UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[nismaratwork]

A very astute commentary IMO.

I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

My little knowledge of these things notwithstanding, I tend to agree with you. But what was the 'alaring story' ?

If there's no external explanation for seeming malfunctions of nuclear missile systems, I would think that would terrify people. As soon as you introduce an external agent, you add confusion, but also the sense that it isn't some random mistake. Furthermore, as this kind of experiment would violate current treaties, and those aside the notion of the capacity to disable the land-based missiles of an enemy would destabilize the entire MAD concept.

This way, it's just "flying disks" which become the focus, instead of:

1.) A malfunction...
2.) Induced Malfunction

FlexGunship: Normally I'd agree across the board, and in fact I do agree that the event was doubtless subject to the normal cognitive bias. That said, the training and oversight that military personal in launch centers are subjected to is EXTREME, and I find it difficult to believe that they COULD make human errors of the type being described. That they would tend to blame an external agent rather than a systems error, or induced errors is easy; if you watched as the systems which control the launch of nuclear weapons so much as bleeped the wrong way, I think any sane person would be ****ing their pants.

This is a rare case where the notion of a random series of errors, disks aside, is almost beyond belief. When you add so much as the coincidence of a lenticular cloud and launch system errors, Occam starts to cut in the direction that I've proposed.

 

[FlexGunship]

FlexGunship: Normally I'd agree across the board, and in fact I do agree that the event was doubtless subject to the normal cognitive bias. That said, the training and oversight that military personal in launch centers are subjected to is EXTREME, and I find it difficult to believe that they COULD make human errors of the type being described. That they would tend to blame an external agent rather than a systems error, or induced errors is easy; if you watched as the systems which control the launch of nuclear weapons so much as bleeped the wrong way, I think any sane person would be ****ing their pants.

This is a rare case where the notion of a random series of errors, disks aside, is almost beyond belief. When you add so much as the coincidence of a lenticular cloud and launch system errors, Occam starts to cut in the direction that I've proposed.

The bold section is suspect for me. Even trained observers are easily duped when they become confident in their observational prowess. See "Project Alpha" for proof-definitive on this topic. The worst thing an observer can do for themselves is assure themselves that they are an infallible (or even "good") observer.

That being said, I can't argue what you've said. I would postulate: people surely lie, but they rarely collude to lie.

In that respect, most mass sightings are cases of positive-feedback within the observing group. I like watching Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures to see examples of this where repeated confirmations from within the group seems to strengthen (and sometimes even create) details.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

 

[nismaratwork]

The bold section is suspect for me. Even trained observers are easily duped when they become confident in their observational prowess. See "Project Alpha" for proof-definitive on this topic. The worst thing an observer can do for themselves is assure themselves that they are an infallible (or even "good") observer.

That being said, I can't argue what you've said. I would postulate: people surely lie, but they rarely collude to lie.

In that respect, most mass sightings are cases of positive-feedback within the observing group. I like watching Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures to see examples of this where repeated confirmations from within the group seems to strengthen (and sometimes even create) details.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

Oh, I'm not saying that their training makes them any better at judging what a "flying disk" is than anyone on the street. What I am saying is that their LIFE for the few years they're allowed to hold this particular job is what they're trained to for. I'm saying they're literally expert observers of the systems that malfunctioned, and nothing else.

My personal belief is that it's either #2, or these people were genuinely in the dark about this, and the "light show" was for their benefit. After all, that requires far less "conspiracy" than the development of something like the F-117 or B-2 Spirit, and you build in a group of people who will testify with absolute certainty that a flying disk caused this. So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

 

[FlexGunship]

So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

I suspect this is very unlikely. Testing the readiness of a group is normal enough and is usually followed by a debriefing; however we don't see that here. Furthermore, why would any domestic agency be interested in disrupting it's own missile systems? It's not as though the technology is implicitly transferable to foreign applications. Shoot, until recently, you couldn't even use a U.S. domestic cell phone across the Atlantic.

While I appreciate the merits of your theory here, I don't think it's reasonable to operate on the assumption that an outside agent was involved at all. It's rare that such a secret could be kept, firstly, and secondly the benefits of such a secret are highly questionable.

Never underestimate the powers of simple misunderstanding.

EDIT: I will agree, however, that these seem to be the two most highly competitive explanations, Nismar. However, I don't find them equal.

