UFO Conjectures

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Never a “smoking gun”

Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.
In all the UFO cases or sightings on record, including the Tic-Tac event and current hints that Navy pilots have seen or encountered a number of UFOs, none – not one – has provided proof of anything, no “smoking gun.”

That, in itself, is a clue as to what UFOs are: an everlasting, true enigma.

Pushing odd aerial phenomena into categories, based on evidentiary whiz is not only not science but is ignorance of a basic kind.

UFOs as some kind of meteorological phenomenon or thinking UFOs are secret aircraft (or something) of a major world power or hoping UFOs are extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth from another spot in the cosmos are speculative conclusions of a very wispy kind.

UFO enthusiasts (me among them) bring forth old UFO cases/sightings, regurgitating them, over and over again, hoping against hope that something might pop up from the rehashed material that makes some kind of case for what UFOs are or have been.

The current blend of ruminations about the phenomenon and its intertwining with social environments is a kind of slurry that doesn’t come anywhere near helping to solve what UFOs may be.

Such tentative posturings merely muddy the UFO waters. What does the political or economic or cultural milieux have to do with “things” thought to be seen in the sky?

The argument is that certain milieux make people see things, or that the milieux creates things sometimes.

A case can be made that environments, such as the Cold War or the intensity of pilots flying about in practice missions, invite “objects” to be seen.

But that is pure guesswork, even when it is supported by studies that show people do conjure up things when in an excitable state.

Yet, nothing in the way of solid proof is forthcoming, only the possibility that persons will see something (create something mentally) that ends up not really being there.

I know of no case(s) where a person or persons seeing a movie about space invaders and UFOs leaving the theater and seeing a UFO. (Robbie Graham might enlighten.)

And those professional military men, flying in jets, who’ve recently been outed for seeing or pursuing a UFO, as in the 2004 Tic-Tac event (and others), they are not above reproach for seeing odd maneuvers by the thing they’ve seen as “intelligent” in nature.

Something seeming to evade an approaching aircraft or following alongside an aircraft or appearing” to mimic an aircraft would allow for one conclude they had come in contact with a thinking operation.

But that is imposing upon a non-sequitur batch of movements as something rational or intelligent when it is merely maneuverings of an evasive or repellant kind, something getting out of the way of an imposing aircraft.

My point, if there is one on this, is that seeing a UFO or confronting something weird in the sky (or on the ground) tells us nothing of the nature of that which is seen.

We only have a reported visual of something queer.

A thing making a 180° turn can be an optical illusion or an actual 180° turn but so what?

Something speeding off can actually be speeding off or seem to be speeding off when it is in fact disappearing from mental sight or actually disappearing.

Until someone comes up with something more than a moldy recounting of an old UFO sighting or the military provides something more than vivid pilot encounters supported by nothing more than a blurry video and excitable retellings, I think I’ll wait for that alleged “smoking gun” that is supposed to provide the proof we are all seeking, so lamely.

RR

18 Comments:

  • The need to deny that, say, a UFO mimicking the movements of an incoming human aircraft constitutes at least prima facie evidence of intelligent (or agential) control strikes me as an instance of perverse stubbornness.

    Yes, other explanations are conceivable. But I haven't read a single one that's actually plausible. Your "maneuverings of an evasive or repellant kind" alternative, for example, is vague and doesn't seem to make sense without positing some agency at work on a UFO's part. Moreover, every alternative I've seen is post hoc. No hypotheses other than those imputing intelligent control to UFOs independently predict such mimicry. But hypotheses are concocted in light of mimicry and related cases just to avoid a "win" for those ascribing intelligent control to UFOs.

    This isn't to say that any of the alleged cases of mimicry are substantive. Skeptics will readily chalk them up to misidentification and the like. But the issue here is just what such mimicry reasonably evidences on the assumption that it has occurred.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • Matty:

    Something other than an intelligently controlled aircraft might evade or be repelled by an approaching aircraft: an electromagnetic phenomenon or a large living, fearful creature.

    Let's be imaginative here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • A "large living, fearful creature" would be an agent. As indicated in my first comment, I'm not using "intelligent control" to refer to control only by something at least as smart as a human, but merely control by an agency of some sort.

