UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

[Randall]

I copied over part of the previous post that is relevant:

"What types of data would capture UFO phenomena? I previously listed: electromagnetic spectrum, imaging, thermal, radar (which is really just part of the electromagnetic spectrum). Are there any "insider" leaks that contain data in the category of the previous sentence? Now I don't mean civilian imaging, but DOD imaging? Even more interesting would be electromagnetic spectrum data. I have no idea how technical people are on this forum, but data related to PRF, PRI or doppler. For example, has anyone captured a pulse signal signature that is unknown by our electronics or demonstrates a rate of speed well beyond current aircraft capabilities?"

I suppose you probably already answered my question that I copied above, namely, "...verifiable material scientifically valid evidence? If you are; there isn't any that I'm aware of". To be honest, that is the only thing I'm really interested in. I am really not a UFO researcher or enthusiast. I am a scientist and engineer. I was excited by the fact that there may be interesting signals or phenomena. But I'm not interested in just weird or abnormal human sightings, but measurable events.

Otherwise, I like philosophy and religion...

All fair comments. As a scientist and an engineer, you work with known materials of proven specifications to get predictable results. In ufology the best we have done so far is deal with UFO reports that have been deemed reliable by responsible investigators and apply a statistical analysis to arrive at a probability of what we are dealing with. The Battelle Memorial Institute did one such study, but the results were not unanimous and it has been the subject of much debate. The only people who truly know that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real are those people who have seen one under conditions that leave no doubt that they were observing something alien to our civilization. I count myself among those people. However anyone who accepts that firsthand experiences can provide valuable and reasonably accurate information can find enough information to arrive at the same conclusion. If you are interested in going that route, I typically recommend a compilation called Beyond Top Secret by author Timothy Good. Don't bother with any of his other titles until you work your way through that one. Clark's UFO encyclopedia is also an excellent resource. There is also the Condon Report, which is an excellent collection of all the things UFOs aren't and is very useful from a skeptical perspective.

In ufology history, one of the best cases to involve detection equipment is the classic Washington D.C. flap of 1952. In that case there were multiple radar contacts and multiple visual observations by trained personnel including USAF jet interceptor pilots. The climax of the flap involved the vectoring of an F-94 to the location of a UFO on a radar. Visual confirmation was made by the pilot whose aircraft was surrounded by what he described as a ring of blueish-white lights. There is a short description here on the USI website under the F-94 entry.

Here's a video with a short clip from an actual radar track:​

 

[Ancientsaturn]

unanimous and it has been the subject of much debate. The only people who truly know that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real are those people who have seen one under conditions that leave no doubt that they were observing something alien to our civilization. I count myself among those people. However anyone who accepts that firsthand experiences can provide valuable and reasonably accurate information can find enough information to arrive at the same conclusion. If you are interested in going that route, I typically recommend a compilation called Beyond Top Secret by author Timothy Good.

Sounds like a good read. I am quite far into the skeptics camp, not because I rule out the possibilities, but I find them highly unlikely. If people have direct personal sightings, like yourself, then there should be really good imaging evidence. Of course these days anything can be doctored, but it is very hard to replicate detailed images of some foreign craft. All I have seen on the net has been fuzzy stuff and blobs. Coupled with that is the fact that when our space programs go to near planets with probes we just find deserts. Perhaps there is a whole sci-fi theory about space/time warp but I lose interest once it gets outside of what I can research or experience myself.

I know as a young person I once thought I saw a UFO. Thinking back many years later I think it was a satellite. It certainly was not a plane, rocket or any other known vehicle. Thanks for the links.

 

[Randall]

Sounds like a good read. I am quite far into the skeptics camp, not because I rule out the possibilities, but I find them highly unlikely. If people have direct personal sightings, like yourself, then there should be really good imaging evidence. Of course these days anything can be doctored, but it is very hard to replicate detailed images of some foreign craft. All I have seen on the net has been fuzzy stuff and blobs. Coupled with that is the fact that when our space programs go to near planets with probes we just find deserts. Perhaps there is a whole sci-fi theory about space/time warp but I lose interest once it gets outside of what I can research or experience myself. I know as a young person I once thought I saw a UFO. Thinking back many years later I think it was a satellite. It certainly was not a plane, rocket or any other known vehicle. Thanks for the links.