 

[jreelawg]

Maybe we are moving the goal posts around a bit much here. I think the original idea somewhere was to assess the possibility that there would be UFO sightings that could somehow be attributed to ET. So we did not considered physical impractibilities to see if this hypothetical alien form could somehow be tied to a nearby star which could be reacheable without using astronomical incredible numbers, say order of magnitude of 100-1000 years with a fraction of the speed of light. So we are talking about a few light years around us, maybe a dozen or two.

There are several stars in that area but only a fraction of that of the Milky way galaxy, the limit of the drake equation which is estimated in the order of magnitude of 10¹¹, or a factor of some 10⁸ to 10¹⁰ more than locally. So using numbers in drake, you can get to 1, 10, 100, 1000, whatever planets, with potential life forms capable of intergalactic travel. To apply that to the local environment, instead of the galaxy, you'd have to divide that by the ratio factor of the local stars versus the galaxy, ending up with very rough chances of something like 10^-8 to 10^-5 for possible life close around

Now this was before the chaotic zone effects were known, which may push that chance back some more zeros. So we really are discussing if the chance of aliens around in the close vicinity is more like 0.000001 or 0.00000000000001 or something.

However what is the chance that these aliens would actually visit us?

What your saying is, what if the chances are .000001...? I can counter your argument by saying; what if the chances are 50%? The thing is, the chances of making any kind of meaningful prediction of being visited by ET using the drake equation, very very low.

We already know that life exists all over earth, including deep underground, living off of methane in the bottom of the ocean, etc. If life can live on Earth in such extreme conditions, how would drastic climate change make the existence of life impossible as your link suggested?

Also, why is it necessary that we have perfect eclipses to have intelligent life? As your link suggests maybe it is coincidence, maybe it is no coincidence. I'm left not convinced of anything as a result of reading it.

 

[jreelawg]

So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

You couldn't expect to fool them with a balloon. A balloon could be shot down, it could be spotted, and easily identified.

Another thing to consider, is the fact that UFO sightings have been reported by guards at more than one Nuclear storage site, and the descriptions of the UFO's aren't consistent with balloon, or conventional craft.

In order to support this hypotheses you would have to either assume the majority of them are lying, assume something much more exotic was used in place of the balloon (some kind of high tech light show hoax, maybe induced hallucination), or that what they actually witnessed were advanced craft, perhaps responsible for the malfunctions.

 

[FlexGunship]

You couldn't expect to fool them with a balloon.

Jreelawg, I bet you could be fooled by a balloon. I bet I could be fooled by a balloon. I bet thousands of people could be fooled by a balloon.

I bet I could find a way to fool a trained balloon observer sitting on an international balloon catalog with a hundred years experience and a pair of specially developed balloon-sensing binoculars at a balloon-spotting event.

You're just repeatedly saying the same series of things:

"Your suggestion is impossible, the only way your suggestion COULD be possible is if condition X was met, and... as we all know, condition X is impossible!"

Stacking tautology on top of tautology into some sort of succulent tautology pastry doesn't make it less tautological. Why couldn't they be fooled by something mundane? Because they have uniforms?

EDIT: Cue balloon montage! Please be advised, Jreelawg, these are only balloons!

[PLAIN]http://www.solar-balloons.com/images/ufo-thumb.jpg

[PLAIN]http://noahstrycker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ufo.jpg

[URL]http://www.thetechherald.com/media/images/200907/ufo_5.jpg[/URL]

 

[mugaliens]

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

This sounds a heck of a lot more plausible than any other explanation I've heard to date.

 

[jreelawg]

Jreelawg, I bet you could be fooled by a balloon. I bet I could be fooled by a balloon. I bet thousands of people could be fooled by a balloon.

I bet I could find a way to fool a trained balloon observer sitting on an international balloon catalog with a hundred years experience and a pair of specially developed balloon-sensing binoculars at a balloon-spotting event.

I'm not guarding some of the most sensitive storage facilities in the world. And good luck getting a balloon to move in a manner consistent with UFO sightings.

 

[jreelawg]

I understand your premise that it could have been deception, and I find that plausible, a balloon is not a plausible explanation for the sightings reported at nuclear arms storage facilities. Just because balloons are common, doesn't mean you make make them appear to fly around, with amazing maneuverability. So like I said, the only way it could be a balloon, is if the guards were also group hallucinating, or if they lied.

 

[FlexGunship]

This sounds a heck of a lot more plausible than any other explanation I've heard to date.

