NASA holds first public meeting on UFO study

I've once again been caught during a long process of writing and re-writing a post. You've frozen one version of many in time here.

I've re-written the post. I'm just trying to give a feel for the way we should be looking at this whole quirky mishegoss.

If I've got something wrong, please comment.
 
Last edited:
In experimental psychology it's expected that 5 percent of the data you collect during an experiment is bogus, because of the quirky nature of human psychology and the difficulties in collecting data from humans.
An important corollary of this is that if you have a large number of studies set at a confidence level of, say, 95%, you can reasonably expect about 5% of the studies to accept a false conclusion- either the alternative hypothesis is not disproven, or the null hypothesis is retained, when in fact those outcomes aren't accurate descriptions of the objective reality.

Why is this important to the average Joe or Julia? Think of all the studies into the efficacy of homeopathy. Loads of 'em.
It is inevitable (or at least, highly likely) that some of these studies, even if conducted honestly and competently, will conclude that the alternative hypothesis cannot be rejected, i.e. the homeopathic "remedy" being tested has some beneficial effect, even though this isn't the case.
And it is this minority of positive findings that homeopathy advocates always cite.
Same goes for other "contentious but interesting" fields of study, e.g. ESP testing using Zener cards. Do enough studies and you'll get some false positives- which will get popular media attention (whereas "null" findings are never reported).

The scientist's notion, (the thing he wants to be true) is called the alternative hypothesis.
Ideally, the scientist doesn't want the alternative (or experimental) hypothesis to be true- she or he dispassionately attempts to falsify the alternative hypothesis without any preconception of the outcome :D ,
...but human nature being what it is, of course researchers tend to be invested in "their" hypothesis. I guess the whole edifice of Popperian hypothesis testing is there to "keep us honest" and reduce (primarily) type 1 errors.

Its descriptive research not hypothesis testing.
It might reflect a bias (TBH, probably a prejudice) of mine, but I think hypothesis testing- or meta studies of tested hypotheses- is the "gold standard" of scientific research, but it's difficult to see how a quantitative model can be applied in the area of UAP reports.
This is partly due to the massive inconsistency of sightings- after 1000's of them, over 76 years (!), we don't know where the next one will be, what its flight pattern will be, and the more detailed the description, the less it's likely to resemble a previous sighting (notwithstanding generic saucer- or cigar- shaped objects, then triangles, now Tic-tacs).
All we can predict is that it will impart no novel information to the witness (I'm not convinced by Betty Hill's map), it will make no attempt to communicate via radio, it will leave no unambiguous physical evidence of ever having existed, and any "crew" will not be photographed or filmed.

I guess the F-18 FLIR records (and UAV footage of "spheres" in Iraq) are rich in checkable data, but I get the impression that Mick West (with the assistance of Mendel and many others here) has done more to analyse these, and come up with realistic explanations in the public realm, than any government agency, academic body, commercial interest or "Ufology" group that I'm aware of.

Where reports of UAPs are unaccompanied by such data- such as uncorroborated eyewitness reports- we are left with the same old problem of it being a matter of belief (that the witness is honest, and accurately reporting what they saw, which was a physical object or light source that any other competent observer would describe in a similar way).
 
Last edited:
I guess the F-18 FLIR records (and UAV footage of "spheres" in Iraq) are rich in checkable data, but I get the impression that Mick West (with the assistance of Mendel and many others here) has done more to analyse these, and come up with realistic explanations in the public realm, than any government agency, academic body, commercial interest or "Ufology" group that I'm aware of.
I get your general point. However, I don't feel I deserve any credit here; I came late to this topic, and ufology isn't really my thing. @Edward Current's Gimbal simulation that established a straight-line constant-velocity flight path for the UAP was possible, and inspired Mick to create the SitRec tool, is an awesome example of data-based analysis by a forum member.
 
Do enough studies and you'll get some false positives- which will get popular media attention (whereas "null" findings are never reported).
In true you-can't-win style, if there are enough null results, they might be mentioned in order to add rarity to the false positive to make it sound more important. Never underestimate the ability to abuse statistics to create a better headline.
 
