Why astronomers don’t report UFOs

[Angel of Ioren]

Here's a great post from Phil Plait's blog about why astronomers don't report UFOs and it touches on a point I made in my earlier post in the "I saw a UFO thread."

I totally agree with him, and as time goes by the more I think that there's absolutely nothing to this UFO business. I hopes this sparks some discussion. It's interesting that the group that looks at the sky the most is the most skeptical of UFOs.

I have, from time to time, made a point that astronomers rarely if ever report UFOs. If UFOs really were buzzing us as much as the media and UFO proponents would have us believe, then astronomers would overwhelmingly report the majority of them: we spend far more time outside looking up than pretty much any other group of people. So why don’t we see all these alien spacecraft? I think this is because we almost always understand what we’re seeing in the sky, so we know not to mistake Venus, the Moon, a satellite, or other mundane things for flying saucers.
While UFO believers love to make hay of this — showing me the extremely rare time when an astronomer has reported a UFO, thus proving my point, or falsely saying astronomers spend too much time at the eyepiece to note the broader sky (which is ridiculous) — the fact is, astronomers are familiar with the sky, so we know what’s going on.
Well, almost always know. John Woolley of the Greater Edmonton Skeptics Society has an amusing story of the time he and some other astronomers saw something they couldn’t immediately explain… and make sure you read Part 2.
And y’know, his story sounds pretty familiar…
So remember, despite the claims of the UFO crowd and the media that love to play this stuff up, seeing isn’t believing. Understanding is!

 

[pixelsmith]

it is obvious you have never seen an unknown aircraft (UFO) up close. UFOs by definition are real and your statement saying "there's absolutely nothing to this UFO business" indicates you don't even understand the term. for those of us who have seen unknown aircraft it is rather insulting that you are basically calling us liars. thanks.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

it is obvious you have never seen an unknown aircraft (UFO) up close. UFOs by definition are real and your statement saying "there's absolutely nothing to this UFO business" indicates you don't even understand the term. for those of us who have seen unknown aircraft it is rather insulting that you are basically calling us liars. thanks.

How am I calling you a liar? I can completely believe that you saw something that you don't understand - there's nothing wrong with that. What I mean is that UFOs are not objects that are beyond our understanding if the witnesses knew what they were looking at.
They may be unexplained to the witness, but that does not make them unexplainable.

I'll be more clear - I meant real in the way most people think of UFOs - that they are not human technology, say like what Ray Stanford was describing. I'm going towards completely disagreeing with that notion, where i used to hold to the idea that there may be something to it.

 

[trainedobserver]

200 years ago meteors didn't exist. So your point is what Angelo? At some point we may have an explanation for the present day anomalous unidentifiable aerial phenomena but unless you have a functioning crystal ball or something I don't see how you could predict what that ultimate understanding might be. And yes ... if the witnesses knew what they were looking at ...then it would not be an Unidentified Flying Object, they would be Identified ones.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

200 years ago meteors didn't exist. So your point is what Angelo?

I just find it interesting that the people that look at the sky the most never seem to report UFOs.

And the thing with meteors is not a valid argument. 200 years ago, a lot of things were unknown. At one point we thought the world was flat. And there are tons of things that remain unknown. All I'm saying is that if UFOs (as in non-human technology) were as plentiful as some would have you believe, astronomers would be seeing a lot more of these things.

Is that not a fair assessment?

 

[Xylo]

Here's a great post from Phil Plait's blog about why astronomers don't report UFOs and it touches on a point I made in my earlier post in the "I saw a UFO thread."

I totally agree with him, and as time goes by the more I think that there's absolutely nothing to this UFO business. I hopes this sparks some discussion. It's interesting that the group that looks at the sky the most is the most skeptical of UFOs.

I have, from time to time, made a point that astronomers rarely if ever report UFOs. If UFOs really were buzzing us as much as the media and UFO proponents would have us believe, then astronomers would overwhelmingly report the majority of them: we spend far more time outside looking up than pretty much any other group of people. So why don’t we see all these alien spacecraft? I think this is because we almost always understand what we’re seeing in the sky, so we know not to mistake Venus, the Moon, a satellite, or other mundane things for flying saucers.
While UFO believers love to make hay of this — showing me the extremely rare time when an astronomer has reported a UFO, thus proving my point, or falsely saying astronomers spend too much time at the eyepiece to note the broader sky (which is ridiculous) — the fact is, astronomers are familiar with the sky, so we know what’s going on.
Well, almost always know. John Woolley of the Greater Edmonton Skeptics Society has an amusing story of the time he and some other astronomers saw something they couldn’t immediately explain… and make sure you read Part 2.
And y’know, his story sounds pretty familiar…
So remember, despite the claims of the UFO crowd and the media that love to play this stuff up, seeing isn’t believing. Understanding is!