    And what EM phenomena are reasonably going to cover the range of activities adduced as evidence of intelligent control behind UFOs? One will be pressed into positing an unknown EM phenomenon that, very conveniently, acts as if it's agential. This suggestion lacks plausibility, and really looks like an effort to defuse, through degenerative theorizing (in the Lakatosian sense), what would clearly qualify as a successful prediction for those positing intelligently controlled UFOs. Not to mention all the other evidence that isn't compatible with the EM phenomena hypothesis and would factor in any cumulative argument for the reality of such UFOs.

    Note that every solid scientific theory could be, and many have been, resisted through degenerative theorizing (e.g. the convoluted efforts to defend steady-state cosmology against mounting evidence, in the form of successful predictions, favoring the big-bang alternative). So there's plenty of reason to be highly pessimistic about such "imaginative" post-hoc thinking.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • Matty:

    You aren't trying to slip the ETH into the equation, are you?

    And to bring the Big Bang up confuses. The Big Bang theory is a joke. It's under attack by noted, reputable physicists all over the place, as you know.

    You seem to like traditional thinking when it comes to UFOs and the beginning of time (or the Universe).

    "Imaginative post-hoc thinking" is what's needed to get at what UFOs may be. Every other kind of thinking has failed so far.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • Rich,

    The point isn't that big-bang cosmology is the final word. It may be completely incorrect. But it will not fall by way of degenerative theorizing, rather because another theory or other theories will ultimately make successful predictions that big-bang cosmology doesn't make and can't plausibly accommodate, to an extent that engenders a shift in mainstream scientific opinion.

    I don't endorse any UFO hypothesis, because every UFO hypothesis I know of has at least one fatal problem (of course including the most famous one of them all, the ETH). But I simply reject your view that the claims of UFO activity at issue, *if true,* aren't most plausibly interpreted as *prima facie* evidence of agential control of UFOs, for the reasons given above. I have phrased this in such a way to leave open the possibility that skeptics can show that those claims of activity result from error of some kind (e.g. mistaking a mirage for an object).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • "What does the political or economic or cultural milieux have to do with 'things'
    thought to be seen in the sky?"

    If we turn the question around and ask "What do things thought to be seen in the sky have to do with the political or economic or cultural milieux?" then a whole field of investigation and thought opens up: it's what's up at skunkworksblog.com.

    If we ask a similar question "What do the political or economic or cultural milieux have to do with the discovery of the Higgs boson?" then matters become a little clearer: a lot.

    Given that the very form of the question "what is x?" is culturally informed (it comes down to us from Aristotle) and what would count as a "smoking gun" (evidence, and answer) are themselves culturally informed, then it may be that an answer won't be forthcoming until we can clear away the conceptual (i.e., philosophical, i.e., cultural) presuppositions that keep the phenomenon _anomalous_. Moreover, for the sake of argument, suppose UFOs have always been secret military aircraft, then it was always political and economic considerations that kept them anomalous!

    All that being said, I do have to agree with your skepticism re the Psychosocial Hypothesis: for my part, I have never come across a good account of just how science fiction imagery gives rise to perceptions let alone close encounter experiences....

    By Blogger Bryan Sentes, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • What has me stirred up again, fellows, are the new revelations that navy personnel has been spotting UFOs (or something) around the East Coast of the U.S.

    In all those sightings (as with the Tic-Tac events), there seems to have been gathered nothing that gives us something concrete to work with in our attempts (and the governments, too, apparently) to determine what the hell people are seeing and have been seeing.

    That pilots, getting rather close up looks at UFOs, can't discern anything that might tell them what those UFOs are, is more than unsettling. It's almost outrageous.

    These are qualified military operatives who should be able to come back after such encounters with something more than "wow" in their accounts.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • They probably have come back with something "wow" but there is no way on earth that that "wow" will find its way into the public domain anytime soon. That would require a decision (to release) at the highest level, the very highest, and that seem quite impossible at the moment.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • Yep - I think everyone (well everyone except the Twilight @Zoam) should give this a once over:

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28231/multiple-f-a-18-pilots-disclose-recent-ufos-encounters-new-radar-tech-key-in-detection

    It's becoming increasingly evident that the military (as it did briefly in the early days) is now once more openly conceding that there is indeed 'something' tangible out there (from Christ knows where!), doing inexplicable things in our airspace which are now much more frequently being registered and locked onto as potential enemy targets due largely to the installation of the much more sensitive AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, (replacing the old 80s mechanically scanned array (MSA) pulse doppler radar systems) becoming the norm in both fighter and surveillance aircraft.