There just isn't much for scientists to investigate.

If we had unimpeachably solid, hard data on even one case of an object, say, entering and subsequently leaving Earth's atmosphere, scientists definitely would be investigating it.

That was my point: we need scientists to gather quality data. I was responding to Ravi's comment that NASA shouldn't spend the time, money, or resources.
 
I do think there are anomalies in some sightings. But do we need to spend endless money on it? I think that money should go to proper science, like for instance astronomy. I did not mention Möbius for nothing: we are in an endless loop and nothing comes out of it, and this is going on for over 70 years now.
So far, we've had 70 years with very little effort by the scientific community to do a proper investigation, which is why nothing's come out of it. If UFOs represent alien spacecraft, don't you think it's one of the most worthwhile scientific endeavours?
 
So far, we've had 70 years with very little effort by the scientific community to do a proper investigation, which is why nothing's come out of it. If UFOs represent alien spacecraft, don't you think it's one of the most worthwhile scientific endeavours?

Just curious, why is it, do you think, that scientists are not very enthusiastic do dig into it? Must be a reason for it, and it is not a stigma thing.
 
That was my point: we need scientists to gather quality data. I was responding to Ravi's comment that NASA shouldn't spend the time, money, or resources.
Well, we have some outstanding space telescopes now. Several SETI projects are ongoing. Quality data is being gathered.

The problem with UFOs is that any sensor (including cameras) has a zone where you can see something's there, but you can't identify what it is. This is unavoidable because sensors don't go from "good" to "nothing": the zone in-between is the "low information zone" (LIZ), and if you get better sensors, it doesn't disappear, it's just further out. So there'll always be room for inconclusive "UFO reports", no matter how many scientists or resources you throw at it.

It's almost as if UFOs need bad quality data to manifest themselves.

For more on the LIZ, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/ .
 
Just curious, why is it, do you think, that scientists are not very enthusiastic do dig into it? Must be a reason for it, and it is not a stigma thing.
What makes you think it's not a stigma thing? What makes you think scientists don't face ridicule for expressing an interest, doing independent studies, or coming forwards with their own sightings? There's the whole association with the fringe elements of ufology, which has come to dominate the discussion.

If you're thinking they're not enthusiastic because there's nothing to the reports, I think you'll find they really don't pay attention to the subject very much at all, as I believe one of the panelists at the NASA hearing himself admitted too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01746-3.pdf
 
Well, we have some outstanding space telescopes now. Several SETI projects are ongoing. Quality data is being gathered.

The problem with UFOs is that any sensor (including cameras) has a zone where you can see something's there, but you can't identify what it is. This is unavoidable because sensors don't go from "good" to "nothing": the zone in-between is the "low information zone" (LIZ), and if you get better sensors, it doesn't disappear, it's just further out. So there'll always be room for inconclusive "UFO reports", no matter how many scientists or resources you throw at it.

It's almost as if UFOs need bad quality data to manifest themselves.

For more on the LIZ, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/ .
True, but this was discussed at the hearing. What instruments does NASA already have that can be used to better suit the detection of these objects? What instruments needs to be built, and what partnerships need to be formed? Reduce the LIZ, reduce the misidentifieds.
 
Reduce the LIZ, reduce the misidentifieds.
In the past, doing that never turned up actual UFOs; and it doesn't change that UFOs are still being reported.

There is absolutely no indication that your suggested plan of action is going to have any impact on ufology.
 
Last edited:
In the past, doing that never turned up actual UFOs; and it doesn't change that UFOs are still being reported.
So, when in the past has there been a systematic scientific study to detect these objects?
There is absolutely no indication that your suggested plan of action is going to have any impact on ufology.
Perhaps, but let's see what projects like The Galileo Project come up with. If NASA join the effort, all the better.
 
So, when in the past has there been a systematic scientific study to detect these objects?
Asked and answered:
shouldn't we at least have scientists investigate this properly?
4. We did. The University of Colorado UFO Project... The Condon Committee. These folk didn't conclude that the UFO phenomenon is malarkey. They concluded that further scientific study of the UFO thing isn't likely to result in anything useful. Which I think still holds.
 
