Why astronomers don’t report UFOs

[CapnG]

I have said that there's no evidence to support the hypothesis that these things that people see are objects that are controlled by non-human intelligence. There's no evidence to support it - that doesn't make it non-existent.

By that logic there's no evidence to deny that hypothesis either. Delcaring that there's no non-human intelligence behind UFOs is essentially a supposition that there is a human intelligence behind them (or that they're either a wholly naturally occuring phenomenon or a purely psychological one). You're choosing to eliminate explanations seemingly by preference alone.

We're dealing with an absolute unknown here. Saying there's no way it could be non-human is as silly as stating that all UFOs are unequivecally extra-terrestrial craft.

What's wrong with simply saying: "I don't know and I might not ever know."?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

By that logic there's no evidence to deny that hypothesis either. Delcaring that there's no non-human intelligence behind UFOs is essentially a supposition that there is a human intelligence behind them (or that they're either a wholly naturally occuring phenomenon or a purely psychological one). You're choosing to eliminate explanations seemingly by preference alone.

We're dealing with an absolute unknown here. Saying there's no way it could be non-human is as silly as stating that all UFOs are unequivecally extra-terrestrial craft.

What's wrong with simply saying: "I don't know and I might not ever know."?

Exactly - and that's what I'm saying with my last statement. There's not evidence to support it, but that doesn't make it non-existent.

 

[exo_doc]

You know that's not my position right? I have said that there's no evidence to support the hypothesis that these things that people see are objects that are controlled by non-human intelligence. There's no evidence to support it - that doesn't make it non-existent.

That's not exactly accurate Angel, there is evidence,...just not proof.

3 cases right off the top of my head:

1982, Portugal: Three Portugese Air Force pilots witnessed a metallic object in close detail for over fifteen minutes. It moved approximately 5000 feet straight up in a few seconds, made several manuevers impossible with normal aircraft, and flew away much faster than their jets were capabale of.

1980, Peru: A peruvian pilot was sent up to intercept an object on radar. He said it looked like a large red balloon. He fired on it with guns to no effect, and then proceeded to lock onto it 3 more times, but each time at the instant he fired, the object would shoot straight up. He finally had to quit because of low fuel, Over one thousand base personnel winessed the entire event, plus the radar operators.

1976, Iran: An F4 phantom played cat and mouse with a large brilliant object that was seen on radar and people on the ground. When the pilot tried to fire a heat seeking missle, his weapons board would go dead and only function again when he moved away from the object. Ground radar and plane radar recorded the entire incident.

Highly trained military pilots, people on the ground, radar records both airborne and ground. That kind of evidence would easily get you convicted in court of something.
Something happened in each of these events that everyday explanations just don't fit, by SEEMINGLY intelligent acts.

BTW Angel, you have this unsettling habit of automatically assuming Aliens and Extraterrestrials when someone says UFO or UAP, that tends to ruffle feathers.
Try this: When someone says" Hey I saw this bright light in the sky moving fast and erratically.", ........say;"What do you think it was?".....instead of "Well whatever you saw WASN'T an alien (eyes rolling metaphorically)".
THEN if they proceed to say it was the almighty space brothers here to rescue us from ourselves.....jump on'em...have a field day! I would.
But please try not to immediatley think ETH when someone talks about something strange, give people a chance.

 

[pixelsmith]

I'm going to get quite formal here and I hope you bear with me.

Buried within your arguments and challenge to me is a tautology predicated by an if.

An example of a tautology is: All black sheep are black.

An example of a tautology predicated by an if: If all sheep were black then every sheep you saw would be a black one.

The second example while true cannot be used as an argument that all sheep are black. In reality all sheep are not black.

You are saying that if some aspect of reality were altered, then reality itself would be altered. I say, well no shit.

You are saying that if I saw what you saw my opinion would be different. I say, ok sure.

But the reality is I have not seen what you have seen, so I cannot put myself in your position. Before your sighting you were in my postion. What were your thoughts then? Were they perhaps similar to the thoughts I have now?

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Yes I understand. I have no problem with what you said. My position before my sighting was of open minded doubt. I believe we cannot possibly be alone in the universe so the possibility of meeting intelligent life from another planet is always there. But to me the chances were slim to none. There still remains the possibility that it could have been human controlled but I have never seen a air craft like that. No wings and no noise, it did not dart about erratically but it did hover for quite awhile. It didn't try to out run the jet, it seemed to be just trying to stay out of reach of it. They seemed to slowly pick up speed as they left my view.

 

[uforadio]

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!

It is a rehash of his original article published back in November 2008. that caused big stir and debate. Here is the original article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/25/aliens-yes-ufos-no/

As I said Article in question caused at that time a big debate on the blogs and especially on UFO Updates mailing list - will send links of the whole discussion when I catch some time. I have archived it.

I have replied to the same issue at the time here:
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...he-argument-from-ignorance.?p=72833#post72833

Plait this times make point more clear adding that indeed there are reports of UFOs from astronomers but "astronomers don't overwhelmingly report the majority of them".
With this statement I have less problem now - altough he again alleged what the usual frequency of those observations should be. In my link of previous post above there is Herb's comparision of a rate of sightings between astronomers and general public. Presented data in available studies today is probably outdated and new study should be welcomed before the ultimate proclamation how the situation and numbers stands. Also he doesn't take in to the account the reluctance to report UFOs (check page 41 of Vallee's book "Forbidden Science") and those conditions should be also included inside the future survey with more care and variables.

