Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos

[Mick West]

At the 2019 UFOlogy World Conference in Barcelona, Physicist Michio Kaku gave an address, in which he said (21:24):
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf4hneVuLmk&t=1284s

Science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That's the criteria for science. Now what's the difference? In the past when people said they saw something, they saw something in the sky, that's not testable. That's not reproducible on demand. That's not falsifiable. It's anecdotal information. Maybe it's true. Maybe you did see something coming across the sky. But it's not enough for science. That's changed now. Two years ago, we now know from the United States Navy, that Navy pilots have videotaped, videotaped objects executing things that are impossible with ordinary commercial and military aircraft. I'll talk more about this in a few moments. So testability, we are now in the realm of testable. Testable encounters with some strange object in the sky.

Content from external source

That video is unfortunately cut short (can anyone find the full-length video?), but he talks more about it here:

https://news.yahoo.com/a-turning-po...ference-the-truth-is-out-there-090005631.html

“We now know they fly between Mach 5 and Mach 20 — five to 20 times the speed of sound,” Kaku said. “We know they zigzag so fast that any pilot would be crushed by centrifugal force. That they have no exhaust that we can see.” The explanations usually invoked for UFO sightings — meteors, weather balloons, even the planet Venus — can’t explain these live-action high-precision shots, said Kaku, leading to either of two possible conclusions: They are of human origin, representing a technology so cutting-edge that even leading scientists are puzzled by it. Or, he said, “maybe they are evidence of an advanced outer space civilization.”

Could they be Russian, not Martian? Perhaps, Kaku allowed, given that last year Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that “Russia had built a hypersonic flying vehicle that can zigzag.” The U.S. and China are also working on hypersonic drones. On the other hand, Kaku emphasized, “maybe they are extraterrestrial.”
[...]
Even if not smoking-gun proof, the declassified videos — bolstered by confirmation of multiple sightings of unexplained aerial vehicles during 2014 and 2015, including at least one near-collision — are giving ufology new weight. “We’ve reached a turning point,” Kaku said. “It used to be that believers had to prove that these objects were from an intelligent race in outer space. Now the burden of proof is on the government to prove they’re not from intelligent beings in outer space.”

The possibility that they are vehicles from other planetary civilizations, Kaku told Yahoo, “now has to be put on the table.”

Content from external source

The Yahoo quotes seem mostly from this interview:
https://news.yahoo.com/a-traffic-ja...is-search-for-the-god-equation-090020986.html


Also, during a Q&A, he was asked what brought him to the conference. He responded (21:58)
Source: https://youtu.be/5OXC0gdx-ME?t=1318

“Traditionally, when physicists were asked about extraterrestrials, their eyes would go rolling to the heaves and they would laugh. But that's because they assumed that aliens going between stars, it would take so long to go between stars. But the mistake they make is to assume these aliens are only 100 years ahead of us. Imagine that they could be 100,000 years more advanced than us. Then new laws of physics begin to enter into the picture, new laws of physics. Also, We’ve reached a turning point, I think. Usually, the believers have the burden of proof, they have to prove it. Now the burden of proof is on the government to disprove that they're not from outer space. You see science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. (Falsifiable, [meaning] you can prove that it's not a hoax.) Now for the first time, we have testable evidence from the United States Navy. We have studied these military videotapes and we now can measure how fast they are, how high they are, we now have numbers we can play with. We now have testable evidence, but we don't yet have reproducible evidence, that is evidence we can touch. Therefore I tell everyone who may be kidnapped or abducted by flying saucer people, please steal something when you are kidnapped. We need you to steal as much as you can. Alien chips, alien paperclips, alien forks, knives, anything from a flying saucer

Content from external source

The problem here is that he is wrong. The three videos do not show anything that is outside the bounds of human science. In fact, they most likely show rather banal things, viewed in an unusual way. There are three vides: Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast

Flir1 (also called Nimitz, or TicTac) is a fuzzy blob in the distance. It does not move (although it jumps around when the camera changes zoom settings or does a gimbal lock correction). There's what looks like a final "zipping away at high speed" at the end of the video, but it's actually just the camera no-longer tracking the object, combined with a change in zoom that gives the illusion of speed. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.t9190/

Gimbal is a saucer-shaped infrared glare. It rotates because the camera is rotating to counter gimbal lock. We can prove this because there are other light patterns in the sky that rotate at the same time the glare rotates. The video is consistent with a jet engine several miles away. it does not have any sudden acceleration. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

Go Fast is what looks like a cool object moving rapidly across the surface of the ocean. However, the angles and range on the screen allow us to triangulate the position and speed of the object. It turns out it's actually moving quite slowly (under 50 knots) and is quite high (13,000 feet). It does not accelerate at all. In fact, it most closely resembles a balloon, or possibly even a large gliding bird. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/go-fast-footage-from-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-academy-bird-balloon.t9569/

Kaku describes these videos as "testable evidence", and we can in fact test hypotheses on them to see if they fit. However, Kaku seems not to have tested them himself and is instead relying on the ideas of others. The "To The Stars Academy," for example, still claims that "Go Fast" is going fast, and is close to the water. This is demonstrably wrong. Likewise, others have interpreted the camera movements in Flir1 as object movements, or have interpreted the optical rotation of an infrared glare in "Gimbal" as a physical rotation of a craft. These are all demonstrable unsupported interpretations that Kaku has somehow been convinced are true.

So no, the burden of proof has not shifted. The Navy has no current obligation to prove that Mach 20 craft that zigzag at impossibly high g-forces are not aliens. There's no such obligation because no such craft have yet been demonstrated to exist. We don't know exactly what these videos show, but they don't show anything impossible, and they are well explained by ordinary events.

Kaku may be an accomplished physicist and science popularizer, but unless he can present some evidence for his statements, then they carry no more weight than any other UFO fan. The burden of proof is still very much on the person making the extraordinary claim, which in this case is Kaku himself.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is disappointing.

As the years grind by and nothing comes of it, this too shall pass.

For example, Physicist Bruce Maccabee had this to say about the 1976 Tehran UFO Case

The object which was seen and detected on airplane radar has not been identified. It must have been a source of considerable optical power because of the bright lights. Of more importance, it appeared to react to the activities of the jets and it appears to have taken defensive measures against the jet by seriously affecting the jet electronics (avionics). Although the American government claims that there was no investigation following the initial interviews of the pilots, the Iranians indicated that there was further investigation. It seems reasonable there that there would have been more investigation by the USAF to try to determine the nature of the failure of the electronics. What could have affected the avionics at a distance of many miles from each jet? Would intense electromagnetic radiation beamed at a jet cause temporary electronics failure? How about a beamed “electromagnetic pulse” (EMP)? (EMP is a high strength, very short pulse of electromagnetic field that can cause temporary or permanent failure of some types of electronics and computer systems.)

Content from external source

Who remembers that now?


Btw the prosaic explanation went like this

According to U.S journalist Philip J. Klass, it was likely the pilots initially saw an astronomical body, probably Jupiter, an explanation also cited by aerospace researcher James Oberg. Klass wrote that pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction likely accounted for the reported equipment failures.[2]

According to Klass, the Westinghouse technician at Shahrokhi airbase stated that only the first F-4 reported failing equipment, and that this F-4 was known for equipment failures with a long history of electrical outages, having been repaired only a month before the incident. Klass cites a McDonnell Douglas repair supervisor's opinion that the F-4's radar could have been in "manual track" mode, causing a wrong interpretation of the radar lock.

Content from external source

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi everyone,

I was also disappointed by Michio's speech because he should show the right example as a scientist but this would probably not be very popular among people from the UFO microcosm.