Perhaps, but let's see what projects like The Galileo Project come up with.
My prediction is, disappointment.
Project ground rules

1. We do not work with classified information or unreliable past data.
2. Our analysis of the data is based on known physics.
3. Our data and analysis will be freely published, documented and archived.
4. No results will be released except through scientifically-accepted channels of publication.

Can I send the project any photos/videos I've captured myself? Can you help me identify something I saw?

We are not at this time accepting any outside media or observational reports of UAPs. The Galileo Project research is focused only on our own observational data, in order to ensure that all information we analyze is high-quality and reliable, consistent, calibrated, and comparable. For this reason, we are not seeking outside media or observations of UAPs.

These rules pretty much exclude all of the cases beloved by the UFO community.

I expect they also ensure nothing turns up, and that the UFO community will blame those rules and keep believing anyway. But let's see.
 
What makes you think it's not a stigma thing? What makes you think scientists don't face ridicule for expressing an interest, doing independent studies, or coming forwards with their own sightings? There's the whole association with the fringe elements of ufology, which has come to dominate the discussion.

If you're thinking they're not enthusiastic because there's nothing to the reports, I think you'll find they really don't pay attention to the subject very much at all, as I believe one of the panelists at the NASA hearing himself admitted too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01746-3.pdf

Site policy mandates quoting at least some representative highlights of whatever's at the end of any links, such that there's no actual need to follow the links right now, and such that were whatever is at the end of the link to move or disappear entirely, the important parts are preserved here for eternity.

For example, you could have quoted:
External Quote:
The final population of faculty totalled 39,984. [...] Total responses included 1549.
[...]
We incentivized participation (Dillman, 2007) by providing an opportunity for participants to opt into a lottery for a chance to win 1 of 15 Amazon gift cards.
Such that we could be left to consider concepts such as self-selecting samples, whom such incentives might attract, and what the responses of the other 96% might have been had participation been mandatory.
 
That was my point: we need scientists to gather quality data. I was responding to Ravi's comment that NASA shouldn't spend the time, money, or resources.
The sighting and/or photography of UFOs is, of necessity, random and unpredictable, so the gathering of data is almost always in the hands of random non-scientists whose most high-tech tool is usually the camera in their phone. The data are what they are, and we are stuck with whatever quality that provides.
 
Asked and answered:
The University of Colorado UFO Project..
Four members of The Condon Committee resigned or were fired for various reasons. These were:

Dr. David R. Saunders, a statistician and one of the principal investigators of the project. He was fired by Condon in April 1968, allegedly for leaking an internal memo that revealed Condon's negative attitude toward UFOs and his intention to dismiss most cases without proper analysis. Saunders later wrote a book titled UFOs? Yes! where he exposed the flaws and biases of the Condon Report.

Dr. Norman Levine, a physicist and another principal investigator. He resigned in May 1968, reportedly because he disagreed with Condon's methods and conclusions and felt that the project was not conducted in a scientific manner.

Dr. William Powers, a psychologist who specialized in hypnosis and witness interviews. He left the project in June 1967, apparently because he was dissatisfied with the lack of support and resources for his work.

Dr. Roy Craig, a chemist who investigated physical traces and radar cases. He resigned in January 1968, supposedly because he felt that his efforts were not appreciated or utilized by Condon.

The departure of these members raised questions about the credibility and integrity of the Condon Committee and its report. Some critics suggested that they were forced out or quit because they had found evidence that contradicted Condon's predetermined conclusion that UFOs were not worthy of scientific study.
 
The sighting and/or photography of UFOs is, of necessity, random and unpredictable, so the gathering of data is almost always in the hands of random non-scientists whose most high-tech tool is usually the camera in their phone. The data are what they are, and we are stuck with whatever quality that provides.
Not at all. Satellite imagery, radar data, observatories set up for detection. I'm not advocating for what's presented as UFOs from the public, as it's almost always mundane.
 