Best Wishes

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's not exactly accurate Angel, there is evidence,...just not proof.

3 cases right off the top of my head:

1982, Portugal: Three Portugese Air Force pilots witnessed a metallic object in close detail for over fifteen minutes. It moved approximately 5000 feet straight up in a few seconds, made several manuevers impossible with normal aircraft, and flew away much faster than their jets were capabale of.

1980, Peru: A peruvian pilot was sent up to intercept an object on radar. He said it looked like a large red balloon. He fired on it with guns to no effect, and then proceeded to lock onto it 3 more times, but each time at the instant he fired, the object would shoot straight up. He finally had to quit because of low fuel, Over one thousand base personnel winessed the entire event, plus the radar operators.

1976, Iran: An F4 phantom played cat and mouse with a large brilliant object that was seen on radar and people on the ground. When the pilot tried to fire a heat seeking missle, his weapons board would go dead and only function again when he moved away from the object. Ground radar and plane radar recorded the entire incident.

Highly trained military pilots, people on the ground, radar records both airborne and ground. That kind of evidence would easily get you convicted in court of something.
Something happened in each of these events that everyday explanations just don't fit, by SEEMINGLY intelligent acts.

BTW Angel, you have this unsettling habit of automatically assuming Aliens and Extraterrestrials when someone says UFO or UAP, that tends to ruffle feathers.
Try this: When someone says" Hey I saw this bright light in the sky moving fast and erratically.", ........say;"What do you think it was?".....instead of "Well whatever you saw WASN'T an alien (eyes rolling metaphorically)".
THEN if they proceed to say it was the almighty space brothers here to rescue us from ourselves.....jump on'em...have a field day! I would.
But please try not to immediatley think ETH when someone talks about something strange, give people a chance.

I am really fed up of being told "you said aliens, blah, blah, blah." Maybe I should put it in my signature that I don't mean aliens - I mean something that is unknown and not just unidentified - hows that - better?

My point is that who is seeing the object in the sky is important as well. One man's UFO is another man's airliner with the sun reflecting off of it. Nothing to to with aliens.
However, if you wish to bring up aliens as a non-sequitur, you may. That was not the point I was trying to make.

 

[CapnG]

I am really fed up of being told "you said aliens, blah, blah, blah." Maybe I should put it in my signature that I don't mean aliens - I mean something that is unknown and not just unidentified - hows that - better?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact you started out by saying:

I totally agree with him, and as time goes by the more I think that there's absolutely nothing to this UFO business.

Which you followed up with a quote that uses the terms UFO, alien spacecraft and flying saucers interchangably. That was followed by this:

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

A statement that suggests A) most people think UFOs = flying saucers (which is unfortunately true) and B) that you strongly disagree with that idea. And then added this:

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.

So you can understand why to the rest of us it seems that as a complete thought your arguments thus far could be summarized as "I think the idea that UFOs are ET spacecraft is nonsense because astronomers don't see them."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Which you followed up with a quote that uses the terms UFO, alien spacecraft and flying saucers interchangably. That was followed by this:



A statement that suggests A) most people think UFOs = flying saucers (which is unfortunately true) and B) that you strongly disagree with that idea.

That is true, but I do want to maintain that there is no proof to assert that with complete authority. My main point though was to show that sometimes a UFO is unidentified to the person seeing it, but it would not be to someone else. I think most of us can agree with that, no?

 

[trainedobserver]

My main point though was to show that sometimes a UFO is unidentified to the person seeing it, but it would not be to someone else. I think most of us can agree with that, no?

Isn't that just painfully obvious? Again, I really don't get the point you are trying to make Angelo.

1 .Unidentified Flying Objects are objects flying around that the observer cannot identify.
a. Object is simply unknown to "the observer" and is identified later by someone with greater knowledge. - This becomes an Identified Object.
b. Object remains unknown to the observer and anyone examining the evidence. - This remains a UFO.

The objects reported by Cooper are UFOs. The object reported in the referenced SkyLab mission remains a UFO. We don't know what they were. We don't know what those objects are in Norway. They remain UFOs. We don't know what the UAP that NARCAP is tracking are. They are UFOs.

Do you deny this Angelo?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Isn't that just painfully obvious? Again, I really don't get the point you are trying to make Angelo.

1 .Unidentified Flying Objects are objects flying around that the observer cannot identify.
a. Object is simply unknown to "the observer" and is identified later by someone with greater knowledge. - This becomes an Identified Object.
b. Object remains unknown to the observer and anyone examining the evidence. - This remains a UFO.

The objects reported by Cooper are UFOs. The object reported in the referenced SkyLab mission remains a UFO. We don't know what they were. We don't know what those objects are in Norway. They remain UFOs. We don't know what the UAP that NARCAP is tracking are. They are UFOs.

Do you deny this Angelo?