Put 30 people in a room, crowd them in there... suddenly turn all the reds light then back to normal. If someone claims they saw a monkey scurry through the room, someone will confirm that they thought they felt something. Someone else thought they smelled something. Then the chatter starts. When you're done, you've got a room full of people all claiming a monkey scurried through the room. If you tell them it didn't happen, then you'll hear: "how could we all be lying?"

 

[FlexGunship]

I understand your premise that it could have been deception, and I find that plausible, a balloon is not a plausible explanation for the sightings reported at nuclear arms storage facilities. Just because balloons are common, doesn't mean you make make them appear to fly around, with amazing maneuverability. So like I said, the only way it could be a balloon, is if the guards were also group hallucinating, or if they lied.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the SECOND, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

I literally cannot make my position any more clear than that.

 

[nismaratwork]

Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions. Sightings around nuclear weapons can be dismissed the same way any others can, but malfunctions of those systems cannot. If you believe that it was intentional, then who cares what was seen? If you believe it was all a coincidence, then it becomes interesting, but only insofar as normal "sightings" are. The point is the one thing that isn't up for debate: malfunctioning systems, and that's the ONLY thing that matters in this.

 

[jreelawg]

Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions. Sightings around nuclear weapons can be dismissed the same way any others can, but malfunctions of those systems cannot. If you believe that it was intentional, then who cares what was seen? If you believe it was all a coincidence, then it becomes interesting, but only insofar as normal "sightings" are. The point is the one thing that isn't up for debate: malfunctioning systems, and that's the ONLY thing that matters in this.

The thing that matters is, why they malfunctioned. It would be ridiculous to dismiss what went on at the same time, especially when the descriptions are such that they are.

If someone's purse was stolen, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

You can attempt to dismiss any and all cases using your reasoning, but no rational person would take all of your dismissals seriously.

 

[FlexGunship]

Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions.

This is a good point actually. I think we should start being more careful with our terminology here, as well, a "malfunction" seems to imply some sort of random disarray. My understanding (from the two reports I've read so far) are that the missile became inactive for a period of time.

"The missiles shut down - 10 Minuteman missiles. And the same thing happened at another site a week later. There's a strong interest in our missiles by these objects, wherever they come from. I personally think they're not from planet Earth."

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html)

So, they became inactive. The first generation of American and British nuclear missiles shorted out for a moment and then the team was able to repair them and get them online.

Furthermore, the reports of the "UFO" are from the guards, not the actual folks inside.

EDIT: How many times must missiles temporarily malfunction before we assume there's something wrong with them? Now I'm more worried that no one was seriously concerned about the wiring!

 

[FlexGunship]

If someone's purse was stolen, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

If someone's cell phone suddenly turned off and then was able to be turned on again, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

EDIT: Correlation does not imply causation. Especially if the "cause" is unidentified.

 

[jreelawg]

If someone's cell phone suddenly turned off and then was able to be turned on again, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

Your position that each and everything, which can possibly be observed, could be dismissed easily from an armchair, is getting old.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a good point actually. I think we should start being more careful with our terminology here, as well, a "malfunction" seems to imply some sort of random disarray. My understanding (from the two reports I've read so far) are that the missile became inactive for a period of time.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html)

So, they became inactive. The first generation of American and British nuclear missiles shorted out for a moment and then the team was able to repair them and get them online.

Furthermore, the reports of the "UFO" are from the guards, not the actual folks inside.

EDIT: How many times must missiles temporarily malfunction before we assume there's something wrong with them? Now I'm more worried that no one was seriously concerned about the wiring!

I'm not qualified to speak to the reliability of nuclear weapons, but I go back to how useful it would be to shut down the weapons of a given nation for a number of reasons, even if only for a few minutes. In fact, if this had been a random malfunction, I wouldn't have posed the scenario I did... as accidental launch or just static on a screen is hardly worth the risk. During the cold war, it could have been seen as a means to prepare for a first strike, and now I can see it being useful in Pakistan and India in a worst-case scenario.

Of course, just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it happened... as you say, this could be nothing more than a repeated malfunction of the same system. The sighting by the guards however... I don't know Flex. We can say they were hysterical, but that seems a bit much... it could be coincidence, but that's a hell of a coincidence. It could be that the guards conspired to lie, but I don't buy that... or it may be that in retrospect they experienced a "monkey in the room" moment under the stress of what may have been perceived as a potential attack or failure.

