What are UFOs if they're NOT alien spacecraft?

Great Debates
21

The word pretty much has only one meaning. The idea was to convince the public that the phenomenon was no more than hysterical nonsense, which is something that many people still believe. In fact, that is why scientists avoid any open interest in the topic. Ridicule. It’s that simple.

I remember one passage of the book clearly. It was the day that Hynek decided that he could no longer follow the Air Force agenda. It was a daylight sighting by several independent witnesses that included one Air Force pilot. On impulse, he explained away the sighting by claiming it was “a rapidly moving atmospheric eddy”. Later on, he had to admit to himself that the statement was nonsensical techno-babble with no basis in scientific reality. He said that was turning point for him.

22

If “They” don’t investigate that means that UFOs have been accepted as aliens, and if “They” do investigate it is to cover it up.

23

Should we care, as they don’t seem to hurt us?

24

If you refuse to do the latter, then you are convincing people that you are trying to cover up the former. However, if you do the latter and do it in a way that convinces people that you are right about it all being hysterical nonsense, then you have solved your problem.

25

I have seen the old Air Force footage and it almost seems like they worked to make the image of whatever they were following blurry. The wave-tops are as clear as can be but the “craft” the radar is locked onto is a blurry blob,…how does that work?
On top of that the sightings were on a type of radar. I would like to see clear photographs of the object not a video of a radar image. Heck everyone has a good camera in their phone

26

Since when? Once you have accepted that “They” are involved in a cover-up, then all evidence presented is disbelieved. What evidence would “you” accept that UFOs are not alien?

27

What are UFOs?

  1. Misidentified objects like other planes, Venus, birds, etc. The ‘fast mover’ video, for example, looks to me like a Canada goose flying along with the wind. Or something small and close mistaken for something larger and further away. Car headlights or airport beacons or other lights reflecting on clouds…

  2. Hoaxes. Tin pans, quadcopters, photo trickery, etc.

  3. Unknown things because we don’t have enough data to identify them. That could include experimental machines, camera fails that left an artifact, atmospheric effects like ball lightning or reflective inversions, or something else. One possibility in this category is aliens, but there are too many other things for aliens to be seriously considered.

28

Recently, I found better evidence for a pet theory of mine that many times they are experimental aircraft that governments do not want to disclose.

Together with the suspicious new disclosure timelines for UFO incidents (IIRC, 25 years) Points to me to the militaries of the world attempting to keep their new “toys” a secret, the bit about planting bits about “possible” extraterrestrial origin, happens because it is better for the militaries that citizens do not ask questions about the costs or usefulness of those new weapons or crafts.

29

The terminology “Unidentified Flying Objects” is itself pretty misleading. It’s very clear that many supposed UFOs that have been successfully identified through the years have not been Flying, and many of them have not been Objects.

As noted above, it’s not as if there’s one single explanation for all of these. A range of phenomena have been pointed to as “OFOs”, and a number of different things lie behind the ones that have been identified.

Some have been re-entering spacecraft, or launch tests, or even meteors. These aren’t flying objects – most of them are falling objects.

Some have been identified as aircraft performing missions or tests, often at night. These were definitely flying, but , although not identified by the spotters, they weren’t unidentified by everyone.

Several UFOs have been very plausibly identified as astronomical objects – bright stars, or planets, or even the moon, especially when seen through haze.

As Donald Menzel (one-time director of the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, editor of :Fundamental Formulas in Physics", and author of three books debunking UFOs) once pointed out, many "UFO"s aren’t even objects – they’re optical phenomena in the sky such as sundogs, ice crystal haloes, and the like. I’m a little annoyed at him, because his use of terminology was not correct – he called a lot of things “sundogs” that would not be designated so today. But I think his ideas were sound.

There are several cases that have been explained to my satisfaction by Menzel, Phillip Klass, Robert Schaeffer, and others. A lot of these investigations have been in great detail, not mere dismissals without thought. Klass devotes three chapters in his UFOs Explained to one case. Have a look at them.

Even most pro-UFO investigators admit that a great many supposed UFO sightings are the result of mistaken identity. You would certainly expect that, even if UFOs really were mostly alien spacecraft. The issue is how you deal with the cases where an explanation is not easily made, or there is insufficient information. The skeptics, of course, lean on the side of these cases, too, being mistaken identification, while the true believers lean the other way.

