The Epistemology of UFOs - No Longer a Matter of Belief?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Following up on a July 23, 2020 New York Times article on official investigations into airspace incursions by unknown aircraft, reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean have co-authored a follow-up piece titled "Do We Believe in U.F.O.s? That’s the Wrong Question."

Article:
We’re often asked by well-meaning associates and readers, “Do you believe in U.F.O.s?” The question sets us aback as being inappropriately personal. Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias.

But in this case we have no problem responding, “No, we don’t believe in U.F.O.s.”

As we see it, their existence, or nonexistence, is not a matter of belief.


They then go on to make a rather unusual definition of UFO:

Article:
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.


Which is, quite frankly, nonsense. The vast majority of UFO sightings are slow-moving blobs or lights that are simply too far away to be identified. Some accounts, like the 2004 experience of David Fravor, describe highly unusual (if not impossible) capabilities, but that's the exception, not the rule. "Unidentified" means "not identified"

It is a remarkable claim for a New York Times reporter to make, that they are somehow immune to making any kind of value judgment on the information they present. They (and I suspect this is largely Blumenthal, as he is highly engaged in the article comments) seems to be claiming they are presenting only immutable facts when in actuality they present mostly the opinions of other people that they claim are reputable. In other words, they believe these people are reputable.

Some examples from the comments:

Article:
Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@LesISmore We are aware of government UFO disinformation efforts over the years but we are as sure as one can be that our information is genuine based on highly reliable sources, some of whom are outside government.

Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@K Kfishna I believe MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, collects such figures.

Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@David Stevens Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says.

Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@James clarke We understand there are more videos but we have not seen them.


So Blumenthal does not "believe" things, instead, he is "aware of" things, and "as sure as one can be" about things, and he "understands" things. Unfortunately, he's unable to demonstrate things, he's also unable to even give exact quotes from his sources, much less say who those sources are, or how exactly they know what they say they believe they know.

Perhaps the most telling things here Blumenthal's statement that "Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says." Now, people have asked me in the past why the government spends money researching odd subjects like UFOs. I respond saying it's a combination of two things: firstly, the very real problem of unidentified aircraft, possibly of novel types belonging to foreign adversaries, violating secure airspace, and secondly, wishful thinking by UFO fans, like Harry Reid.

Jacques Vallee is an interesting figure here. He's the original source for the French scientist portrayed in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But he does not actually believe in conventional alien visitors - instead:
Article:
Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact.

Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space.

So Valee thinks that UFOs are fake, but they are faked both by "a form of non-human consciousness" and separately by some human conspiracy. That Blumenthal says he pays attention to everything that Vallee says cast some doubt on his assistance that he's a mere conduit of facts unsullied by beliefs. It seems particularly at odd with their statement of "Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias." This opinion about Vallee very much does imply reporting bias, as does the presentation in the previous article of Eric W. Davis as some kind of authority from the Pentagon.

I believe that both Blumenthal and Kean are, essentially, taking advantage of the veneer of respectability offered by being a "New York Times Reporter" to promote things that they personally believe. I suspect that the apparent heavy-handed editing of their previous article shows that the more conventional New York Times staff has some misgivings about this.

Why did I title this "The Epistemology of UFOs?" Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. I'd avoided talking about epistemology until the end of this piece because once a discussion devolves into epistemology then it's all semantics and it's essentially over. Yet Blumenthal's and Kean's piece is essentially one of those discussion-killing devolutions. They claim not to "believe" in UFOs, but instead to know that UFOs "demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology" They present this, with a quote from Magaret Mead as something as factual as "the sun or the moon, or the changing seasons, or the chairs they’re sitting on."

In epistemology, knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief." Knowledge is something about the world that we believe to be true, and actually is true, and our belief in that truth is justified by the evidence available to us. Facts are facts, beliefs can be wrong, knowledge is made of facts that have correctly found their way into our brains. But what do Blumenthal and Kean know? Nothing concrete. Nothing they can share with us. Their three videos have diminished in interest under analysis. They don't actually demonstrate any interesting materials recovered from crashed sites. They only have the words of people they believe.
 