That being said, the burden of proof is not some sort of variable geometry mechanism, people who claim that the USN
was being tested by China/Russia or that all these events are a long list of errors/misidentifications/failures are also subject to the burden of proof.

I do believe though that our Nations should take the UFO problem more seriously, military and scientifically speaking by focusing some SETI like initiatives more inward. (< 1 AU)

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Mick West]

was also disappointed by Michio's speech because he should show the right example as a scientist but this would probably not be very popular among people from the UFO microcosm.

I think his talk about stealing things from flying saucers was essentially a humerous illustration of the problem of lack of concrete evidence (and, in a way, an "absence of evidence" argument - if millions of people have been abducted, why no evidence?).

I think he was serious about the videos but does not really understand them.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

I think he was serious about the videos but does not really understand them.

I don't know Michio Kaku as a UFO investigator/researcher or analyst of UFO videos/photos/radar data, etc.., correct me if I am wrong. That being said, he was certainly serious about the videos and the incidents (I am too) but imo, there's nothing serious for a scientist like him to be a guest/speaker at a UFO conference. Well, we all have to earn money after all and I don't blame him but if he really is serious about UFOs, there's no point in going to a UFO conference since there's almost nobody to convince there when it comes to UFOs and not much to expect from them if we are talking about any research strategy.

He could make a better use of his time and contribution to the UFO problem by raising interest/awareness among fellow scientists imo.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Well, we all have to earn money after all...

Do we know he's being paid a speaker's fee?

He could make a better use of his time and contribution to the UFO problem by raising interest/awareness among fellow scientists imo.

After four decades following this subject, I think the only scientists who could have a professional interest (as opposed to a hobbyist's interest) in UFOlogy are experimental psychologists. There's a lot to learn about eyewitness testimony for example.

 

[deirdre]

He could make a better use of his time and contribution to the UFO problem by raising interest/awareness among fellow scientists imo.

You think (field appropriate) scientists aren't aware of alleged alien aircraft? That sounds impossible to me. Yes, I know i'm stereotyping scientists... but...

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi guys,

Do we know he's being paid a speaker's fee?

I don't know for sure but I guess he is, aren't UFO Conferences a business just like any other?

You think (field appropriate) scientists aren't aware of alleged alien aircraft? That sounds impossible to me. Yes, I know i'm stereotyping scientists... but...

Of course they all are but very few have either proposed a research strategy or experimented/implemented one.

I can name 4 scientists only.

Scott Stride (JPL/NASA and his S3ETI as Solar System SETI research strategies)
Eamonn Ansbro (Director of Kinglsand Observatory in Ireland)
Robert A. Freitas Jr and Francisco Valdes (A Search for Objects near the Earth-Moon Lagrangian Points)

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Agent K]

A couple of clarifications:

Flir1 (also called Nimitz, or TicTac) is a fuzzy blob in the distance. It does not move

The actual object steadily moves left, but it stays centered in the video because the camera is tracking it, until it breaks lock.

Go Fast is what looks like a cool object

Cool as in low temperature, not as in awesome.

Also, judging from YouTube comments, people conflate the videos with eyewitness accounts like Fravor's story.

 

[deirdre]

but very few have either proposed a research strategy or experimented/implemented one.

isn't that what AATIP and BIgelow Aerospace were supposed to be doing? and all we got out of it was 3 small videos that don't amount to anything 'extraterrestrial'. Maybe TTSA will use the millions they've made (off of the tax payers intellectual property) and fund a research study like AE911Truth did.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

isn't that what AATIP and BIgelow Aerospace were supposed to be doing? and all we got out of it was 3 small videos that don't amount to anything 'extraterrestrial'. Maybe TTSA will use the millions they've made (off of the tax payers intellectual property) and fund a research study like AE911Truth did.

