A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Randall]

The McMinnville picture is fascinating but cannot function as any kind of real evidence, and maybe even that is Randall's point in his blog post. We'd need more pictures from independent witnesses for these pictures to warrant the claims that have been made about them. This pattern of consistently leaving only suspect evidence means either the UFOs somehow know when it is safe to appear and when it is not (it is a part of the phenomenon), or that the alleged pattern of the UFO experience is imaginary (there are no real UFOs).

It doesn't seem reasonable to me to believe that all UFO reports are the result of misperceptions, hallucinations, illusions, hoaxes, whatever else the case may be, and there are a couple of good reason for that. The first one is that investigation into reports indicate that after those possibilities have been eliminated, there is a residual portion of reports that cannot be reasonably explained as anything else. Add up the details of those reports and the only way to dismiss them is to simply deny they're real or accurate, which might be reasonable if there were only a couple of such reports buried in the distant past. But that's not the case.

But even if one doesn't want to look at the documented reports and case studies, there is still the firsthand experiences of those people who have seen a UFO well enough to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that what they saw couldn't be anything but some sort of alien craft ( Note that alien doesn't necessitate ET ). It might be reasonable to offhandedly dismiss a few reports, but after so many instances it becomes unreasonable to think all the witnesses are either incompetent or liars. To do so is IMO the height of arrogance. Hynek eventually came to understand this, and he was a genuine scientist with impeccable credentials who was directly involved in UFO research.

Now all that being said, I still think your other points are valid. I would even go so far as to say that at this particular time, perhaps there are no alien craft visiting our civilization. I don't know for sure. I just know what I saw, and if I saw a UFO I'd have to be completely self-centered to think I'm the only one in the world out of thousands and thousands of people who isn't lying or misidentifying what they saw. Other people must have seen them too, but the trick is knowing who, and that's where your focus on evidence comes in, and believe it or not, I appreciate that you want some convincing evidence. The last thing we want is people who look at the subject without some critical thinking skills.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Ufology: do you agree with Hynek's assertion that the lack of believable video and photographic evidence is part of the phenomenon? I take him to mean that the occupants, whatever they are, deliberately avoid being photograpped and videotaped - somehow. If true, this could raise all sorts of horrifying spectres, wouldn't it? How could they possibly do that, and what sorts of apparent magic (very high and baffling technology) would have to be involved?

Maybe they don't visit anymore because cameras are ubiquitous? Or maybe the phenomenon has changed, and now they're no longer concerned with making a dramatic presentation, instead roving over the Earth by stealth.

If they're real, I think the truth is likely to be absolutely horrifying, due to their illimitable power and our total vulnerability to it.

I agree it is unlikely everyone who has seen something unexplainable is lying. Still, we always have evidence that is at best just one step beneath sufficient, including the remainder of unexplained cases. Really, we don't have proof of anything and should not make any assumptions about the phenomenon. Everything about the appearance of the phenomenon could be an illusion. Therefore, I don't believe in UFOs.

 

[Randall]

Ufology: do you agree with Hynek's assertion that the lack of believable video and photographic evidence is part of the phenomenon? I take him to mean that the occupants, whatever they are, deliberately avoid being photograpped and videotaped - somehow. If true, this could raise all sorts of horrifying spectres, wouldn't it? How could they possibly do that, and what sorts of apparent magic (very high and baffling technology) would have to be involved?

The preponderance of modern reports indicates that UFOs are elusive and evasive, at least to the extent that they seem to appear on their terms rather than ours. We're not certain exactly why they behave this way, but because they do, it seems fair to suggest that advanced propulsion isn't the only technology at their command. So as we have developed better ways of detecting their presence, perhaps they've devised better ways to avoid detection. This might seem a little far fetched at first, but it's not. We humans have been playing that game for ages, constantly devising better camouflage and our latest efforts include active camouflage. So if we can figure this out, so can they, and given how hard it is to get a decent picture of objects at a distance in the sky, even if UFOs only had fairly good active camouflage, they'd still go unnoticed by the vast majority of people and cameras. So it's not a big issue for me.

Maybe they don't visit anymore because cameras are ubiquitous? Or maybe the phenomenon has changed, and now they're no longer concerned with making a dramatic presentation, instead roving over the Earth by stealth.