Odd to see old dead things from the '70's dredged up. I never expected to hear about Jacques Vallee again. He was a nuts and bolts flying saucer kind of guy, but drifted into Contactee territory, then settled into a theory that is very similar to the current "targeted individual" concept. He specialized in collecting UFO reports that would ordinarily be reported as a straight forward nuts and bolts case and then add on comments about how "dream like" the witness testimony was. This was meant to be supporting evidence for his theory about some unknown trans-dimensional agency staging odd experiences to do... what? He couldn't say. I interpreted this as someone who lost his faith in flying saucers but couldn't give up on the mystery aspect. He found something perfectly untestable.

A UFOlogist treating us to defensive, over the top expressions of certainty is nothing new, certainly.
 
Last edited:
They then go on to make a rather unusual definition of UFO:

Article:
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
I think most posters (including myself) on a debunking website, read "U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens"
and think: "Yes! Boy, I've found myself having to make that point far too many times over the years!"

But "...they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology"!!!
I had literally never heard any definition like that.

I don't pretend to know much about Blumenthal or Vallee...but this "...demonstrate capabilities..."
part is too radical to swallow.
 
Following up on a July 23, 2020 New York Times article on official investigations into airspace incursions by unknown aircraft, reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean have co-authored a follow-up piece titled "Do We Believe in U.F.O.s? That’s the Wrong Question."

Article:
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
This is nonsense. Unidentified Flying Object means exactly what it says, without some subtle (or not) nuance. Nothing about technology, aliens, or capabilities.

Cheers - Jon N7UV
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm, once again, going to recommend The UFO Handbook

https://www.amazon.com/Ufo-Handbook...o+handbook+allan+hendry&qid=1596270354&sr=8-1


Anyone who is interested in the subject should own a copy.

Hendry was hired as a full time investigator by J. Allen Hynek. He only investigated "live" cases, not historical cases. He was sometimes able to convert UFO's to IFO's in real time as they were still in the air (e.g. a formation of 3 National Guard planes with illuminated tails, flying around a town as a promotional thing).

Hendry was able to identify 95% of all the cases he investigated. He also went on to say that he could find no fundamental difference between the solved and the unsolved cases.

It was pointed out, by Robert Sheaffer, that 5%...

...well I'm going to stop right there because I was going to write some technical stuff about analytical statistics which would take paragraphs to clarify. So I'll make this as simple as possible.

In a Psychology experiment, you assume that 5% of your data is unusable because it's a quirky field, and your data is going to be quirky. This 5% figure matches the percentage of raw cases Hendry couldn't solve. From the beginning you would expect 5% of cases to remain unsolved, when nothing strange is going on. You would expect 5% of your data to be garbled, or unusable when you are dealing with a quirky thing like UFO sightings; something which involves human psychology and human perception. In other words the 5% figure supports the idea that nothing strange is going on. This 5% of unsolved cases is pretty consistent with all historical cases.

By the 70's UFO Believers conceded that 95% of UFO cases are solvable, but they insisted that the remaining 5% represent a "hard core" - the real flying saucer sightings. But this is a fallacy. Would they expect that 100% of cases which are spawned by misidentified objects/phenomena - plus hoaxes! - would be solvable? The 5% of unsolved cases is not a "hard core" of "genuine" UFO cases.

This idea is just as applicable to Vallee's theory as it is to nuts and bolts flying saucers. I wonder if Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean are sufficiently up on their UFO History as to have heard of this point Sheaffer made. At the time I don't think there was anyone in the field who hadn't heard about it. The Believers either ducked the question or offered some non-sequitur in response, but they all knew about it.

In any case they are ignoring the question of whether the objects they are talking about really did the things they were reported to do. Is there anyone who isn't aware that honest witnesses can be mistaken about what they think they are seeing? Or that many UFO cases involving radar have been resolved? Or that memory is fallible?
 