That is one of the most pretentious and arrogant blog postings I've seen in a long time.

 

[trainedobserver]

And the thing with meteors is not a valid argument. 200 years ago, a lot of things were unknown. At one point we thought the world was flat. And there are tons of things that remain unknown.

Your point escapes me. I believe it is a valid argument. It shows the progression of the very branch of science you have brought up in identifying a particular type of UFO.

All I'm saying is that if UFOs (as in non-human technology) were as plentiful as some would have you believe, astronomers would be seeing a lot more of these things.
Is that not a fair assessment?

No, I don't think so. You have "identified" the objects as non-human technology. I believe that is an error on your part. Therefore you are not talking about UNIDENTIFED Flying Objects or UNIDENTIFED Aerial Phenomena. You are talking about the ETH. That is something else entirely.

It seems to me that you are asking Why don't astronomers report seeing Extra-terrestrial craft? I think the answer is another question, "How could they tell?"

Check out the following links about real UFOs.

See NARCAP

See Project Hessdalen

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Why don't astronomers report sighting the plethora of UAVs and other "secret" aircraft that the military has in constant development?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Okay, simply put: A lot of the reported UFOs would be identified if they were seen by people that understood what they were looking at.
So this means that a lot of what we're going on is a waste because it would have been considered identified it it was seen by the right person. I'm not calling anyone a liar or stupid - just unequipped to understand what they are seeing.

---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

Why don't astronomers report sighting the plethora of UAVs and other "secret" aircraft that the military has in constant development?

Why would they?

Neil Degrasse Tyson explains it much better than I ever would be able to:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[stphrz]

Here's a great post from Phil Plait's blog about why astronomers don't report UFOs and it touches on a point I made in my earlier post in the "I saw a UFO thread."

I totally agree with him, and as time goes by the more I think that there's absolutely nothing to this UFO business. I hopes this sparks some discussion. It's interesting that the group that looks at the sky the most is the most skeptical of UFOs.

I have, from time to time, made a point that astronomers rarely if ever report UFOs. If UFOs really were buzzing us as much as the media and UFO proponents would have us believe, then astronomers would overwhelmingly report the majority of them: we spend far more time outside looking up than pretty much any other group of people. So why don’t we see all these alien spacecraft? I think this is because we almost always understand what we’re seeing in the sky, so we know not to mistake Venus, the Moon, a satellite, or other mundane things for flying saucers.
While UFO believers love to make hay of this — showing me the extremely rare time when an astronomer has reported a UFO, thus proving my point, or falsely saying astronomers spend too much time at the eyepiece to note the broader sky (which is ridiculous) — the fact is, astronomers are familiar with the sky, so we know what’s going on.
Well, almost always know. John Woolley of the Greater Edmonton Skeptics Society has an amusing story of the time he and some other astronomers saw something they couldn’t immediately explain… and make sure you read Part 2.
And y’know, his story sounds pretty familiar…
So remember, despite the claims of the UFO crowd and the media that love to play this stuff up, seeing isn’t believing. Understanding is!

Well Angel you are correct. Astronomers don't appear to report UFOs very much.

In addition to a much lower likelyhood of misidentification there could be a couple of other reasons for that.

1. A fear of being ridiculed. Jacques Vallee has recounted in his writings and on this very show an incident where data was destroyed by a senior scientist he was working with. The reason? He didn't want to look stupid for relaying strange data. How often does this sort of thing happen? The curtain of laughter surrounding this topic is very powerful and should not be underestimated.

2. The thinking that Astronomers should be seeing all kinds of UFOs, may be seriously flawed on it's face. How many Astronomers are there in the world? They are a very tiny subset of the general public. The article you refer to also makes the assumption of alien spacecraft. What if UFOs are not alien spacecraft? What if they are not travelling the interstellar void to get here? Should great numbers of astronomers be seeing them then?

Most UFO reports are indeed the result of error on the part of the witness. Most, not all. It is the the tiny percentage that cannot be explained that are of interest to me.

 

[trainedobserver]

Okay, simply put: A lot of the reported UFOs would be identified if they were seen by people that understood what they were looking at.