I have to say... I still vote for: Balloon or other object to draw attention or as platform for: "weapon" or test to see if it's possible to shut down launch capacity in an unaware and hardened target. I don't think we're eeeevvvveeeerrr going to know, but the least convincing explanation to me is: aliens... that, above all the others is a bit past credulity here.

 

[FlexGunship]

Your position that each and everything, which can possibly be observed, could be dismissed easily from an armchair is getting old.

I know what it would take to convince me of something extraordinary. I've provided a list, in fact, earlier (specifically pertaining to ETs). Jreelawg, I have the luxury of changing my mind if someone proves me wrong.

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

All it would take is for you to say: "I guess I had never thought about it that much before. Perhaps there's something to consider here. I will reserve my judgement until there are better facts at hand. As such, I will adopt the most scientifically sound position."

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

 

[Hurkyl]

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

Actually, armchair apathy is correct more often than armchair dismissal.

 

[nismaratwork]

I know what it would take to convince me of something extraordinary. I've provided a list, in fact, earlier (specifically pertaining to ETs). Jreelawg, I have the luxury of changing my mind if someone proves me wrong.

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

All it would take is for you to say: "I guess I had never thought about it that much before. Perhaps there's something to consider here. I will reserve my judgement until there are better facts at hand. As such, I will adopt the most scientifically sound position."

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

I just want to add, Flex, I don't think you're "armchair dismissing"... I think you're being properly skeptical according to the precepts of that philosophy. Just adding my 2 cents. Extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence, period; not anecdote, not group experiences... EVIDENCE. Without that basic concept we're practically abandoning the scientific method, never mind Skepticism.

 

[FlexGunship]

During the cold war, it could have been seen as a means to prepare for a first strike, and now I can see it being useful in Pakistan and India in a worst-case scenario.

Again, testing it as a possible weapon (I use the term loosely) to prevent or delay an enemy nuclear launch wouldn't really be applicable to other nuclear launch sites. It's not as though the Russians were also using Minuteman missiles. Different technology was at play, and I assure you that there isn't a common "off-switch" on all nuclear launch facilities.

Besides, could you imagine that conversation?

"Sir, we are going to test the device that will temporarily deactivate nuclear weapons in a certain radius."

"How can you test it?!"

"Sir, we will just try it on one of our own missiles."

"But, don't we need to know how to shut down enemy missiles?"

"Er... anyway... we need a distraction, sir."

"Why's that?"

"Sir, we can't tell the people in charge of operating the missile!"

"Um, why?"

"Sir... this is a secret."

"Wait, wouldn't we want to advertise the fact that we are developing a way to prevent the enemy from launching missiles? Anyway, what kind of distraction?"

"Sir, I propose a disc in the sky of some sort."

"Hmm... a disc, huh? How will that distract the people inside?"

"Sir! It won't! Isn't that brilliant?!"

"I don't follow."

"Well, sir, the guards will see our flying disc, and report it to the people inside. Then we can test our device on our own missiles. We'll do it again next week."

"Well, before you plan for next week, let's see how the debriefing goes."

"Sir... there won't be any debriefing... it's a seeeeeeecret!"

EDIT: And thus, the top secret government program to shut down our own nuclear missiles for a bit while distracting the guards outside with balloon begins!

EDIT PART 2: Sorry, Nismar, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to explain to you why I can't imagine the government collusion theory being very workable. Maybe it's just lack of imagination on my part.

 

[jreelawg]

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

And what is it that I've made my mind up about?

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm not guarding some of the most sensitive storage facilities in the world. And good luck getting a balloon to move in a manner consistent with UFO sightings.

Keep in mind this phenomenon consists of observations of objects that have the follow characteristics:

• make a humming noise (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1172.htm),
• make no noise (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190481/Mysterious-orange-UFOs-swoop-Britains-skies.html),
• leave exhaust (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/falconlake.htm),
• leave no exhaust (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/a/gorman.htm),
• tiny in size (http://www.unexplainable.net/UFO-Alien/Couple-Encounters-Tiny-UFO-in-Bedroom.shtml),
• small in size (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1600.asp),
• medium in size (http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/ufo-prangs-wind-turbine/),
• giant in size (http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/31805-pilots-spot-giant-ufos-over-britain),
• huge in size (http://www.disclose.tv/forum/huge-ufo-monitored-by-cassini-above-south-pole-coming-here-t13086.html),
• move quickly (http://examiner.com/ufo-in-sacramento/quick-ufo-sacramento-california-may-23rd-2010),
• move slowly (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/slow-moving-triangle-ufo-over-anacortes-washington),
• avoid planes (http://www.ufologie.net/htm/orly1956.htm),
• follow planes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...bled-after-UFO-follows-plane-over-Athens.html),
• chase planes (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/iran1976.htm),
• shoot down planes (http://www.ufoencounters.co.uk/they-were-shot-down-by-ufos.html),
• crash planes (http://www.where-is-area-51.com/mantell.html),
• visited Space Shuttle Discovery (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/sts-48.htm),
• watched Space Shuttle Endeavour (http://www.examiner.com/space-news-...shuttle-maneuvers-at-space-station-you-decide),
• destroyed Space Shuttle Columbia (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64088),
• destroyed Space Shuttle Challenger (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread333163/pg1),
• cylindrical (http://netowne.com/naziufos/boblee/ ),
• square-shaped (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1172.htm),
• spherical (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case248.htm),
• disc-shaped (http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/04/disc-shape-ufo-photographed-over.html),
• triangular (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case135.htm),
• missile-shaped (http://www.where-is-area-51.com/ghost-rockets.html),
• egg-shaped (http://www.rense.com/general5/filers11700.htm),
• cigar-shaped (http://www.ufodigest.com/article/pennsylvania-witness-photographs-cigar-shaped-ufo),
• V-shaped (http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Reports+UFOs+over+skies+hover+into/3432852/story.html ),
• pyramid-shaped (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...837200/UFO-pyramid-reported-over-Kremlin.html),
• ring-shaped (http://www.rense.com/general3/ring.htm),
• spiral-shaped (http://technorati.com/technology/article/another-spiral-ufo-appearsthis-time-over/ ),
• acorn-shaped http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident),
• booger-shaped (http://www.ufodigest.com/article/louisiana-lore-reveals-1923-ufo),
• have lights (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...-simplicity-detail-and-no-signs-of-letting-up),
• have no lights (http://www.kskdaily.com/code%20/huge-blimp-size-ufo-mesa-arizona/ ),
• have blue lights (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/blue-light-ufos-spotted-over-three-states),
• have red lights (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...boise-as-multiple-witnesses-watch-from-ground),
• have three lights (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/88/312/Witness_reports_triangle_UFO_over_Camp_Mabry,_Texas,_has_one_blinking_light.html ),
• have five lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights),
• have 20-30 lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubbock_Lights),
• have many lights (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0310/more-clues.php),
• merge (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0210/lightship.php),
• splits apart (http://canadaufo.blogspot.com/2010/08/large-red-light-splits-into-two-orange.html),
• land (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc520.htm),
• don't land (http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/2+UFOs+Crash+Land+in+West+Kazakhstan ),
• crash into the ground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident),
• crash into the water (http://www.roswellproof.com/Shag_Harbour/Shag_Harbour_articles.html#anchor_10),
• crash into mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident),
• turn into rocks and hit cars (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8376748._UFO__crash_landing___or_piece_of_rock___damages_car/),
• live under water (http://www.waterufo.net/menu.htm),
• carry aliens (http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/a/costarica1971.htm),
• carry reptiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schirmer_Abduction ),
• carry monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatwoods_monster),
• carry gods (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc175.htm),
• carry a grinning man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grinning_Man),
• carry the Mothman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mothman_Prophecies),
• visit people (http://heraldbanner.com/local/x400533463/UFO-visits-Hunt-County-mysterious-object-seen-by-resident-deputies ),
• avoid people (http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/13-11-2008/106692-killer_ufo-0/),
• have sex with people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Villas_Boas) (well, the aliens... not the UFO),
• abduct people (http://ufos.about.com/b/2008/11/29/texas-woman-abducted-by-aliens.htm),
• abduct chess-playing Russian tsars (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100908-291146/UFO-spotting-chess-tsar-quits-as-Russia-region-chief ),
• torture people (http://www.rocr.net/index.php?p=Nightmares) (okay, a joke),
• take people to utopias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision) (the part about Dr. Jaysen Rand),
• take people to Venus (http://www.japantoday.com/category/...yama-claims-her-soul-traveled-to-venus-on-ufo),
• take people forever (http://www.ufoera.com/articles/this...story-if-you-are-interested-i_1190310925.html),
• take people to eternity (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pzAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rlkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7414,3258134&dq=ufo&hl=en),
• kill Russian skiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident),
• like China (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ufo-sightings-throughout-china-100879044.html),
• like Ozzy Osbourne (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=144763 ),
• like Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_UFO_incident),
• glow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_UFO_Case),
• glow faintly (http://forums.starcraft.org/archive/index.php/t-20060.html ),
• glow brightly (http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/ufo-bright-glowing-orb-filmed-prague),
• don't glow at all (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401615-mile-wide-ufo-spotted-by-british-airline-pilot.do ),
• are metallic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter),
• are visible (http://www.dailygrail.com/Alien-Nation/2010/6/Spiral-UFO-Seen-Australia),
• are invisible (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=24589),
• are green (http://www.mt.net/~watcher/greenfireballhonolulujan1999.html ),
• are red (http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/wiganredufo.html),
• are blue (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html),
• are yellow (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/ufo-traffic-report-august-26-2010),
• are lanterns (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/09/07/Expert-Canadian-UFO-likely-a-lantern/UPI-92801283887457/),
• are not lanterns (http://www.westlothiancourier.co.uk/2010/08/12/more-ufo-sightings-in-west-lothian-62405-27043152/),
• are "special" planes (http://tucsoncitizen.com/paranormal/2010/08/12/ufo-in-china-was-not-just-a-plane-it-was-likely-a-special-plane/ ),
• show up on radar (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/211784-China-Airport-Closed-After-UFO-Appears-on-Radar-Screens),
• don't show up on radar (http://www.nuforc.org/CB970220.html),
• travel in groups (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1127339),
• travel alone (http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/ufo_sighting_in_st_albans_1_633876),
• abduct animals (http://authenticufos.blogspot.com/2010/04/connection-between-human-abduction-and.html),
• kill animals (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun...SE+DEATH+BRINGS+MORE+UFO+STORIES&pqatl=google),
• mutilate animals (http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=1408),
• destroy everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event),
• leave evidence (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1763.htm),
• leave no evidence (http://www.ghosttheory.com/2010/07/26/china-airport-ufo-no-evidence-of-ufo),
• leave red evidence (http://www.allnewsweb.com/page1199999416.php),
• etc (http://theplug.net/35/hallofcostumes_ufo.htm)...