Well, I haven't seen any SETI like strategies coming from these individuals but TTSA did not only show 3 videos, that's not true, they put forward primary witnesses and that's important. Probably the best thing they did so far if you ask me because many people knew about the 2004 events but weren't sure the case itself and the video was real for a start and linked to the events. (see what happened with TheFinalTheory and Isaac Koi on ATS)

I think like many others around me that some people tend to focus too much and only on these videos. I do too but the context is also important and understanding how the USN works/operates to generalize also is.

No videos (unless it's an Independence Day style scenario) will ever amount to anything ET (as far as scientific evidence) for a scientist or a serious investigator who understands how science works and how mind blowing discoveries are made because it would be mind blowing.

Scott Stride's theoretical work explains all that very well in one of his papers, I'll try to find it to show you what I think would be a serious SETI like initiative.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[TheoryQED]

isn't that what AATIP and BIgelow Aerospace were supposed to be doing? and all we got out of it was 3 small videos that don't amount to anything 'extraterrestrial'. Maybe TTSA will use the millions they've made (off of the tax payers intellectual property) and fund a research study like AE911Truth did.

TTSA hasn't made millions off these videos, and the videos are not the IP of taxpayers regardless of whether or not they were ever classified. TTSA's cash flow statement shows a net loss of 25 million dollars in 2017 and 5 million in 2018. This is mostly because of a shareholder equity deficit. But even if we are using total revenue it would only add to about a million dollars from all activities over that 2 year period.

2018 2017

Revenues $ 369,510 $ 683,946

Content from external source

2018 2017

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net loss $ (5,653,477 ) $ (25,135,813 )

Content from external source

Source-https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1710274/000114420418050766/tv503167_1sa.htm

 

[deirdre]

TTSA did not only show 3 videos, that's not true,

sorry, incidents. AATIP and Bigelow Aerospace was only able to produce 3 incidents. none of which look extraterrestrial.

My point is, (regarding inspiring more scientists), that unless a millionaire ufo enthusiast provides funding (to a legitimate, unbiased scientist), I see very little chance a scientist could procure funding himself. It's been decades and there still is really no evidence at all. Sounds like an extremely expensive endevour, with no real hope of ever spotting anything and no prior incidences to suggest you ever would spot anything. I can see a rich guy wasting a million or two, but we, taxpayers, just wasted 21 million on AATIP and got nothing for our money.

 

[deirdre]

But even if we are using total revenue it would only add to about a million dollars from all activities over that 2 year period.

they just had a big tv show on the History channel. so i'm assuming they made some bucks from that. They also got a lot in donations stock purchases. Whether or not they are crappy business men and lose money is irrelevant.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Time for me to trot out this list.
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/213742/

This has been going on since 1947. There's a long history here. Anyone new to UFOlogy should seek an education about it.

 

[Mick West]

Do we know he's being paid a speaker's fee?

I wouldn't say we know, but I'd pretty much bet anything that he was being paid to be there. It seems pretty obvious, and uncontroversial that the headliner at a conference would be paid to be there.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

sorry, incidents. AATIP and Bigelow Aerospace was only able to produce 3 incidents. none of which look extraterrestrial.

I don't know how you can tell what should or should not look extraterrestrial(?), that's pretty funny though.

We have three incidents, all of them are interesting for investigators but I would say that ET or not sure isn't something that could be proven even if it was the case with the data we have at hand. We might at best tell what these objects are not and that would already be a giant step forward in these investigations.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Mick West]

I don't know how you can tell what should or should not look extraterrestrial(?)

They don't require any advanced technology to explain them. Advanced technology would point towards ET.

Of course, it could be ET flying slowly, but that's a semantic issue. They don't "look" extraterrestrial in that there's nothing that specifically suggests extraterrestrial.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

They don't require any advanced technology to explain them. Advanced technology would point towards ET.

Of course, it could be ET flying slowly, but that's a semantic issue. They don't "look" extraterrestrial in that there's nothing that specifically suggests extraterrestrial.