30

Correct me if I am mistaken, Straight Dope posters, but to the best of my knowledge whenever it has been possible to test any aspect of Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity that aspect has been verified.

The Theory of Relativity claims that nothing can travel faster than light.

If true, that places severe limits on inter planetary travel. Beings who have reached our planet have undergone major sacrifices. If they return to their planets civilization may have ended. Their species may have become extinct. They would not sneak around, and leave. They would identify themselves.

31

Well… They don’t have to be beings… they could be AI powered scout craft sent out by the millions to many star systems to scout them out.

Given a long lived civilization or an AI based one, waiting a few thousand years for a response may not be a big deal.

Of course all this is science fiction. Aliens visiting us in this semi-secret way is such a longshot that almost any other plausible explanation is preferred.

32

My old apartment was in one of the approach paths for Philly International Airport and only a few miles from the much tinier Northeast Airport. I routinely saw craft that while I could not completely identify (Is that a 747 or a 737? I dunno. That’s a small two enginge craft obviously heading for NE airport. It’s exact make and model remain a mystery to me), but was confident they were terran craft of mundane (so much as a multi ton piece of metal flying under its own power can be mundane) origin.

A friend once saw a moving light in the sky while dropping me off. She immediately assumed it was extra terrestrial in nature. How’s the James Randi quote about zebras and horses go?

33

Yeah I used to believe in an alien explanation for some UFOs long ago, but all the evidence points to that not being likely, especially in this overly surveilled present that we live in. I still tend to think that it’s likely there is life elsewhere out there, but I don’t believe it’s visited us. Experimental aircraft and natural phenomena are far far more likely explanations.

34

“What the heck IS that, Clem?”
“I don’t know, Cletus”
“That means it’s a UFO, Clem!”

35

Depends on what you think of the Simulation Hypothesis. If we are indeed in a sim, it would move right to the top. If not it of course would be completely nonviable.

I have to LOL whenever someone inevitably trots out the new saw that the ubiquity of cell phones somehow demonstrates anything. Would any of you really change your mind based on one likely blurry photograph of some vaguely ominous blob in the distance? Would the XKCD guy I wonder? The object in question would undoubtedly have to be snapped up close and personal to spark any sort of in-depth and substantive discussion, but in this age of deepfakes and AI-enhanced photos would any such single snapshot settle anything at all? How would anybody be able to prove that it is authentic? [at best you’d might be able to demonstrate its inauthenticity via various means] After all, you can go onto Youtube, type in “UFO” and get zillions of videos, so I am not sure what point the XKCD guy is trying to make, at all.

36

In Area 51, that’s exactly what they were. It wasn’t cloaked in secrecy because it was housing alien technology, it was because it was housing the most advanced experimental aircraft in the world. Only an extremely small percentage of sightings are compelling enough to seemingly offer no other explanation than some earthly cause.

37

It is pretty much vague and unfalsifiable, so I don’t think about it at all…except when it is used in science fiction.

38

No, but multi angle shots of stills and video of unexplainable phenomena? Absolutely. Laugh all you want, but the ubiquity of recording devices is a big deal. I would also expect a large increase in the reporting of such phenomena.

39

I had a friend who said he saw a UFO (by which he meant an alien spacecraft). I asked him to tell me what he saw. He said it was a bright light that was maneuvering in the sky in a way he felt a plane couldn’t fly.

I suggested maybe he had seen a dragon. He said that was silly. I also suggested it could have been an angel or Johnny Storm the Human Torch.

Basically, I pointed out that he hadn’t seen an alien spacecraft. What he had seen was a bright light in the sky. Based on that, he had concluded that the likeliest explanation for that was an alien spacecraft. But I feel that thinking an alien spacecraft is more likely than a dragon or an angel or a superhero is just a matter of opinion.

Personally, I feel a human-made aircraft acting in a way that I’m not familiar with is more likely than any of the above. I have evidence that human-made aircraft exist.

40

The 20th Century called and wants it’s UFO proof back. Sightings of things were always a blurry blobby picture provided by one person, with little to no corroboration. Because hardly anyone ever carried cameras around.

Today, there’s no excuse for that, because every single human over the age of 12 has a high quality video camera system in their pocket. We still only get weird blobby pictures provided from the one person who decided to take a picture, rather than any of the other 100 people who should have been able to see it.