Dr. David R. Saunders, a statistician and one of the principal investigators of the project. He was fired by Condon in April 1968, allegedly for...

Dr. Norman Levine, a physicist and another principal investigator. He resigned in May 1968, reportedly...

Dr. William Powers, a psychologist who specialized in hypnosis and witness interviews. He left the project in June 1967, apparently because...

Dr. Roy Craig, a chemist who investigated physical traces and radar cases. He resigned in January 1968, supposedly because...
For those of us not intimately aware of the history of the Condon Committee, could you provide sources for WHO is doing the alleging, reporting and supposing here?
 
The True Believers have been trying to discredit the Condon Report like forever.. The committee's main crime has been one of "wrong thinking." In other words, not being True Believers. Any further study by a government or government sponsored agency will suffer the same fate. I base that conclusion on History. I can't get into the entire history of private UFO organizations, but historically even they have been full of in-fighting and soap opera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee
Astronomer J. Allen Hynek wrote that "The Condon Report settled nothing."[4] He called Condon's introduction "singularly slanted" and wrote that it "avoided mentioning that there was embedded within the bowels of the report a remaining mystery; that the committee had been unable to furnish adequate explanations for more than a quarter of the cases examined."[4] Hynek contended that "Condon did not understand the nature and scope of the problem" he was studying[4] and objected to the idea that only extraterrestrial life could explain UFO activity. By focusing on this hypothesis, he wrote, the Report "did not try to establish whether UFOs really constituted a problem for the scientist, whether physical or social."

So Hynek formed his own investigative agency: CUFOs. He hired a full time investigator: Allan Hendry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hendry
Hendry was hired for CUFOS by the organization's founder, J. Allen Hynek, who was seeking a full-time investigator with scientific expertise and an open-minded attitude, and who was neither a debunker nor a "UFO believer".

As the chief investigator for CUFOS during most of the 1970s, Hendry personally investigated over 1000 UFO reports. He was able to find mundane explanations for the vast majority of UFO cases, but he also judged a small percentage of cases to be unexplained. One of the most famous "unexplained" cases he investigated was the Val Johnson Incident in 1979, in which a deputy sheriff in Minnesota experienced a "collision" with an unknown object which damaged his patrol car and left him temporarily unconscious. Hendry was the primary ufologist to investigate the case; in 1980 he debated the incident with well-known UFO debunker Philip Klass at a symposium held at the Smithsonian Institution.

He was reluctant to speculate as to origins of the unexplained cases, and argued they might be explainable with further data, leading some researchers to label Hendry a "closet skeptic".[1] At the same time, a few noted skeptics and debunkers who had praised Hendry's scientific rigor subjected him to strong criticism for his conclusion that a handful of well-documented UFO reports seemed to defy analysis, and might represent genuine anomalies. Hendry suggested that the criticism from both camps were little more than ad hominem attacks, since they typically paid little or no attention to the substance of his research.
Hendry's magnum opus was The UFO Handbook,[2] a guide for other UFO investigators.

In the book, Hendry castigates many mainstream scientists for what he sees as their neglecting UFO studies, but he also had strong criticism for many amateur UFO investigators, who he thought did the subject more harm than good. Clark characterized Hendry's appraisal of ufology in general as "deeply pessimistic", concluding that the subject was all but paralyzed by infighting, a lack of cooperation and standardization, and dubious claims. The UFO Handbook even earned the praise of arch-skeptic Philip J. Klass, who in a review published in The Skeptical Inquirer described the book as "one of the most significant and useful books on the subject ever published."

Hendry reported that there was no fundamental difference between solved and unsolved cases.

This was about the time that Hynek turned away from Nuts and Bolts UFOlogy (flying saucers) and toward the more mysterious Invisible College hypothesis of Extradimensional Intelligence (EDI) (or something). But how on Earth do you do a scientific study of beings from another dimension (or whatever)? Is this just a preservation of belief? Turning away from a disappointing Aliens hypothesis to an even more elusive idea?

At this point it just seems like people are just trying to prove their own vision of reality.

