppelins. Seeing the same light in the early 20th century, they reported "ghost airplanes." In the 1940s, it was "ghost rockets," and in the 1950s, the same small dot of light was interpreted as a spaceship. All of these witnesses were telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, and all of them were probably wrong as well. It's not a contradiction.

And it's definitely not just hardcore skeptics who treat anecdotal cases this way. The Swedish UFO organization UFO Sverige has decided not to investigate cases with only one witness and no corroborating evidence. Not because people lie, but because people make mistakes. Investigating such cases is almost always a dead end. You may find that an airplane passed through the exact location at the exact time, but if the witness insists that "it wasn't a plane, it was a huge shiny disc," then there's really nothing more you can do.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Exactly, I totally agree with you. This is the important thing to remember. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. And it has nothing to do with them not being trustworthy, intelligent enough, having poor eyesight, or anything like that. It's simply the way the human mind works.

In the late 19th century, people who saw a light in the sky often reported mysterious zeppelins. Seeing the same light in the early 20th century, they reported "ghost airplanes." In the 1940s, it was "ghost rockets," and in the 1950s, the same small dot of light was interpreted as a spaceship. All of these witnesses were telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, and all of them were probably wrong as well. It's not a contradiction.

And it's definitely not just hardcore skeptics who treat anecdotal cases this way. The Swedish UFO organization UFO Sverige has decided not to investigate cases with only one witness and no corroborating evidence. Not because people lie, but because people make mistakes. Investigating such cases is almost always a dead end. You may find that an airplane passed through the exact location at the exact time, but if the witness insists that "it wasn't a plane, it was a huge shiny disc," then there's really nothing more you can do.

And it's definitely not just hardcore skeptics who threat anecdotal cases like this. The Swedish UFO organization UFO Sverige have decided not to investigate cases with just one witness and no corroborating evidence. Not because people lie, but because people make mistakes. And investigating such cases is almost always a dead end. You can find an airplane that passed at the exact time and location, but if the witness persists that "it wasn't a plane, it was a huge shiny disc", then there's really nothing more to do with it.

Just asking, but UFO Sverige comes out a lot.
What is their rationale for continuing to study the subject?
Assuming they approach the subject "not looking for aliens" and as scientifically open as possible, they surely must have a different idea on what may lie in the LIZ, or why bother at all?
For example, the Italian equivalent CISU also studies the subject from a purely mythological/psychological point of view.

 

[Andreas]

Just asking, but UFO Sverige comes out a lot.
What is their rationale for continuing to study the subject?
Assuming they approach the subject "not looking for aliens" and as scientifically open as possible, they surely must have a different idea on what may lie in the LIZ, or why bother at all?
For example, the Italian equivalent CISU also studies the subject from a purely mythological/psychological point of view.

Yeah, sorry for ranting about them so much. But as a Swede, they are naturally close at hand for me.

They describe themselves like this on their webpage (translated from Swedish):

https://ufo.se/index.php/om-ufo-sverige/om-ufo-sverige/om-ufo-sverige2

"UFO Sverige is today the only science-oriented UFO organization in the country. Its purpose is to collect and investigate reports of unidentified phenomena in the sky…


…The statutes state, among other things, that the organization shall "counteract uncritical thinking, unwarranted skepticism, and blind belief regarding the UFO phenomenon" and "conduct and promote research in order to gain increased knowledge about the UFO phenomenon…


…UFO Sverige holds that there is a core group of UFO reports that represent as yet unknown or insufficiently investigated phenomena and stimuli. It is likely that these consist of several different unknown phenomena that need not be related to one another, but which are all reported as UFOs. The core mission of UFO Sverige is to investigate those reports that merit further research."

And no, I'm not a member, but I think they do a good job for the most part. As a skeptic, it's always interesting to follow their investigations.

 

[Gary C]

That's fair, I am sure there are many similar miss-identifications. I still don't think it is a sound argument that all other UFO witnesses, should they become as enlightened and humble as you are now are after you realized your mistake, would also realize their mistakes.