Common Rick - totally swamp gas - classic case!

Yes, from the research I've seen on those things, they are UFOs. The debate begins when we try to guess at what they are.

 

[trainedobserver]

Yes, from the research I've seen on those things, they are UFOs. The debate begins when we try to guess at what they are

Yes and that is all "speculation" and those conversations should be entered into in that spirit and with that realization. We don't know what those things were. Declaring that it couldn't be ET is as silly as asserting that they are the products of Nazi's who fled to the moon after WII or that they are time travelers from Atlantis.

 

[bmadccp]

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!

In my opinion, the debate over the mysteries of the paranormal should focus on:

"seeing is believing" vs. "believing is seeing"

 

[Angel of Ioren]

In my opinion, the debate over the mysteries of the paranormal should focus on:

"seeing is believing" vs. "believing is seeing"

Unfortunately, because of the way the brain works, seeing something doesn't always mean it's there. I know that first hand.

 

[trainedobserver]

Unfortunately, because of the way the brain works, seeing something doesn't always mean it's there. I know that first hand.

I agree. However in the case of multiple witness and photographic evidence this argument doesn't carry as much weight.

---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 AM ----------

This is another UFO IMHO.



Unfortunately Mr. Sparks uses the term Alien visitation. That is a conclusion based on speculation and not any evidence or information contained in the photograph, which I do believe to be genuine in all respects. What he should have just said is, This is a genuine UFO.

 

[bmadccp]

Unfortunately, because of the way the brain works, seeing something doesn't always mean it's there. I know that first hand.

Couldn't agree more

 

[NTS]

"Object is simply unknown to 'the observer' and is identified later by someone with greater knowledge"

This can be very difficult. A friend of mine and I (who between us had a fair knowledge of the sky as well as various aircraft) once spent several hours talking to my great aunt, trying to identify a UFO she'd seen. From her description we really couldn't get a clue as to what it might have been -- a diamond-shaped [?] object that drifted slowly across the sky (in daylight) emitting little puffs of smoke. We ended up concluding that it was something somebody launched as a hoax, or a real UFO -- duh.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Well, somebody has got to be lying or skewing their data or something. Just finished listening to an interview with Kevin Randle over on MUFON's radio program (Strange, strange indeed. Most of the shows in the archive have absolutely nothing to do with UFOs) and he was quoting a study saying that not only do astronomer's see UFOs but with greater regularity than the general public. Both sides can't be right. Makes me wonder how these studies are put together. Are both sides allowing the astronomers to answer anonymously? If not than obviously the results are going to be skewed because there are plenty of astronomers that would refuse to answer affirmatively if their name is on the ballot.

 

[TClaeys]

You have to admit that ridicule and backlash are pretty big reasons to NOT report something. Wouldn't want any of the bigwig funders knowing that you might have seen something unusual. It might even be a career ender. I wonder how many people that have reported UFO's wish they simply had not done so. It comes with a lot of baggage.

I saw this article when it came out, I think, years ago. Why do these same articles get republished??

Anyway, let me throw out this name: Clyde Tombaugh.... ever heard of him??
Discoverer of Pluto and about 800 hundred asteroids. Preeminent professional Astronomer of his day.
And guess what he reported?? UFO's, several times. And interestingly enough some sightings were at White Sands Observatory.

He also had this to say about his sightings:

"I have seen three objects in the last seven years which defied any explanation of known phenomenon, such as Venus, atmospheric optic, meteors or planes. I am a professional, highly skilled, professional astronomer. In addition I have seen three green fireballs which were unusual in behavior from normal green fireballs ... I think that several reputable scientists are being unscientific in refusing to entertain the possibility of extraterrestrial origin and nature."<SUP id=cite_ref-14 class=reference>[15]</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
If you don't think there is a stigma associated with reporting strange flying objects, then think again. It's my guess that even if a professional astronomer today saw a UFO it's doubtful they would report it. And if it acted really strange or if they got a closeup view of it, then no freaking way they would report it. While I understand what Plait is saying, he refuses to mention Tombaugh's sighting or the fact that credible people still report them. Hell, even professional and amatuer astronomers report them (even though he says they don't). My understanding is that the MUFON database has these reports, but I'd have to do a little research to find the relevant ones.

The possibility of UFO's being something other than mundane could be quite profound. And some people are not comfortable with that thought. So, in turn, they make it all mundane or mock the people reporting. While we still don't have a smoking gun and might never have it, the phenomenon doesn't pay attention. He seems to be a pretty bright guy which makes me wonder why his sarcasm and cynicism are his main tools to object to something that many sane people report. It all doesn't match up for me.
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>

 

[CapnG]

That is true, but I do want to maintain that there is no proof to assert that with complete authority. My main point though was to show that sometimes a UFO is unidentified to the person seeing it, but it would not be to someone else. I think most of us can agree with that, no?

But that means you're assuming that the object is ultimately identifiable by someone, doesn't it?

What about the roughly 5% of reports (ie the only ones worth looking at) that are simply baffling to expert and layman alike?

 

[Michael Allen]

Simple answer: Astronomers are too busy temporarily narrowing their FOV when they look at the sky (proxy or otherwise).