I suggest that concerned people across the globe get together and form your own investigative agency. Think of what you could accomplish if like 100,000 people band together and tithe 10 percent of your income.

But what I wonder is... What is your mission statement? To find the Truth, I suppose. But after you find the truth? What do you do with it? If the Alien Beings hypothesis is true, they don't seem to be interested in revealing themselves. If any of the other various explanations are more true, what do you do with it?
 
Last edited:
Satellite imagery, radar data, observatories set up for detection. I'm not advocating for what's presented as UFOs from the public, as it's almost always mundane.

First of all, welcome to the forum.

Yes but, if it's almost always mundane, then that raises the point of why look for something not mundane. Observatories set up for detection, pre-supposes there are non-mundane explanations for what people see in the sky. As for satellites and radar, the earth is literally cover in them. There is satellite imagery for most of the world. Huge swath of the globe is covered by radar simply to facilitate air travel.

Obviously not everywhere, but certainly much more now than 70 years ago when the UFO era began, and yet it has not provided any real evidence of non-mundane things occurring in the sky above us.

If a large percentage of cases turn out to be mundane, then it follows that those where there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions is still likely mundane.
 
The junk *has* been addressed "seriously", that's what we've been doing for years-to-decades - you mean *officially and seriously*. More precisely, I hope you mean "It's about time some of this junk is addressed officially and seriously - and only seriously, with a complete absence of the fluff that has had an official stamp of approval in the past."

Unless the summary "all the evidence has been garbage, and all of the conclusions from the skeptics has been 100% on point, you need to stop trusting the people you've previously been trusting, as they've been deliberately misleading you" was delivered, then it was a waste of time. The important thing isn't discrediting the *cases*, it's about discrediting the *narrative*. Cases will, and do - interminably, come and go; it's the cult-like behaviour of the credulous as putty in the hands of those armed with high-pressure bunk-nozzles that remains the same (and of course the behaviour of those in command of the high-pressure bunk-nozzles too).

Do we have a list of quotes describing the now-accepted-as-bunk cases as "the best evidence yet" and similar? Use their own words against them - just hold up a mirror. I appreciate that shaming people isn't the metabunk way, but I believe there are many paths that vary depending on your precise goals.

Yes "officially and seriously". All due respect to metabunk, but NASA has the name recognition, the resources, and the reach to systematically examine and explain a large number of those UAPs and the results will be reported widely.

I've seen Elizondo and Korbel on national TV hyping "space aliens" but I haven't seen anyone give the opposing view. NASA can fix that.

Speaking of which, someone needs to reach out to NASA and ask them to properly credit the "Go Fast" analysis. What they did is basically a plagiarism.
 
Yes "officially and seriously". All due respect to metabunk, but NASA has the name recognition, the resources, and the reach to systematically examine and explain a large number of those UAPs and the results will be reported widely.
I think you'd find NASA disagrees with you on resources.
 
How will NASA name recognition and so on change anything?

In my book Dr. Anthony Fauci is an admirable and selfless public servant and I look to him for accurate info on epidemiology. But millions of people want him to be jailed or executed.

My prediction from the NASA thing:
-Most cases will be solved
-Some cases will remain unsolved.

Most people won't care very much, Skeptics will keep on skepticing and True Believers will keep on believerng.... and the level of hate will only increase. Meanwhile there will be no discernable difference in how the world turns.

In other words, situation normal since 1948.

Will that mean that I won't be just as fascinated by the subject? Will I stop working on solving cases? Hell, no. But at the age of 66 I've scaled back my expectations. And I've taken a hard look at my own motives. I used to try to get people interested in the subject but most aren't. I tried to justify myself by trying to show that UFO belief is harmful. But that was just self-indulgent. It really isn't.

I now feel that my Skeptical UFO research is a fascinating hobby of no more import than all the crossword puzzles I used to do. It's a chew toy for an overactive brain, and an autistic quirk.

At best it raises the level of knowledge among people who are amenable to understanding the subject. As a personal matter, I like an increase in knowledge.