Last edited:
...they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
Content from External Source
Clearly Alien Technology

Source: https://youtu.be/pX4mlgwSKd4?t=2266

... the reason we are fooled from this angle is that the trapezoid and its windows are not rectangular in shape, but we expect them to be. ...our brain interprets the visual image in terms of past experience.
Content from External Source


Corrected
U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they APPEAR to demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
This is nonsense. Unidentified Flying Object means exactly what it says, without some subtle (or not) nuance. Nothing about technology, aliens, or capabilities.

Cheers - Jon N7UV

it is nonsense. which is why -in my opinion- it is much more likely people are reacting to bad writing, which is possibly causing them to misinterpret what was meant in the article. The article is specifically focusing on the "Pentagon UFO program" (and probably more specifically AATIP- since they have a screen shot of a AATIP slide), and what the authors consider "ufos", since the question was asked to them.

This is a good example of why you can't assign meaning/motivation to other people's words without full context or being able to ask follow up questions.

the full quote:
That’s what the Pentagon U.F.O. program has been focusing on, making it eminently newsworthy. And to be clear: U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.

In our reporting, we’ve focused on how the Department of Defense, the Office of Naval Intelligence and members of two Senate committees are engaged with this topic. Current officials are now concerned about the potential threat represented by the very real, advanced technological objects: how close they can come to our fighter jets, sometimes causing a near miss, and the risk that our adversaries may acquire the technology demonstrated by the objects before we do.

...

1596289638687.png
Content from External Source
 
The article is specifically focusing on the "Pentagon UFO program" (and probably more specifically AATIP- since they have a screen shot of a AATIP slide), and what the authors consider "ufos", since the question was asked to them.

The question asked of them (Kean and Blumenthal) was "Do you believe in U.F.O.s?" and their response was that "in this case, [no, because we are just looking at facts, not beliefs]"

Nobody asked them what their definition of UFOs was, or about the distinction between "belief" and "a vigilant search for facts" - and it's not even really clear what their article is supposed to clarify.

I think this is more than bad writing. It's emblematic of two common issues that we see in many of the topics Metabunk covers.

1) Just Asking Questions - typically: "Oh no, I'm not suggesting that, I'm just asking questions" - a way of advocating for a belief without actually committing to it. 9/11 Truthers won't say how they think the building collapsed, they just think that the NIST explanation is flawed, Flat Earthers won't say what map of the Earth looks like, they just think the globe explanation does not fit, UFO fans won't say it's aliens, they are just asking why there's these craft flying around that transcend know human technology.

2) Premature Elimination - typically: "It's not A, B, or C, so it must be either Y or Z." This is a rush towards a preferred conclusion based on overly-hasty elimination of proposed convention explanations (A, B, C) by the unquestioning acceptance of some "facts" that seem incompatible with those explanations. With 9/11 we have "WTC7 fell too fast, so it's not just from fire." With chemtrails, we have "the trails persist for too long, so they are not contrails." With UFO's we have "it has no wings, so it's not a plane", or "it accelerated at over 1000g, so it's not a human craft we are aware of"

There several factors in Premature Elimination - "experts don't make mistakes" being a common one here, then there's "multi-million dollar equipment does not have bugs", "how could lots of different people be wrong?", "A, B, and C, seem not to really fit", or perhaps the worst factor "we can't say for sure if it's A, B or C, so we are going with Z"

The last paragraph exemplifies some of these issues:

Our sources told us that “A.A.V.” does not refer to vehicles made in any country — not Russian or Chinese — but is used to mean technology in the realm of the truly unexplained. They also assure us that their briefings are based on facts, not belief.
Content from External Source
If AAV does not refer to vehicles made in any country, then what do we have other than aliens? Vehicles made by a rogue scientist?