I don't judge/estimate UFO cases like that, in that case, a UFO believer could come up with a video that looks like advanced technology is visible and we will be arguing all night for nothing because none of use would be able to prove/disprove anything in some cases.

On top of that, how do we know advanced technology is not displayed in these videos, it's not only what we see in the videos but the fact that an entire carrier strike group could not ID the thingies when they have different kinds of sensors besides radar and optical systems to do just that? The fact that no radar-lock (STT in Flir-1) could be obtained could perfectly be the result of advanced technology.

Advanced technology could also point to...advanced technology (as in top secret but earth-based).

I don't care if the arguments that should or should not point towards ET tech come from believers or skeptics, I could show you legit videos of what I would call advanced flight maneuvers (as in erratic just like Fravor's testimony when he first spotted the tic-tac), this is not why it points toward ET tech to me. Same reason why I suspended my judgement about my own observation in 1999. I am not a scientist with a protocol/search strategy and instrumental platforms to probe for ET probes. I am only a UFO investigator, not a SETI scientist or amateur. I leave the ET question to scientists and people who pretend to be able to answer these questions if they want to.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Mick West]

On top of that, how do we know advanced technology is not displayed in these videos, it's not only what we see in the videos but the fact that an entire carrier strike group could not ID the thingies when they have different kinds of sensors besides radar and optical systems to do just that?

It IS only what we see in the videos. There's no actual correlation between a video and either an eyewitness account, or anecdotes regarding radar data.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

It IS only what we see in the videos. There's no actual correlation between a video and either an eyewitness account, or anecdotes regarding radar data.

The fact that the pilot or wso could not get a STT lock is visible in the Flir-1 video and in the report the pilot made and it's not an anecdote.

What happened to the pilots (visually or not) and to the Strike Groups (2004 and 2015) is not anecdotal.

My point is, who are we to estimate what ET tech should or should not look like? Pseudo-science at best.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Agent K]

The fact that the pilot or wso could not get a STT lock is visible in the Flir-1 video and in the report the pilot made and it's not an anecdote.

What happened to the pilots (visually or not) and to the Strike Groups (2004 and 2015) is not anecdotal.

My point is, who are we to estimate what ET tech should or should not look like? Pseudo-science at best.

We have no idea what ET should look like, so all we can do is rule out terrestrial and natural explanations, and we haven't ruled out radar jamming.
That said, I'd be surprised if ET could jam our radars for the same reason I'd be surprised if ET could hack Windows or speak English. Humans are more advanced than birds, yet we don't speak their language.

 

[Mick West]

My point is, who are we to estimate what ET tech should or should not look like? Pseudo-science at best.

But that's essentially the same point I made. It's a meaningless point though as people are claiming there's something extraordinary in these videos.

There's nothing demonstrably extraordinary in the videos. Now you can make the meaningless point "well it could still be aliens", but why? You can say that about any video.

 

[Agent K]

But that's essentially the same point I made. It's a meaningless point though as people are claiming there's something extraordinary in these videos.

There's nothing demonstrably extraordinary in the videos. Now you can make the meaningless point "well it could still be aliens", but why? You can say that about any video.

Reminds me of Scientology's space planes that look like DC-8 airplanes without engines. So any airplane could actually be a space plane.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

There's nothing demonstrably extraordinary in the videos. Now you can make the meaningless point "well it could still be aliens", but why? You can say that about any video.

I did not say "well it could still be aliens", I said: "On top of that, how do we know advanced technology is not displayed in these videos...?" That's very different and advanced tech can be "earth-based", that's exactly what I said.

You believe that because you cannot find anything extraordinary about the videos (you don't even know the slant range, B-alt and ground speed of the target in Flir-1 for a start), there's nothing extraordinary about these events/incidents. Well, we can agree to disagree then. What happened to them is not an ordinary occurrence, it's out of the ordinary/extraordinary regardless of what caused these incidents.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[deirdre]

I did not say "well it could still be aliens", I said: "On top of that, how do we know advanced technology is not displayed in these videos...?" That's very different and advanced tech can be "earth-based", that's exactly what I said.