Oh, Jreelawg, you can find a UFO report to support any claim about UFOs you like. Including "do move like balloons" and "don't move like balloons."

 

[jreelawg]

I just want to add, Flex, I don't think you're "armchair dismissing"... I think you're being properly skeptical according to the precepts of that philosophy. Just adding my 2 cents. Extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence, period; not anecdote, not group experiences... EVIDENCE. Without that basic concept we're practically abandoning the scientific method, never mind Skepticism.

Are you kidding me? If Flex isn't armchair dismissing, then I must not know what armchair dismissing means.

For example, saying something like, "it doesn't matter what was sighted, all sightings can be dismissed the same way".

It's healthy to be skeptical, but useless if you don't even know what your skeptical about.

 

[FlexGunship]

And what is it that I've made my mind up about?

It's healthy to be skeptical, but useless if you don't even know what your skeptical about.

Very well, Jreelawg. I've stated my position pretty clearly in this particular instance, and in the instance off the Iran UFO incident. I formally invite you to summarize your position, unambiguously in one paragraph or less.

 

[FlexGunship]

As evidenced by our local flight experts, the report is (at best) wrong on the details. If you start there and keep in mind that 100% of the equipment involved (radar, jets, etc.) was very very new to the Iranians. There's not a whole lot to explain.

1) Someone saw something confusing in the sky
2) Someone confirmed something confusing on radar
3) Pilot did something confusing in the air
4) Everyone was embarrassed
5) General says: "uh, we didn't mess up; that's impossible... it was some crazy aerial phenomenon"

It really reads like a very hum-drum military gaff. I'm sure the same thing happened plenty of times in the U.S. we just didn't go bragging about it or kept a slightly better secret.

Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

Top one is my position on the Iran UFO, the bottom one is for our friends at the nuclear missile launch site.

I guess I took a little more than a paragraph at one point. If you need to make a list, then that's okay too.

 

[jreelawg]

Oh, Jreelawg, you can find a UFO report to support any claim about UFOs you like. Including "do move like balloons" and "don't move like balloons."

If you saw something flying in the sky, would you assume it could be dismissed as an elephant?