Stealth is a very good call ...

If they're real, I think the truth is likely to be absolutely horrifying, due to their illimitable power and our total vulnerability to it.

When it comes to power, pretty much everything has limits. Earth is an entire planet with 7 billion people on it and our technology is advancing at a fast rate. If UFOs are extraterrestrial then there is still the reality of huge distances, which introduces logistical problems that would make a mass invasion or takeover very difficult, not to mention that there seems to be little reason for such an advanced race to want to get into interstellar war. It's more likely the case that they're simply studying us.

I agree it is unlikely everyone who has seen something unexplainable is lying. Still, we always have evidence that is at best just one step beneath sufficient, including the remainder of unexplained cases. Really, we don't have proof of anything and should not make any assumptions about the phenomenon. Everything about the appearance of the phenomenon could be an illusion. Therefore, I don't believe in UFOs.

Proof is simply evidence that is sufficient for someone to believe the truth of a claim. For some, there will be enough evidence and for others their won't be. In my case I think that it's not unreasonable to consider the best available evidence as proof enough that UFOs are real. But that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions, which is what makes ufology so fascinating ( for me ). If you don't think so, then you can remove alien visitation from your worldview and go about your day oblivious to the experiences people have had, thinking they never happened. The question is: How sure are you, really?

 

[William Strathmann]

Take the Malmstrom missile base case, for example. The main witness, the man who has published a book on the event, the man who has been on television and radio to talk about it, never saw the craft. He is only reporting what others on the base claimed to have seen. In the end, there is no reason to believe that this case was anything less than a psyop, and that poor Robert Sallas was a patsy who was used to disseminate disinformation. And why not?

Your phrasing about what happened is problematic. Salas was one of the on-duty officers at the missile launch complex. The armed topside security guard, charged with guarding the missile complex, and who was subordinate to Salas, contacted Salas as he was supposed to do to report the unusual sighting and to ask for further instructions. So Salas didn't just happen to hear about a sighting and decide to make a big thing out of it. Your belief that Salas, responsible for launching nuclear missiles that could initiate the annihilation of earth as we know it, was the patsy of a government psyop is, shall we say, highly unlikely . . .

Robert Hastings has collected quite a few testimonies of personnel involved in UFO sightings at missile complexes and they seem convincing enough to me. See HERE for example.

 

[Spectre73]

Separating the wheat from the chaff is tougher than ever these days. I do however think of this question often. On the other hand does the phenomenon want to be captured on camera? There are many solid reports of cameras failing etc

 

[Trajanus]

The McMinnville picture

There are two.

This pattern of consistently leaving only suspect evidence means either the UFOs somehow know when it is safe to appear and when it is not (it is a part of the phenomenon), or that the alleged pattern of the UFO experience is imaginary (there are no real UFOs).

The former shouldn't shock us since the phenomenon represents something beyond our capabilities. The latter just isn't credible IMO.

 

[Trajanus]

On the other hand does the phenomenon want to be captured on camera?

One possible interpretation: it's inurring us to its reality, bit by bit, but can't go too far too fast; ergo plenty of photos but (like sightings etc) no definitive proof yet.

There are many solid reports of cameras failing etc

Or pictures coming out blurry.

 

[Trajanus]

I don't want to debate McMinnville on this thread, but, at the very least, Joel Carpenter's work and the IPACO Report has raised serious questions about them.

There was a very in-depth and detailed analysis of them on KDR's blog. The conclusion was that, while a hoax was possible, a distant object, as opposed to a model near the camera, "naturally explains the data." The hoax thesis has problems for example lack of perceptible bending of the wires rules out a weighty object like the long suspected truck mirror.

 

[Randall]

Your phrasing about what happened is problematic. Salas was one of the on-duty officers at the missile launch complex. The armed topside security guard, charged with guarding the missile complex, and who was subordinate to Salas, contacted Salas as he was supposed to do to report the unusual sighting and to ask for further instructions. So Salas didn't just happen to hear about a sighting and decide to make a big thing out of it. Your belief that Salas, responsible for launching nuclear missiles that could initiate the annihilation of earth as we know it, was the patsy of a government psyop is, shall we say, highly unlikely . . .