I thought that was a given.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

Most UFO reports are indeed the result of error on the part of the witness. Most, not all. It is the the tiny percentage that cannot be explained that are of interest to me.

I believe that the NARCAP and Project Hessdalen links I provided contain that tiny percentage. I don't think anyone on either of those sites are saying they have identified anything as ETs or whatever.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Most UFO reports are indeed the result of error on the part of the witness. Most, not all. It is the the tiny percentage that cannot be explained that are of interest to me.

Yes, I can agree with that. My thought is that although they are unexplained, that does not make them unexplainable.

I'm more against the notion that they are non-human entities of some kind, controlling some kind of technology. I see nothing that can support that hypothesis.

Some unknown natural phenomenon, well, there are plenty of those. As Trained Observer pointed out, we didn't think there were meteors 200 years ago. People probably had crazy ideas about those too - they proved to be something physical and natural. Nothing to do with demons.

All I wanted to point out with my posting of Plait's blog is that the vast majority of what people hold up as evidence would probably not be unexplained if it had been seen by a different person.

Now, if Ray Stanford gets his photographs published of what he talked about, well, then I'll look like a dumb ass and so will many others. I'm looking forward to that, but I don't think it'll happen.

 

[trainedobserver]

Angel,

So how do you ignore Gordon Cooper's testimony about Unidentified Flying Objects, one of which was clearly a device or vehicle of some kind?

 

[stphrz]

I agree Angel.

I'm also of the opinion that many things we consider "paranormal" today may be explained by science in the future.

There was a time when something as simple as fire was considered by humans to be mystical and beyond control or understanding. We just laugh at that notion now.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel,

So how do you ignore Gordon Cooper's testimony about Unidentified Flying Objects, one of which was clearly a device or vehicle of some kind?

We don't know what he saw. It doesn't make it something that was alien/non-human.

 

[trainedobserver]

We don't know what he saw. It doesn't make it something that was alien/non-human.

I didn't say it was. But Cooper was up on the latest and greatest test aircraft we were developing and he could not identify it. To me, the description doesn't sound natural. It was an Unidentified Flying Object. Correct? That was my point. What is yours?

Again, the description doesn't appear to be any known natural object. It was an Unidentified Flying Object. Correct?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I didn't say it was. But Cooper was up on the latest and greatest test aircraft we were developing and he could not identify it. To me, the description doesn't sound natural. It was an Unidentified Flying Object. Correct? That was my point. What is yours?

Again, the description doesn't appear to be any known natural object. It was an Unidentified Flying Object. Correct?

Okay - that's fine. If he doesn't think that it wasn't alien or non-human though, who cares then? It was just some vehicle that he didn't know about. That's fine that it was unidentifed, but if he could identify it, it probably not be anything that we would really care that much about.

 

[pixelsmith]

Is it possible that many astronomers are funded for their research? In my ONE sighting I learned my lesson about telling people I saw a UFO. My own family thinks I am nuts, many of my friends say things like "can I get what you were smoking" etc... MY girlfriend will barely talk to ME about what we saw because her friends and family reacted the same way as mine. Imagine the crap someone with credentials and getting funding to study stars would get. Most likely all funds would be cut off and he/she would lose their job. Pilots rarely report these things for that reason.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Is it possible that many astronomers are funded for their research? In my ONE sighting I learned my lesson about telling people I saw a UFO. My own family thinks I am nuts, many of my friends say things like "can I get what you were smoking" etc... MY girlfriend will barely talk to ME about what we saw because her friends and family reacted the same way as mine. Imagine the crap someone with credentials and getting funding to study stars would get. Most likely all funds would be cut off and he/she would lose their job. Pilots rarely report these things for that reason.

It's because of the way they are reported. If you jump to the conclusion that the UFO was non-human, well that's where the problem is.

 

[trainedobserver]

That's fine that it was unidentifed, but if he could identify it, it probably not be anything that we would really care that much about.

What? Really? Did you catch how big that object was?

 

[Ron Collins]

I just find it interesting that the people that look at the sky the most never seem to report UFOs.

The problem with this logic from my point of view is that Astronomers are not outside at night with a telescope pressed to their eyes anymore. They sit inside, during the day, looking at a computer screen at what was captured from a preprogrammed, and very small, section of the sky for study. In fact, the other thing astronomers do not capture a bunch of are bats, airplanes, weather balloons, blimps, bugs, birds and other man made aerial craft.