    With pilots now openly stating these objects aren't just quirky 'perplexing conundrums' fit for the 'and finally...' section of the Local News Report but actively hazardous threats to conventional aircraft (both military & civil) I expect we're going to hear a LOT, lot more of this...

    By Blogger DrDee, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • The following is an exact, word for word extract from a piece published last month by Tyler Rogoway on military tech site 'The War Zone' (not generally regarded as a repository of wacky 'tin-foil hat' conspiracy theories). If I didn't know any better I'd swear he's addressing it directly at @Zoam :D

    "The main revelation is that technology exists that is capable of performing flying manoeuvres that shatter our perceptions of propulsion, flight controls, material science, and even physics.

    Let me UNDERLINE THIS AGAIN for you - the Nimitz encounter with the Tic Tac PROVED that exotic technology, widely thought of as the domain of science fiction, actually EXISTS. It is REAL.

    It isn't the result of 'altered perception' or someone's lucid dream, a stray weather balloon, or swamp gas.

    Someone or something has crossed the technological Rubicon and has obtained what some would call the Holy Grail of aerospace engineering.

    This reality is very hard to process for many.

    There is always an 'out' for some in the form of claiming an odd impromptu conspiracy or some hollow explanation that doesn't pass muster beyond the first paragraph, but in the end, it HAPPENED.

    As uncomfortable as that fact is, it's REALITY.

    So, we need to use this event as a lodestar going forward when it comes to evaluating and contemplating what is possible and where TRUTH actually lies."

    It would seem - as some popular U.S. entertainers would have it - that SHIT JUST GOT REAL (quite literally).

    By Blogger DrDee, at Tuesday, May 28, 2019  

  • We've heard all of this sort of "UFO" nonsense for decades. It's all hype for a TV show or two to make money for a few people (Tom DeLonge & Co) and absolutely nothing real will ever come of it.

    The first public citation of the acronym "UFO" meaning nuts-and-bolts ET flying saucer was in 1950 by Major Donald Keyhoe making very similar REAL UFO claims.

    I would say it's really quite hard to believe that anyone capable of speech can still believe this ridiculous stuff. But that's the power of the "UFO" myth and delusion.

    "You'll believe in anything if you believe all this!" And that's just the problem.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, May 30, 2019  

  • @Zoam - it's evidently not 'nonsense' when both credible defence tech experts as well as official Govt. and Military sources are convinced this is real.

    I don't 'believe' anything without credible evidence Zoam, nor do I dismiss credible evidence when it conflicts with any previously held beliefs which are subsequently proved wrong.

    You're not seriously suggesting the F18 pilots who filed reports and spoke to the Washington Post & New York Times, as well as the US Navy, are somehow in the employ of Tom DeLonge & the History Channel as PR for their new show are you? Hahahahahaha!

    I'm fully aware of Major Donald Keyhoe's 'claims' (as you deem them) which, given the recent evidence (and it IS credible, verified EVIDENCE Zoam whether you like it or not), must now be given much more credence along with the testimonies of many other military witnesses through the years whose openness about their experiences often proved detrimental to both their professional and personal lives.

    One has to ask 'Why would anyone make such claims?' given these risks. Perhaps because, whatever the consequences, they had an unshakeable conviction that their experiences were real and they were determined to tell the truth, come what may.

    To now claim that the US Navy, its crews and pilots are all somehow delusional, their state of the art radar & weapons systems 'faulty' and that experienced military/tech experts, as well as the Washington Post & New York Times have all been somehow duped into sharing this supposed 'delusion' is, to use your phrase, 'ridiculous stuff'.

    Your willful refusal to accept anyone or anything as 'credible', asserting (on no good evidence whatsoever)that multiple military guidance/detection systems are somehow repeatedly and simultaneously 'malfunctioning' whilst condemning every witness, participant and commentator as 'delusional' merely serves to confirm the exact opposite I'm afraid.