And what does "truly unexplained" mean here? Remember an older article by Kean:
Article:
An exceptional nine-minute Navy video of a UFO displaying highly unusual behavior, studied by Chilean authorities for the last two years, is now being released to the public.
...
General Ricardo Bermúdez, Director of CEFAA during the investigation, told me that “We do not know what it was, but we do know what it was not.” And “what it is not” comprises a long list of conventional explanations.
...
Air Force photo analysts confirmed that the object was a real, three dimensional form with volume and that it “has control in its movements.” It was not affected by the winds, reflected the light, and threw out “some kind of energy.” They established that there was no evidence of hoaxing or of “alteration of the video by any computer application in the editing and processing of the images.” They also ruled out a bird, flying insect, drone, parachute or hang glider. “It can be concluded that the object has all the characteristics to be classified as an unidentified aerial phenomenon” wrote Alberto Vergara, the lead analyst from the Air Force Photogrammetric Department.
...
“This has been one of the most important cases in my career as director of CEFAA because our Committee was at its best, “ General Bermúdez said in an email. “The CEFAA is well regarded partly because there is full participation from the scientists of the academic world, the armed forces through their representatives, and the aeronautic personnel from the DGAC, including its Director. I am extremely pleased as well with the conclusion reached which is logical and unpretentious.” The official conclusion was that “the great majority of committee members agreed to call the subject in question a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) due to the number of highly researched reasons that it was unanimously agreed could not explain it.”
...
I am grateful to General Bermúdez for giving me access to the outstanding CEFAA case files, inviting me to attend meetings there, and for his time in answering my questions. He has left a tremendous legacy with regards to the serious study of UAP and the official recognition of a real unexplained phenomenon in our skies.


Looks like an astonishing confirmation of UFOs by official sources. Yet a few days after the video was released, the object was unequivocally identified as a plane. Iberian flight 6830.

Kean may well claim, or even believe, that she was simply dispassionately investigating facts, just repeating what the experts told her. But she, and her experts, got that one dead wrong. It does not seem entirely unreasonable that her own beliefs might have been a factor in that.
 
[...]
I interpret what they are saying in this article as- It's a fact that strange, unexplained things are going on.

Why? Because of the reference to Jacques Vallee.
wikipedia



In the mid-1960s, like many other UFO researchers, Vallée initially attempted to validate the popular Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (or ETH). UFO researcher Jerome Clark[4] argues that Vallée's first two UFO books were among the most scientifically sophisticated defenses of the ETH ever mounted.

However, by 1969, Vallée's conclusions had changed, and he publicly stated that the ETH was too narrow and ignored too much data. Vallée began exploring the commonalities between UFOs, cults, religious movements, demons, angels, ghosts, cryptid sightings, and psychic phenomena. His speculation about these potential links was first detailed in his third UFO book, Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers.

As an alternative to the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis, Vallée has suggested a multidimensional visitation hypothesis. This hypothesis represents an extension of the ETH where the alleged extraterrestrials could be potentially from anywhere. The entities could be multidimensional beyond space-time; thus they could coexist with humans, yet remain undetected.

Vallée's opposition to the popular ETH was not well received by prominent U.S. ufologists, hence he was viewed as something of an outcast. Indeed, Vallée refers to himself as a "heretic among heretics".

Vallée's opposition to the ETH theory is summarised in his paper, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990:

Scientific opinion has generally followed public opinion in the belief that unidentified flying objects either do not exist (the "natural phenomena hypothesis") or, if they do, must represent evidence of a visitation by some advanced race of space travellers (the extraterrestrial hypothesis or "ETH"). It is the view of the author that research on UFOs need not be restricted to these two alternatives. On the contrary, the accumulated data base exhibits several patterns tending to indicate that UFOs are real, represent a previously unrecognized phenomenon, and that the facts do not support the common concept of "space visitors." Five specific arguments articulated here contradict the ETH:
  1. unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
  2. the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
  3. the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
  4. the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
  5. the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives.
Content from External Source
If they are following Vallee's theory, the phrase "do not appear to be possible" would mean this: The witnesses are being tricked into seeing things that appear to defy the laws of physics. The objects are actually induced hallucinations, or "projections" or... something unimaginable. The real mystery is who these unknown non-humans are and why they are doing this.