Robert Hastings has collected quite a few testimonies of personnel involved in UFO sightings at missile complexes and they seem convincing enough to me. See HERE for example.

I actually agree that the Malmstrom stories are problematic. One of the things I do is look at the debunkers side of the issue. We have to take what they say into account if it seems reasonable to do so. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. Although I don't recall all the details at the moment, they seemed to make some very good points. Try Googling "Malmstrom UFO debunked" or "Sunlite Debunks Malmstron UFO". I seem to even recall the official report on the malfunctions being blamed on an electronic component failure that was identified and replaced. According to the skeptics the story has also, among other things, morphed more than once.

Demonstrating problems with cases is a worthy exercise, but at the same time, merely shedding doubt isn't sufficient to justify claiming that all UFO cases are nonsense either.

 

[Trajanus]

I seem to even recall the official report on the malfunctions being blamed on an electronic component failure that was identified and replaced.

Of course the official line is that is was something prosaic. Given official secrecy it's probable they have to say that even if they don't believe it.

Demonstrating problems with cases is a worthy exercise, but at the same time, merely shedding doubt isn't sufficient to justify claiming that all UFO cases are nonsense either.

The phenomenon may ensure that all cases are problematic, if it doesn't want to be openly acknowledged yet or if its secret agenda requires it to ensure that unavoidable sightings have credibility issues. Btw Malmstrom was far from the only reported instance of UFOs apparently interfering with nuclear weapons. There have been a number of reports of ETs complaining or warning about nuclear arms so a few demonstrations doesn't seem unlikely.

 

[MaestroCrowley]

Honestly I do not think it would matter if someone were to catch a UFO in a picture. If it was a good picture anyone would just tell them it was fake and go out of their way to prove that it was a fake. So regardless of cameras everywhere photographic evidence is not what will convince skeptics or anyone else sadly.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Jeff Davis]

Honestly I do not think it would matter if someone were to catch a UFO in a picture. If it was a good picture anyone would just tell them it was fake and go out of their way to prove that it was a fake. So regardless of cameras everywhere photographic evidence is not what will convince skeptics or anyone else sadly.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Precisely! This is why the whole old school ufology photos as evidence will always be met with a certain skeptical refrain. Accompanied with the eventuality of the just as certain skeptic's plausible rebuttal as in the case of the McMinnville photos. It doesn't matter one iota whether the photos are the real deal or not. Photos will never be accepted as a method of proof that demonstrate some real repeatable or verifiable aspect of control.

Via extremely reliable reporting documented en masse, UFOs represent an aspect of quasi environmental control for which we have no present day access or understanding. This aspect is beyond our functional comprehension of reality. Time and space are simply not limitations that UFOs are constrained by. At least not in a manner that we are presently at this time. UFOs and their interactions with humanity represent that ability to manipulate our native reality as we experience it. This in and of itself tells us MUCH.

Humankind at this time primarily recognizes an advancement of what is the external application and implementation of it's progressively developing technological facilitation. When humanity's technological growth becomes internally focused, and thereby centric to what is it's internally defined/established uptake of experienced reality, it will interface not just it's own physical particle based environmental limitations, but rather the very micro/macro essence of the fundamental reality that we experience. As surely as there are environmentally relevant measurable forces that must be technologically compensated for as we focus on overcoming what we presently perceive and experience as the the external, there may be forces that interact with this consciousness based experience that we call reality that we can further technologically interface allowing our cognitive awareness to transcend the physically relevant composition of our external environment's localized constraints.

IMO this is one key speculation for what I believe UFOs may be at least partially representative of. We ourselves are just beginning to seriously develop artificial intelligence. What if UFOs employ artificial consciousness wherein they can literally translate variable reality states according to their needs?

In a study of humanoid encounters several key issues become common denominators with respect to our observation of them. One such observable characteristic is a very unnatural sense of movement. Almost robotic in nature. What if that is precisely what most observed occupants are? What if all manner of such encounters are made with artificial cognitioids (cognitive facilitation androids) that act as a basic interactive virtual reality puppet for their masters perhaps located in naturally interactive parallel universes? We ourselves are just beginning to unravel that latter part. New Theory Suggests Parallel Universes Interact With And Affect Our Own Universe

There are several other commonly dominating aspects of the humanoid encounter scenario that also support just such a reality translation. In fact the entirety of high strangeness itself may be the byproduct of technology employing artificial consciousness. Imagine what would basically act as a multiuniversal sentient translation device. UFOs do seem to point us at ourselves rather than the stars.