    Your 'cast iron' belief system (seemingly impervious to facts, evidence & information in conflict with it) that you are somehow right and everything and everyone else involved must (of course) be wrong is indeed testament to a narcissistic delusion of mythic proportions.

    And THAT'S the problem!

    By Blogger DrDee, at Friday, May 31, 2019  

  • Gee, I wonder what happened to all those old flying saucers that Major Keyhoe claimed were taunting our fighter jets back in 1953? Not a one ever found. Darn!

    In over a century, why hasn't "UFO" pseudoscience produced even one REAL "UFO?"

    No, Dee. As I said, the problem is that if people will believe in the "UFO" myth--a delusion--then they're susceptible all sorts of irrational nonsense that's shoved in their faces daily by mass media. So much so they're incapable of sound judgments on truly important issues. It's also a matter of diversion: keep the Dees occupied with "UFOs" and they'll never get around to doing anything about those important issues.

    Or would you just rather be like "Matty" and IGNORE ALL real evidence of over a century of "UFO" myth and delusion and blame the scientific-realist skeptics and even attack individuals for the fact that there are no real "UFOs" in the world?

    It's Absurd! You've made your harebrained make-it-up and make believe about "UFOs" into your "evidence" for a "UFO" reality. The myth itself is evidence. Precious!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, June 01, 2019  

  • Zoam,

    I realize that your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired, but at what point have I attacked anyone "for the fact that there are no real 'UFOs'" (I will ignore for now the stupidity, given your clearly intended meaning, of the locution "real UFOs")? I have criticized *you* for your manifest ignorance and incompetence, but that doesn't equate, whatever your narcissistic delusions tell you, to an opposition to UFO skeptics as such. You aren't representative of good UFO skeptics, Zoam, sorry to tell you. You are, in fact, the worst of all UFO skeptics I have encountered.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, June 01, 2019  

  • @Zoam - What happened to all those old flying saucers that Major Keyhoe claimed were taunting our fighter jets back in 1953? Not a one ever found.

    What do you mean by 'found' exactly?

    The F18 pilots, as well as ship & airborne radar & weapons systems, have seen (as no doubt the 50s pilots did), as well as logged, targetted & filmed these UFOs but they haven't 'found' any anywhere (to my knowledge) any more than I've 'found' an F18 you numpty.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Matty - you are the worst kind of 'skeptic'. Nothing & no-one is EVER credible (much like your own unqualified, simplistic assertions).

    By Blogger DrDee, at Sunday, June 02, 2019  

  • There is no shortage of "UFO" REPORTS but never the "UFOs" themselves.

    Back to "UFOs" 101 for Dee, and some others:

    "Found" here means shown to exist in the world, as in being REAL.

    All "UFOs" only exist in stories. It doesn't matter who's telling the story or how many stories are told; as long as a REAL "UFO" is never found, produced for inspection, these stories are never any better than fictions--not REAL!

    All kinds of people have told all kinds of "UFO" stories for over a century, but not one REAL "UFO" has ever been found.

    Fantastic "UFO" stories can never be facts in the world, reality. And these recently revived stories--actually two years old and debunked already--are no different. Your false "UFO" beliefs and assertions--mere stories--cannot be evidence of some extraordinary thing.

    The credulous believer is obsessed by the "UFO" myth, a mere culturally supplied delusion. The scientific-realist skeptic and psychosocial theorist lords over it.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, June 03, 2019  

  • Zoam, if you won't accept the UFO story, then you can not accept, that UFO have been found, and is part of the UFO story...[some stories!] and far more compelling than your effort to convince us, it's not!..Why would any Pilot make up such a story, when he or she know something is in thier air-space. That would be irresponsible of them, and we know they are not. How is it, that you can dismiss this, so blatantly ?.......?

    By Blogger Daniel, at Monday, June 03, 2019  

  • Zoam:

    As a Skeptic, there is no need to; "believe or disbelieve" in the UFO story, No need at all, Zoam!! just pay attention to the logic of its reports. Some impress - some do not!

    The ones that do impress are; [Pilots - Police & Military] For me, these are serious minds, no mistake about it. If something is going on in our airways, they are the ones to know. After that, is anyones guess, even theirs.........

    By Blogger Daniel, at Tuesday, June 04, 2019  

Post a Comment

<< Home