Talk:Unidentified flying object

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon ufology.svg

This Ufology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

CIA says: UFOs were us[edit]

Luis Elizondo related videos and related information obtained from the US Military in connection with the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program[edit]

I believe that this page on Unidentified Flying Objects should be updated to reflect the following evidence which is thus far unrefuted:

Luis Elizondo, a former intelligence officer at the US Defense Department, formerly heading the now defunded US military Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, who now works for a non-profit organization called "To the Stars Academy" has secured the release of three videos showing encounters between F/A18 Super Hornet fighter jets using advanced forward looking infrared (FLIR) cameras, and ‘anomalous aerial vehicles’, the military term for Unidentified Flying Objects. See related links, , ,

The three videos and their irrefutability as concrete evidence has led various media outlets to recognize that the extraterrestrial hypothesis regarding UFO's is no longer, as the main article indicates, implausible, or at least lacking in proof. See, e.g., , ,

The article states: "There is a bit of a discrepancy between the evidence needed to show an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs and the evidence so far acquired and used by UFO enthusiasts. If they were real, it would — in principle — not be difficult to show their alien origin."

These three videos and the related interviews given by at least one US Navy pilot, David Fravor, (interviewed here on CNN ), pretty much establishes that there is no longer a "discrepancy" between the "evidence needed" and the "evidence so far acquired". The article argues that the evidence required would be, at least, "Seeing one ourselves". Now, you can see one yourself. Just watch the videos referenced above. Ynilp (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The style of this writer leads me to think that it will be a waste of time to look at those links. But, once in a while, someone has to do it. First, on the overall tone: Fanatic believers write about "unrefuted" as if this were a quality of evidence rather than arguments. Then Ynilp (Pliny spelled backwards, probably because of how he thinks) refers to circumstantial evidence as "concrete." And weak inference is called "proof." Not a good sign.
Then we have the standard appeal to irrelevant authority: "former intelligence officer" sounds impressive until we realize that "former intelligence" could mean just that. The name of the organization is important how? To show his bias? (Anomalous Aerial Vehicle would mean almost exactly the same as UFO, and both tend to assume a physical object rather than some appearance, and "Vehicle" assumes even more.)
  1. amazing ufo footage -- how is that for a biased title? -- is interesting, but I'm far short of amazed. It looks to me like an artifact of the vision system. I would really want to see expert analysis of that video.
  2. Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program is a Wikipedia article, which is not evidence for anything, only that some probably anonymous somebody wrote something, and all it shows is that there was a program. I've linked to the current permanent version, our dazzled and amazed author here didn't know to do that.
  3. To the stars academy is essentially spam video fundraising for that organization. It's not relevant to the content of the videos, not directly.
  4. This is a CNN story that reports the experience and opinions of the pilot. Luis Elizondo jumps from an apparent object moving as if it were inertialess, or "seemingly defying the laws of aerodynamics" (like an image) to "My personal belief is that there is very compelling evidence that we may not be alone." I notice immediately the juxtaposition of "belief" and "may not be." This story does not establish that such a body of "very compelling evidence" exists. Rather, again, so far in looking at all this, there is one video, very unclear in what it indicates.
  5. the independent I looked at the CNN story first. It's really the same, aboout what Elizondo believes, and so far, only one video. before I'm done, I'll look for the rest.
  6. al-jazeera same basic story. The U.S. government had a program to look at UFO reports.
Yes, waste of time. I already knew there was such a program. The video is the only actual evidence asserted (and the ideas of that pilot, a little) and it is far, far, from conclusive on what the believer here wants to claim. Does this belong in the article? Maybe as an example of drawing vast conclusions from thin evidence based on overheated belief.
I also found the second video. I could not easily find the third. I did see another video that actually looked more interesting, it didn't look like a camera artifact to me, but ... I don't know the details. Basically, to believers, "unknown" means, "see, we are right!" --Some random Smith (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


What would the maximum size of space-travelling aliens be?

There is the effect of 'g-forces etc' (and 'FTL spaceship equivalents) on the organism, constructing a stable spaceship which has a sufficiently large internal space, and how large a teleport system could be created and whether it would be feasible (as a thought experiment - a whale or diplodocus would probably need too long to be 'processed') etc. Anna Livia (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Evidence we need" section[edit]

The evidence we need section currently has the following: I have put numbers.

1. Images taken by the aliens of their own home-world.

2. A sample of alien DNA (or the equivalent).

3. Emission spectroscopy of the light emitted by the UFOs

4. Exotic material never yet produced on Earth, perhaps as part of "UFO" wreckage.

5. A mathematical proof which would be quite routine for the alien but which has not been solved by us on Earth at this time.

6 Similarly, any technology or scientific theory — unification of quantum mechanics and relativity would be nice.

7. Flying saucer/triangle/cigar blueprints smuggled out from Area 51 or Lockheed's Skunk Works.

8. Seeing one ourselves (or, much better, one popping out in broad daylight over a large city<ref group=note>City-buster laser or whatever optional, and/or landing in the middle of an event heavily attended/covered by media.)

I would suggest that at the very least 4, 5, 6 would only be good evidence that those things exist. They would not, in themselves, be evidence for the existence of aliens. If nobody objects I will zap them later.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned it up a bit.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Still nothing on the 2017 Pentagon release?[edit]

Look into this stuff it's crazy. The videos are blurry, but combined with all the witness testimony it forms a truly damning picture. Similar objects were spotted on numerous other occasions, they have been confirmed by multiple credible eyewitnesses who haven't tried to sell their stories, and the UFOs clearly demonstrate technological capabilities beyond human capacity. Unless you believe the truly ludicrous assertion that the US government has a program of giant flying tic-tacs, this is a clear demonstration that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin. — Unsigned, by: Mr Grasshopper / talk / contribs

@Mr Grasshopper Link it please. Also, make sure you use a credible source, not a UFO truther site. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with most 'UFO films' is the general blurriness of the footage - why has there been no 'clear good quality' material especially recently (consider recordings of the Chelyabinsk meteor).
There are flying tic tacs - see here and here.
The NASA ship can be found here, with a precursor here. Anna Livia (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This article has dated very poorly. The 2004 USS Nimitz encounters and the 2014/2015 Theodore Roosevelt incidents are by far the best documented UFO cases, with many credible witnesses, and even government validation that they have no idea what happened there. — Unsigned, by: 2001:56a:f391:7200:8049:5250:8613:fdeb / talk
Two points. One, if you're the original poster (User:Mr Grasshopper) you still need to cite sources. Even if you aren't, cite sources. Secondly, there's a massive, massive gap between "I don't know" and "Hyper-advanced space aliens". "I don't know" could simply mean that the flying objects in question are of an unknown nature/origin/whathaveyou. Now if only there was a term for that... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. If you see something strange then the correct reaction should be, "That's strange. I wonder what it is."
The incorrect reaction would be "That's strange, it must be aliens".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Most people will accept that 'there is life elsewhere in the universe' ('the universe is big, and if it has happened once it is likely to happen elsewhere). They will also accept 'weird stuff happens in the sky, much of which will be "auroras, lightning, meteor(ite)s, St Elmo's Fire, clouds, birds, and planes/balloons etc reflecting sunlight, constructed satellites, military test vehicles, and so on" but there will be some things which do not have a readily accessible explanation" (even when they look it up on their favourite search engine). They will probably have to be convinced that actual aliens are running about, and chasing people who are unlikely to be the most suitable for discussing trade negotiations. Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)