 

[DaveM]

Honestly I do not think it would matter if someone were to catch a UFO in a picture. If it was a good picture anyone would just tell them it was fake and go out of their way to prove that it was a fake. So regardless of cameras everywhere photographic evidence is not what will convince skeptics or anyone else sadly.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

In the modern day world of Photoshop, a picture or video just doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[technomage]

I think if you have multiple people taking pictures or videos from multiple angles with multiple simultaneous visual confirmations, the probability of the authenticity of the audio-visual evidence will be much higher. You basically would then need to prove that it was some elaborate hoax and the more people that have seen it, photographed it and videotaped it, the greater the onus is on the debunkers to disprove this evidence.

 

[DaveM]

I think if you have multiple people taking pictures or videos from multiple angles with multiple simultaneous visual confirmations, the probability of the authenticity of the audio-visual evidence will be much higher. You basically would then need to prove that it was some elaborate hoax and the more people that have seen it, photographed it and videotaped it, the greater the onus is on the debunkers to disprove this evidence.

This isn't exactly like multiple people taking videos but there were numerous people who saw the craft at O'Hare airport in 2006. Unfortunately, that story died on the vine.

 

[technomage]

This isn't exactly like multiple people taking videos but there were numerous people who saw the craft at O'Hare airport in 2006. Unfortunately, that story died on the vine.

Right, we've had several cases where multiple people have seen something, but without the harder evidence, those cases die on the vine. Now we need a case where multiple people have photographed it and videoed it. Then we'll have some substantial audio-visual evidence that can't be easily dismissed.

 

[Randall]

I think if you have multiple people taking pictures or videos from multiple angles with multiple simultaneous visual confirmations, the probability of the authenticity of the audio-visual evidence will be much higher. You basically would then need to prove that it was some elaborate hoax and the more people that have seen it, photographed it and videotaped it, the greater the onus is on the debunkers to disprove this evidence.

This is exactly the kind of thing Chris is trying to do with his SLV camera project

 

[technomage]

Yes; his approach is even better as it's fully automated.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

It would be difficult indeed to discount images taken by multiple, independent witnesses of the same craft. This would make the case for UAP a lot better. Why don't we have that evidence? By the law of averages, shouldn't we have it? What's going on here? I say the phenomenon is illusory, and by that I do not necessarily mean misperceptions of conventional phenomena, hoaxes, etc. Invoke the Vallee bit about deception, etc. You know what I'm getting at. He's right. Either that or it's all BS. Honestly I'm not sure which and am always shilly-shallying back and forth between the two.

And to Mr. O'Brien if he reads it: I know it's easily said that I appreciate your San Luis Valley camera project, but I mean it sincerely. It's a real and serious effort to advance the study.

 

[Randall]

It would be difficult indeed to discount images taken by multiple, independent witnesses of the same craft. This would make the case for UAP a lot better. Why don't we have that evidence? By the law of averages, shouldn't we have it? What's going on here?

Just because Joe public doesn't have the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. It's no secret that there has been an ongoing cover-up. Every time they say they have nothing, some FOIA request reveals they did have something, but what we get is documents with huge blacked out sections. However we do have some interesting tidbits. If you go back and review the '52 DC case, although some bits and pieces have been shown to be nothing out of the ordinary, and used in an attempt to debunk the entire flap, there are still multiple radar detections, multiple witnesses, and a simultaneous radar/visual detection by a USAF jet pilot.

... Either that or it's all BS. Honestly I'm not sure which and am always shilly-shallying back and forth between the two.

It's not logical to apply all or nothing type thinking to ufology. Just because the objects in most UFO reports don't turn out to be UFOs doesn't automatically mean that all UFO reports are therefore something other than UFOs, and the core subject matter of ufology deals with reports that if true are best explained as alien craft. Other possibilities are farther away from the essential question, and the farther one gets away from that, the easier it is to lose one's focus on the doughnut and start looking at all the holes.