Ufology requires a healthy skepticism, and by healthy I mean the kind that you seem to be implying rather than the offhanded denials and mockery all too often demonstrated by those who claim to be skeptics. If anything I would encourage you to maintain your healthy skepticism. I also find it unlikely that the objects in most UFO reports are actually UFOs. The reason I think it's reasonable to assume that some of them are real UFOs is because I don't find it reasonable to think that I'm the only person who has ever seen one ... that and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that all the better reports we've had are hoaxes or misperceptions. The problem is knowing exactly which cases out of this collection are the real deal. That brings us to the issue of sufficient evidence to evaluate the phenomenon with a degree of certainty on a case by case basis. That is simply not possible yet, and that brings us to the issue of sufficient objective evidence.

Although the object I saw gives me good reason to believe it was something alien, even if I'd had a video camera back in the 1970s, the object would not have presented itself on video as anything spectacular. As an example, have you ever tried to take a picture of one of those big impressive full moons coming up in the twilight? If you have then you know the photo never looks as impressive as what you actually saw. Now imagine this illuminated orb moving around while you try to snap the picture and you get the idea. In actual fact, human visual perception, although subject to imperfection, is still amazing in normal healthy people. Only very recently have video cameras been developed for the average consumer that can maintain focus and exposure under fast moving high dynamic range conditions. UFOs are historically elusive and therefore don't take the time to pose for us, but some people have maintained that they have managed to get very good films. Unfortunately you then get into the realm of missing and confiscated films and all the ufolore that goes along with the worldwide cover-up.

Those old films might be more impressive if they are real and we had access to them, but then we might as well just skip the idea of film altogether and say the same thing about the UFOs themselves. Films don't really prove anything and now there is so much noise out there with all the YouTube videos that you need to be a video guru to tell the some of the fakes from what's real. So then we're back to firsthand experiences and the reports made by those witnesses. People are better educated today than any other past generation and we all have far more experience observing flying machines, so it's a lot less likely that we're going to get as many people ( by percentage ) mistaking mundane objects for UFOs as we did in pre-modern era ufology ( pre 1947 ).

 

[Randall]

Anyone here who can help tell if this is fake or real? Size, distance and speed of the object?​

​

 

[Ron Collins]

Anyone here who can help tell if this is fake or real? Size, distance and speed of the object?​

​

I reserve the right to be wrong but at first blush, this just looks like an aircraft a few thousand feet below the aircraft heading in the opposite direction. I think it appears to go under the last grouping of clouds but I don't think it does. I think it is a few thousand feet above the clouds and traveling at an approximate speed to the host aircraft but in an opposite direction. BUT, I think it is worth more scrutiny.

 

[Randall]

I reserve the right to be wrong but at first blush, this just looks like an aircraft a few thousand feet below the aircraft heading in the opposite direction. I think it appears to go under the last grouping of clouds but I don't think it does. I think it is a few thousand feet above the clouds and traveling at an approximate speed to the host aircraft but in an opposite direction. BUT, I think it is worth more scrutiny.

It helps to view the video directly on YouTube. For some reason the video is less stable when played here. Assuming the object is real, if it were much smaller and much closer, that would help to explain its seemingly phenomenal speed. I tend to agree that it looks like the object is just above the clouds. However it can't be all that close or we'd see some details. If it were an aircraft we should be able to see wings. So perhaps it's a missile. It doesn't make any sudden stops or angular turns, so there is nothing about its performance that completely eliminates that possibility, but whatever it is it's really motoring.

 

[pixelsmith]

it seems to be making a slight turn to the right towards the end.

 

[Randall]

UAP video clip from airplane. Korea April 2012​

​

​

 

[Randall]

UAP or Chineses lanterns or balloons dropping flares?​

 

[Frank Stalter]

Anyone here who can help tell if this is fake or real? Size, distance and speed of the object?​

​

To me, I think the object is too in-focus and a little too cute. The motion blur isn't well done. It's a nice trick having it go under the clouds, that part is well done. I think it's CGI.

 

[Randall]

MOD reports ( UK )​

​

 

[Randall]

To me, I think the object is too in-focus and a little too cute. The motion blur isn't well done. It's a nice trick having it go under the clouds, that part is well done. I think it's CGI.

It is hard to tell some fake videos from real ones. I don't get the impression that it is fake, but I don't have the tools to check it either. What I'd like to see is a technical analysis where the video has been stabilized and the object plotted. I've seen it done before to expose fakes because the compositing can then be seen ( or something like that ). Also note that here on the Paracast the videos are not as smooth as on YouTube, so if the motion blur looks off here, try viewing it on YouTube. If you think something is off, it would also help to provide some kind of explanation to help viewers ( and me ) understand better how that evaluation was made.