If other Skeptics feel they're doing something to raise the level of rationality in society in general... well, maybe you are. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

Maybe we can agree that a person should do the right thing, just because it's the right thing. I think rationality is good. It's better to light a single candle than curse the darkness. That kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
For those of us not intimately aware of the history of the Condon Committee, could you provide sources for WHO is doing the alleging, reporting and supposing here?
Here's an interesting blurb:
External Quote:
David Saunders was a professor of psychology at the University of Coloradowhen the Air Force grant was proposed. He became involved in the Colorado Project, the so-called independent civilian scientific research effort on UFO reports led by Dr. Edward Condon, and thus known as the Condon Report. He was extremely interested in the UFO subject and immediately volunteered to be part of the project team. Saunders was probably somewhat in violation of one of the criteria for project members in that none were supposed to be actively involved with UFO organizations. He was a member of NICAP.
http://www.noufors.com/Dr_David_R_Saunders.htm

(Note: NOUFORS is the Northern Ontario UFO Research and Study group. NICAP is the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, which, in spite of its official-sounding name, is a privately run organization looking for UFOs.)

The points I note are that (1) he was in violation of the criteria for project members, and (2) he volunteered, that is, it seems he actively went looking for a platform where he might inject his UFO beliefs.
 
Not at all. Satellite imagery, radar data, observatories set up for detection. I'm not advocating for what's presented as UFOs from the public, as it's almost always mundane.
Where do you plan to put your observatories, satellites, or radar installations? At the end of a runway sign-posted "UFOs this way please"? ;)
 
I think you'd find NASA disagrees with you on resources.
NASA has a budget granted by a warring congress, so all bets are off. But NASA has a genuine mission of concern, to determine if sighted objects are the product of hostile actions by non-friendly nations. In so doing, their research can filter out a good many mundane explanations.

But will those rejected sightings satisfy the UFO-believers? I would not be surprised if the status of NASA as a government agency tends to make the conspiracy theorists disbelieve them reflexively. Similarly the skeptics will probably mistrust the conclusions of any study group established by the UFO camp. In other words, the actual data/report/photographs, even if they are from trustworthy sources, can obviously lead to two different sets of conclusions (indeed, we have often seen that happen in Metabunk) leaving the general unscientific public to pick whichever they want to believe.
 
First of all, welcome to the forum.

Yes but, if it's almost always mundane, then that raises the point of why look for something not mundane. Observatories set up for detection, pre-supposes there are non-mundane explanations for what people see in the sky. As for satellites and radar, the earth is literally cover in them. There is satellite imagery for most of the world. Huge swath of the globe is covered by radar simply to facilitate air travel.

Obviously not everywhere, but certainly much more now than 70 years ago when the UFO era began, and yet it has not provided any real evidence of non-mundane things occurring in the sky above us.

If a large percentage of cases turn out to be mundane, then it follows that those where there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions is still likely mundane.

When it comes to satellite coverage, its often a choice between availability and resolution.
Geostationary satellites like GOES give you a CONUS image every 5 minutes, but the pixel size is between 0.5 and 2 km. So not enough to capture most UAPs.

You can get a sub-meter resolution from private companies such as Maxar, but you have to task the satellite for a particular area. Repeat time is probably every 1 - 2 days. Thus UAPs are too ephemeral for that.

As evidenced by the Chinese spy balloon, radar has it's flaws too.

I belong to a couple of UFO groups on Facebook. While the vast majority of reports are real, most are very mundane. In order of frequency:
1. Starlink "trains" - those pop up surprisingly often, virtual after every launch.
2. Launch artifacts such as glow / comet like tail
3. Airplanes - either because they appear to have no wings, or because of they are bright at night and appear to be "hanging" when on approach
4. Balloons and other airborne clutter.

NASA has it's work cut out for them that's for sure.
 