They seem to be leaving open the possibility that the objects are physical and really do defy the laws physics as we know them and... are displayed to people to confuse them, and through them the human race in general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is more than bad writing. It's emblematic of two common issues that we see in many of the topics Metabunk covers.

i agree with everything you wrote, but i was only commenting on their personal definition of what they are considering when they say UFOs they personally consider noteworthy. I think it is a legitimate clarification, that ties directly to the question.

The rest of the article, imo, does seem to make clear they definitely believe in aliens. or at the very least they want to continue to make money off people who do believe in aliens.
 
I interpret what they are saying in this article as- There are definitely strange unexplained things going on.

Why? Because of the reference to Jacques Vallee.
That reference was by Blumenthal in the comments, not that article itself. There were actually three, so for completeness:


Bob A., Austin, Texas, July 30
Mr. Blumenthal mentioned Jacques Vallée as someone who could shed light on this subject. He believes that UFOs are actually 'ships' traveling between dimensions. They are not off-planet. He says these 'ships' enter our world through the use of power beams. Some of these have thrown off parts or power that has left traces behind. He says these remains have been tested and cannot be from earth because their composition is unknown here. We can't make these. He say that early UFO studies focused on the hunt for propellant which totally missed the advanced nature of these 'ships'. I was totally confused by much of what Mr. Vallee wrote. I visited a podcast which was easier to understand because there were questions ans answers. Has anyone else read his writings and can clarify what he thinks.

Ralph Blumenthal, Contributor, former Times reporter, July 31
@Bob A. Jacques Vallee is indeed a deep and original thinker. He has put forward various hypotheses like inter-dimensionality in his books and other writings. He admits he contradicts himself because he himself, unlike some other supposed experts, says he is not sure what the phenomenon is.

...

David Stevens, Los Angeles, July 29
Great article.
I hear a lot about how these are extraterrestrial craft. But through your research so far, is there any credence to Jacques Vallee’s statements that they are most likely ultra terrestrial in origin, meaning from other dimensions instead of this one?

Ralph Blumenthal, Contributor, former Times reporter, July 29
@David Stevens Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says.

...

El Anciano, Santa Clara Ca, July 28
"Our sources told us that “A.A.V.” does not refer to vehicles made in any country — not Russian or Chinese — but is used to mean technology in the realm of the truly unexplained. They also assure us that their briefings are based on facts, not belief.
The briefings for the slides is based on fact. Not that the subject matter has been recovered. Hopeful (wishful) thinking that some will be recovered."
Allusions and inferences.
I am reminded of the book American cosmic (Pasulka) which also alluded to strange things in a room hidden away. One that inspired technological advances.
The ability was always there. they did not need a ET muse.
Finally here is a kernal of guidance .
Jacques Vallee thought that to seek the energy source of the objects was more important that where (?) they came from.

Ralph Blumenthal, Contributor, former Times reporter, July 28
@El Anciano Vallee and Pasulka, both intrepid researchers and deep thinkers.

Content from External Source
So basically saying Vallee is " a deep and original thinker," " an outstanding intellectual in the field," and along with Pasulka, "intrepid researchers and deep thinkers."
 
So are we all in agreement that they are rejecting - or more properly, completely ignoring - the skeptical hypothesis? - UFO cases could all be resolved if our data were complete.

And are instead insisting that it's a fact there is something unexplainable going on.
 
So are we all in agreement that they are rejecting - or more properly, completely ignoring - the skeptical hypothesis? - UFO cases could all be resolved if our data were complete.
If that's the "the skeptical hypothesis", then they rightly reject it. That's a ridiculously all-encompassing truism.