What you don't actually know, is what types of conclusions you would have come to had you seen what others had seen. You assume or guess you do, because you assume you are a little smarter or more critical and rigorous, which you probably are compared to most. But, I can also rationally judge that I am probably a lot more intelligent and rigorous and careful in my thinking than you are. Where does that leave me, when you think you are smarter than me and I would have come to your conclusion if I was you given my experience, and I think you would likely have come to a worse conclusion about my own experience than I already did if you had experienced it?

It doesn't really get us very far. What would be helpful to those who have observed something, is to address what they could have seen given what they claim they observed while staying in the bounds of, or at least trying to appreciate, a reasonable amount of uncertainty about how far their interpretation or perception could have strayed from what actually happened (which other witness's observations, or sensor measurements might also help inform). This is where everyone who doesn't consider an extraordinary hypothesis as viable for the core types of cases of interest, falls short, and it is an intellectual problem, not a LIZ problem.

I don't think intelligence is the point of division here. I suppose the closest I could come to is discipline, say only what you saw and limit that to the most basic facts that you can establish from your observations.

Q: "What color is that house?"
A: "It's white on this side."

From Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein.

[boring story follows]

On my first day of high school chemistry, the teacher divided us into groups, gave us each a candle, told us to light it and write down as many observations as we could in a few minutes.

Most of us got a half dozen very obvious things.
A couple over achievers (not me) identified a dozen or more, got rulers and magnifiers, and diagramed the whole thing out.

Applicable to this conversation however is a subset of things people wrote down that were not backed up by observations or measurements of the candle in front of them. They included statements about combustion, that while trivially true, were not things the students had established during the exercise. They'd simply written down a number things they remembered hearing and reading about candles. That included a few of the overachievers.

So applying this lesson to what I observed in my back yard I get; A relatively bright elliptically shaped region in the cloud layer moving rapidly from right to left across a 40-60 degree* area of the sky in roughly 2-3 seconds.

Period.

*I frequently observe from the same spot in my back yard and have the azimuth to most of the immediately visible objects more or less memorized.

[you can wake up now]

Say only what you observed.

 

[Diva]

That's the point of the story. A little persistence and simple luck resolved my case, changing it from a glowing high speed elliptical object, to a landing light interacting with multiple cloud layers while the originating aircraft was itself obscured.

It was a real time demonstration of contingencies that could have left the observer with incomplete information. Consider the variations of this scenario you can read in the MUFON database.

• I didn't see a plane
• I didn't hear any planes
• There were no planes
• It could not have been a plane

I live in between three major international airports and endure cloudy nights about 2/3 of the time yet I've only seen this effect once and at the onset it was sharp, surprising and very dramatic. So I can well understand the impact it could have on someone who never got a satisfactory explanation for their experience.

So believers may frustrate me at times but I certainly do not hate them as mischaracterized earlier in this thread. My feelings about the grifters OTOH are not printable per the site's politeness policy.

You make a valid point. Luck and persistence can change a UFO to an IFO, but often observers can't investigate further for any number of reasons. If they already have a mindset for supernatural events to happen, they might not even bother. Luckily I came from a family who would look for natural (even if unusual) causes for events.

I've seen several UFOs in my life, but all of them have been turned into IFOs or at least ITIKWIIFOs (I Think I Know What It Is Flying Objects). The most notable:

• As a child I saw a cigar shaped UFO moving through the night. Cigar-shaped was the popular shape for UFOs back then. Eventually it became obvious that it was an advertising blimp. What if I hadn't stayed outside long enough for the UFO to come closer?
• My husband and I saw a collection of bright lights hovering over the ground while driving in a rural area. Eventually our road took us past the object. It was Christmas lights on a tall water tower, but not on the legs of the tower. What if our route had not taken us in that direction?
• While looking out the window of a commercial jet, I saw a silvery circular object zoom by the window. Probably a mylar balloon, but I didn't know party balloons could go that high and the weather balloons I knew about were white. (And it was the jet that zoomed, the object was just sitting there minding its own business, but reports always seem to claim the object was the one zooming.)

Not everyone even knows about debunking groups or unusual atmospheric phenomena or optical illusions or how cameras operate or whatever is needed to explain what they just saw. I'm a "there's a natural explanation" kind of girl, but I had never considered what spiderwebs in front of doorbell cameras would look like - I thought the web would be invisible.