NASA has a budget granted by a warring congress, so all bets are off. But NASA has a genuine mission of concern, to determine if sighted objects are the product of hostile actions by non-friendly nations. In so doing, their research can filter out a good many mundane explanations.
Actually that "mission of concern" belongs to the DoD. If NASA was to determine a specific event was the result of technology from a nation-state and/or potential enemy, the information would certainly be passed to DoD. When the news of the NASA study broke, they stressed their efforts were to study the phenomena strictly from a scientific prospective. The DoD is not represented in the NASA group, although at least one member (Kelly) formerly served in the US military.
 
When it comes to satellite coverage, its often a choice between availability and resolution.
Geostationary satellites like GOES give you a CONUS image every 5 minutes, but the pixel size is between 0.5 and 2 km. So not enough to capture most UAPs.

You can get a sub-meter resolution from private companies such as Maxar, but you have to task the satellite for a particular area. Repeat time is probably every 1 - 2 days. Thus UAPs are too ephemeral for that.

As evidenced by the Chinese spy balloon, radar has it's flaws too.

I belong to a couple of UFO groups on Facebook. While the vast majority of reports are real, most are very mundane. In order of frequency:
1. Starlink "trains" - those pop up surprisingly often, virtual after every launch.
2. Launch artifacts such as glow / comet like tail
3. Airplanes - either because they appear to have no wings, or because of they are bright at night and appear to be "hanging" when on approach
4. Balloons and other airborne clutter.

NASA has it's work cut out for them that's for sure.

Agreed. I maybe should have worded that better. What I was trying to say was, there is considerably more radar and satellite coverage in each decade since the late '40s when UFOs became a thing. Despite this, the evidence for said UFOs is little better than it was then. Mostly stories and fuzzy photos.

I suppose there are a few anomalous radar or satellite events, but in general, the ongoing improvement in radar and satellites in the past 70 years has not resulted in an equal ongoing improvement in the evidence for UFOs. That being the case, what is the likelihood that a further increase in some sort of technological UFO hunting program will improve the outcome?
 
But the Aliens or Extradimensional Beings or whatnot, have stealth technology!

Which brings up what I think is an important issue. UFO belief is unfalsifiable. Any notion or belief system that is unfalsifiable sits crossways with me.
 
Last edited:
At 00:33:00, Sean Kirkpatrick is explaining one of his slides.
External Quote:

In the middle is what we call our typical UAP characteristics for the vast majority of the cases that we see.
One way of looking at that is a is a we'll call it a Target package this is the thing we are out hunting for in most cases.
This 'target package' is in the picture below.
Just after that, when he's showing the footage of the orb:
External Quote:

This is a typical example of the thing that we see most of. We see these all over the world and we see these making very interesting apparent maneuvers. This one in particular however I would point out demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and was no threat to Airborne safety.
Source: transcript file provided by Mick West.
1685774476134.jpeg


First thought if you hear 'orbs seen all over the world' is: balloons.
But the 'Target package' in the slide has a signature that does not match balloons.
Especially the Radio signature seems to indicate these orbs typically emit EM frequencies in the indicated ranges.
I found this quite remarkable (and the only part of the meeting that was really interesting).
 
First of all, welcome to the forum.

Yes but, if it's almost always mundane, then that raises the point of why look for something not mundane. Observatories set up for detection, pre-supposes there are non-mundane explanations for what people see in the sky.
Thanks.

Well obviously. The point I was making earlier is that people are describing structured vehicles with unconventional flight characteristics, myself included. You can argue "how can you be sure it was a vehicle?" and "how can you be sure you didn't misidentify something prosaic? and the answers usually given, are generally in the form of a description of shape, intelligently controlled maneuvers, lights and so forth.
If a large percentage of cases turn out to be mundane, then it follows that those where there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions is still likely mundane.
If I spent a considerable amount of time carefully looking at what's presented as evidence for UFOs in the form of photos and videos, (and I have) I would probably come to the same conclusion. But I can't, because of what I've personally seen, I know some cases fall into the category of not mundane, and there's indeed something there to discover.
 
Where do you plan to put your observatories, satellites, or radar installations? At the end of a runway sign-posted "UFOs this way please"? ;)
Have unidentified objects not been detected on radar? I get your point though.
 
Back
Top