And are instead insisting that it's a fact there is something unexplainable going on.
Again, that's a bit poorly defined. Is it even possible for something to be unexplainable if you have "complete" data?

It's really not clear what their position is. But they are just asking questions, and they seem to be prematurely eliminating a variety of hypotheses.
 
Okay, I'm struggling to make definitions that aren't paragraphs long.

UFO Skeptic - There's nothing "strange" going on. UFO cases are all spawned by misidentified natural objects, natural phenomena, man made objects; or by atmospheric quirks, psychological quirks, radar quirks, photographic quirks, memory quirks, hoaxes... and what else?

UFO Believer - There is something very strange going on. Eyewitnesses have seen real - flying saucers, inter-dimensional ships, Jungian projections, Earthly beings our ancestors called fairies, angels, demons, ghosts, or ???? Or have encountered real ET's, inter-dimensional beings, Earthly beings our ancestors called fairies, or ???? through telepathy, or in dreams, or in altered states of consciousness, or in past life experience intruding on present time, or ????

Or you could sum it up this way:

Skeptic: You're making a mistake.
Believer: I'm not making a mistake. This is real.
 
Last edited:
The problem with UFOology right now is they have placed all there beliefs on statements by scientists who have had very very questionable pasts.
Scientists who have been called out for literally decades for their "crackpot" science

Yet since they have PHD's , people point to them and claim that what they say must be true.

Fact of the matter is that the defense forces have always spent a little money on fringe topics. Remote viewing , Telkinesis etc.
And it hasn't been hard for them to find the questionable scientists to perform such studies.
And if you go back through newspaper clippings the government has always been critisized for it by the public for spending money on rubbish.
It's nothing new . To be fair the defense forces have said that in their endevour for discovery they leave no stone unturned , and sometimes that means investigating things that turn out to be nonsense

To further muddy things, a lot of these questionable studies were put out as propaganda. Especially throughout the cold war.

The issue with UFOology right now is "Belief Bias" I believe, therefor I only see things that backup what I believe.
You see it throughout UFOology. One example in regards to the Navy UFO's is this "we must believe what service men say" as they have credibility. But then you have the Navy Gimble UFO video where they discount entirely what the WSO says when he says "It's a drone Bro"
Nothing shows that more than this embarrasing video. At 3:05 in, Richard Doty says his job was to BS people and tell them they saw Alien craft to cover for top secret US aircraft they actually saw. Staggeringly, they then ask ask him if he has seen Alien technology to which Doty says yes. And they are like totally believing it. I mean , it's embarassing and highlights everything wrong with UFOology today


Source: https://youtu.be/jwTCwebi-6Q?t=184
 
Last edited:
I agree with much that has been said above. And I agree with others that the definition they gave of UFO is just poor writing and would be fixed by saying that they "appear to defy the laws of physics".

I think this sums up the article pretty well:

In our reporting, we’ve focused on how the Department of Defense, the Office of Naval Intelligence and members of two Senate committees are engaged with this topic. Current officials are now concerned about the potential threat represented by the very real, advanced technological objects: how close they can come to our fighter jets, sometimes causing a near miss, and the risk that our adversaries may acquire the technology demonstrated by the objects before we do.

I think they are simply saying that from their investigations the DoD and ONI consider that they have sufficient evidence to establish that those objects are "real". And that to establish the nature of those objects one should study them with no preconceptions.

The military definitely has a clearer picture of what happened with some of those incidents. They should have full and detailed radar data for example from multiple sources and witnesses. Complete tapes and telemetry. The fact they say still regard those incidents as unexplained is anomalous. One way or the other.
 
"Believing" in UFOs or UAP is a nonsensical concept because there will always be things in the sky unidentified.

A clear distinction needs to be made between Unidentified aerial phenomena and Anomalous aerial phenomena.

With the capabilities of modern drones, thrust vectoring jet engines, & balloons, it doesn't much mean anything if something in the sky can't be identified.

But if an object or phenomenon appears to have an extraordinary characteristic then it is Anomalous.