 

[Randall]

Another Hesdallen Project Video ​

​

More videos here ​

 

[Randall]

UAP or Fake or Blimp?​

 

[Frank Stalter]

It is hard to tell some fake videos from real ones. I don't get the impression that it is fake, but I don't have the tools to check it either. What I'd like to see is a technical analysis where the video has been stabilized and the object plotted. I've seen it done before to expose fakes because the compositing can then be seen ( or something like that ). Also note that here on the Paracast the videos are not as smooth as on YouTube, so if the motion blur looks off here, try viewing it on YouTube. If you think something is off, it would also help to provide some kind of explanation to help viewers ( and me ) understand better how that evaluation was made.

I'm hardly an expert, but there are some numbers we can deduce. Firstly, the object (in this case a CGI object IMO) does fly beneath the low clouds which I'm going to estimate at about 3000 feet above ground.

http://nenes.eas.gatech.edu/Cloud/Clouds.pdf

Assume the jet is at about 30000 feet. That puts the object at a minimum of 5 miles away as it is off the left wing of the jet some distance. It takes about 9 seconds for the object to follow its' path within the camera frame. The tricky part is figuring out how long that path is to estimate its' speed. If the path is 10 miles, the object is traveling at close to 10000 MPH. Since we don't know where the video was taken it's hard to say for sure. Even so, at that distance and even at that speed, I don't think you'd see motion blur like that and what is there just looks choppy, not well done. I can't prove it's CGI obviously, but it doesn't look right to me.

 

[Randall]

I'm hardly an expert, but there are some numbers we can deduce. Firstly, the object (in this case a CGI object IMO) does fly beneath the low clouds which I'm going to estimate at about 3000 feet above ground.

http://nenes.eas.gatech.edu/Cloud/Clouds.pdf

Assume the jet is at about 30000 feet. That puts the object at a minimum of 5 miles away as it is off the left wing of the jet some distance. It takes about 9 seconds for the object to follow its' path within the camera frame. The tricky part is figuring out how long that path is to estimate its' speed. If the path is 10 miles, the object is traveling at close to 10000 MPH. Since we don't know where the video was taken it's hard to say for sure. Even so, at that distance and even at that speed, I don't think you'd see motion blur like that and what is there just looks choppy, not well done. I can't prove it's CGI obviously, but it doesn't look right to me.

When I look at that video in full screen, it looks like the object goes behind the first cloud, just in front of the next, and through or just under the last one. You can see the shadow the object casts in one spot if you look carefully. You can also see the scale of some of the objects on the ground and extrapolate a rough distance. If the resulting numbers are close to accurate and it is a real object it is definitely hypersonic ... around 6000 MPH. This estimate has nothing to do with the combined speeds of two aircraft or other factors mentioned in the video commentary, but strictly time to cover distance. If it's not CGI then the only terrestrial explanation that might fit would be some kind of missile. I don't see the point in creating a GGI video like this one and don't get the impression it's fake ... but like I said ... I'm no video expert either.

 

[Frank Stalter]

When I look at that video in full screen, it looks like the object goes behind the first cloud, just in front of the next, and through or just under the last one. You can see the shadow the object casts in one spot if you look carefully. You can also see the scale of some of the objects on the ground and extrapolate a rough distance. If the resulting numbers are close to accurate and it is a real object it is definitely hypersonic ... around 6000 MPH. This estimate has nothing to do with the combined speeds of two aircraft or other factors mentioned in the video commentary, but strictly time to cover distance. If it's not CGI then the only terrestrial explanation that might fit would be some kind of missile. I don't see the point in creating a GGI video like this one and don't get the impression it's fake ... but like I said ... I'm no video expert either.

Exactly. It all depends on how much distance the object covers in the roughly nine seconds it's in frame. That's why knowing where it was shot is so important.

 

[Randall]

Interesting NUFORC Report:

"Driving south on 9A merging right onto Monument Rd. I noticed two black jets flying side by side. A round reflective glittery ball dropped down from the clouds and followed the two jets in their smoke trails. It went in between the two jets and was in front of them and just as it dropped from the sky it shot straight up and was gone. I researched the jets and discovered the were in fact F-22 "Raptors." They were all flying south. I saw it from my driver's side window, followed it through the windshield." ( Source Here )​