You believe that because you cannot find anything extraordinary about the videos (you don't even know the slant range, B-alt and ground speed of the target in Flir-1 for a start), there's nothing extraordinary about these events/incidents. Well, we can agree to disagree then. What happened to them is not an ordinary occurrence, it's out of the ordinary/extraordinary regardless of what caused these incidents.

Cheers,
Chris

there is nothing extraordinary about the videos.
there is nothing to suggest 'advanced technology', human or aliens.
The claims attached to the videos are aliens because of alleged advanced technology. end of story.

Stop being pedantically semantic. You are well aware of the context of the TTSA releases.

 

[Mick West]

You believe that because you cannot find anything extraordinary about the videos (you don't even know the slant range, B-alt and ground speed of the target in Flir-1 for a start), there's nothing extraordinary about these events/incidents. Well, we can agree to disagree then. What happened to them is not an ordinary occurrence, it's out of the ordinary/extraordinary regardless of what caused these incidents.

Kaku is making a very specific point that the evidence IN THE VIDEOS is testable, non-anecdotal evidence. He quite specifically says

We’ve reached a turning point, I think. Usually, the believers have the burden of proof, they have to prove it. Now the burden of proof is on the government to disprove that they're not from outer space. You see science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. (Falsifiable, [meaning] you can prove that it's not a hoax.) Now for the first time, we have testable evidence from the United States Navy. We have studied these military videotapes and we now can measure how fast they are, how high they are, we now have numbers we can play with.

Content from external source

That is why I'm discussing the videos only here, because Kaku is basing his "burden of proof" argument on the videos.

 

[deirdre]

Kaku is making a very specific point that the evidence IN THE VIDEOS is testable

as I was vacuuming I was thinking that maybe there is a communication misunderstanding with newer members. Older members aware aware that Metabunk looks at "specific claims of evidence" (bold added for emphasis)

The specific form of bunk focused on at Metabunk is claims of evidence. i.e. individual points that are used to back up a broader theory. For example, the fact that high levels of aluminum are sometimes found in rainwater is used as evidence for the "chemtrails" theory.

Claims of evidence can be debunked in one of two main ways

1. Demonstrating that the evidence is incorrect (e.g. aluminum levels were high because the water was actually from a muddy pond)
2. Demonstrating that the evidence does not support the theory (e.g. aluminum is expected in rainwater because of dust in the air).

In some cases the "theory" might simply be "something really strange is going on". You can debunk that just by explaining possible normal explanations for the evidence.

Content from external source

https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

 

[Agent K]

you don't even know the slant range, B-alt and ground speed of the target in Flir-1 for a start

The Executive Summary says:

According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft.

Content from external source

https://thenimitzencounters.com/wp/...TIVE-REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

But it also says that the target was below the F-18 and the elevation angle was -5deg, when it was really 5deg.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft.

Yes, that's what he said but that does not tell us the slant range when he started filming, B-alt, ground speed of the target since we CANNOT know its size for a start. Even its aspect angle is not very easy to figure out all the time.

Of course it's frustrating...

Cheers,
Chris

 

[jamesrav]

has anyone here attempted to contact him? If you feel the explanation for 'Go Fast' could simply be a bird or balloon, he should be pointed to that thread.

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

Flir1 (also called Nimitz, or TicTac) is a fuzzy blob in the distance. It does not move (although it jumps around when the camera changes zoom settings or does a gimbal lock correction). There's what looks like a final "zipping away at high speed" at the end of the video, but it's actually just the camera no-longer tracking the object, combined with a change in zoom that gives the illusion of speed.

An object that is at 20,000 feet and doesn't move is unusual though.

 

[Mick West]

An object that is at 20,000 feet and doesn't move is unusual though.

It’s moving, just not in a way that moves on screen