I know many don't want a new initialism, but AAAP should really be used; Apparently Anomalous Aerial Phenomena. It removes the wide net of "unidentified" in UAP, the assumptions of "object" in UFO, and "vehicle" in AAV. It also makes clear it's apparent, and may be a mistake in observation.
 
In epistemology, knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief." Knowledge is something about the world that we believe to be true, and actually is true, and our belief in that truth is justified by the evidence available to us. Facts are facts, beliefs can be wrong, knowledge is made of facts that have correctly found their way into our brains. But what do Blumenthal and Kean know? Nothing concrete. Nothing they can share with us.
"Nothing" is a bit strong. There is a lot of information available but most of it is based on human narrative and leaked footage captured in a certain context. All of it is ambiguous.

People who are passionate about the topic (i.e. people who devote much of their free time to it) either want to prove it represents something ordinary or that it represents something extraordinary. The former group has an advantage since the latter group faces the burden of proof.

Both groups have their blind spots, however, not just the 'believers'.

For instance: emphasising the fact that the object in FLIR1 does not suddenly accelerate but ignoring the fact that it does look like the description given by the earlier pilots and that it was reported to appear on radar moments after Fravor and Dietrich lost it in the haze in the same region where the FLIR1 footage was taken by the next flight.

Or: trying to fit Fravor's account to a rising balloon while ignoring the fact that an object was first reported at that same spot on radar at 25000 feet, it was at sea level when the jets arrived, and similar objects were seen to descend quickly on radar in that same region.

Or: emphasising the haze that seems to rotate with the object in Gimbal but ignoring the fact that any scratch or smudge on the ATFLIR wind screen cannot land as a local disturbance in the image because of the way the ATFLIR optics is constructed (as an extremely strong telephoto 'lens').

So, basically, the information that could point to something extraordinary is often ignored or dismissed by the group that is passionately trying to prove it's something ordinary.
 
Some of your claims are not like the others

When we have evidence and a claim about said evidence we check the evidence (video) matches the claim, i.e. the Nimitz object speed.

When we just have a claim (RADAR data), that claim is not backed up with evidence, well we can just say that seems odd, but we have no evidence of that claim other than anecdote and we also have the oddity that another claim that was made does not match evidence that was presented.

There is also no evidence that the object that Fravor saw is the same object in the video, there are claims but no evidence.

The object was described as white, the object in FLIR one appears dark in the TV mode segment of the footage, so while might match in shape a little it doesn't match the full description, and even the shape might just be blur in the video as it is low resolution and the camera may be slightly out of focus.

You are wrong about optics, smears on front elements do affect glare in the resolved image for strong light sources.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens

"The effect of a dirty lens (or filter)
In comparing images taken with and without a filter, one thing I have noticed in doing the tests is that even a slightly dusty lens occasionally has a noticeably deleterious effect on the image. This only occurs in extreme lighting conditions such as when the sun is shining brightly and is within the image frame, or very close to it. Under such circumstances, light scattered by dust particles on the front element of the lens or on the filter can significantly increase the stray light falling on the image.

It's generally not worth worrying about a little dust on the lens (or filter). In normal circumstances dust on the front element has no visible effect at all. But, if you are shooting into a bright sun or other very bright lights, then it is a good idea to clean your lens (and filter) first.
"
 
The ATFLIR is extreme telephoto. Its entire image is constructed with rays that hit the front mirror within an angular range of about one degree - its FOV (the angle at which rays hit the front mirror determines at what pixel they will end up).
Anything on the front window that scatters light of a bright source to an extend of more than one degree will affect every pixel and end up as a fog all over the image. Only very limited, consistent, and concentrated diffraction, like edge diffraction at the long and straight edges of the vanes of a telescope, could potentially cause a local effect in the image. So yes, if someone used a ruler to draw a long and straight line with a black marker maybe. But normal smudges and scratches? No..
 
Back
Top