 

[jreelawg]

Top one is my position on the Iran UFO, the bottom one is for our friends at the nuclear missile launch site.

I guess I took a little more than a paragraph at one point. If you need to make a list, then that's okay too.

My position is that some of your explanations are extremely unlikely in consideration of the reports. Your position seams to also be that the report doesn't even need to be considered, which makes sense why you would often come up with such ridiculous explanations.

I think the main difference between you and me, is that you have made up your mind and I haven't.

 

[jreelawg]

My position is that some of your explanations are extremely unlikely in consideration of the reports. Your position seams to be that the report doesn't even need to be considered, which makes sense why you would often come up with such ridiculous explanations.

I think the main difference between you and me, is that you have made up your mind and I haven't.

Actually I change my mind.

I appreciate your input. Lots of your ideas add insight. I'm just bouncing ideas back and forth and trying to learn and understand more. When I or you offer an idea, it is open to interpretation, and we can talk about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, testing it as a possible weapon (I use the term loosely) to prevent or delay an enemy nuclear launch wouldn't really be applicable to other nuclear launch sites. It's not as though the Russians were also using Minuteman missiles. Different technology was at play, and I assure you that there isn't a common "off-switch" on all nuclear launch facilities.

Besides, could you imagine that conversation?

"Sir, we are going to test the device that will temporarily deactivate nuclear weapons in a certain radius."

"How can you test it?!"

"Sir, we will just try it on one of our own missiles."

"But, don't we need to know how to shut down enemy missiles?"

"Er... anyway... we need a distraction, sir."

"Why's that?"

"Sir, we can't tell the people in charge of operating the missile!"

"Um, why?"

"Sir... this is a secret."

"Wait, wouldn't we want to advertise the fact that we are developing a way to prevent the enemy from launching missiles? Anyway, what kind of distraction?"

"Sir, I propose a disc in the sky of some sort."

"Hmm... a disc, huh? How will that distract the people inside?"

"Sir! It won't! Isn't that brilliant?!"

"I don't follow."

"Well, sir, the guards will see our flying disc, and report it to the people inside. Then we can test our device on our own missiles. We'll do it again next week."

"Well, before you plan for next week, let's see how the debriefing goes."

"Sir... there won't be any debriefing... it's a seeeeeeecret!"

EDIT: And thus, the top secret government program to shut down our own nuclear missiles for a bit while distracting the guards outside with balloon begins!

EDIT PART 2: Sorry, Nismar, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to explain to you why I can't imagine the government collusion theory being very workable. Maybe it's just lack of imagination on my part.

I never said that our government was bright...

Kidding aside, this could also be a way to test for weakness in the system, or it could be that there were some real events that were not our own government (Russia has similar stories of UFOs during the cold war). I would just remind you that if these tests were performed with the knowledge of the launch center personnel, you'd have a pool of people who could talk about that. This way, you have people reporting a "mystery" and one which was then, and still is very popular. You actually cut MORE people out of the loop this way, rather than include more.

Remember, a balloon could also make for a very realistic platform for such a "weapon" or surveillance.

Finally... this could have been lenticular clouds and atmospheric disturbances... who knows. I'm not floating a theory I have some stock in, just the only "conspiracy" that makes sense and fits the purported facts. Any other conspiracy, including aliens messing with nuclear weapons cannot be supported by these anecdotes and small amount of evidence. My theory can be floated on this testimony and malfunctions, but that doesn't mean it's real... just an idea... kind of the String Theory of conspiracies. As a model it can work, but that's no guarantee that it reflects a physical reality.

Ruling out domestic testing, foreign incursion, and (for me I add "of course) aliens... this is a very odd set of recurring circumstances. I don't believe that cognitive bias accounts for the coincidence factor here when you include the launch shutdown. If you take that last bit out of the equation, this is nothing special... add it in, and it stretches credulity to believe that these were coincidental. After all, why a flying disk? Of all the things to imagine and conflate with a launch error, why that? I realize that none of this rules out coincidence, bias, and errors compounding in hindsight, but there are down-to-earth explanations that make plenty of sense too.

It could be that there was no planning as in your scenario, but that people saw a test platform on a balloon, took the admonition to keep quiet as confirmation of their assumptions... and the people testing x, y, or z technology simply ran with it as a good chaff-cover. There are so many workable permutations that are similar to what we already know occurred around very large programs such as, once again, the various stealth aircraft.

 

[jreelawg]

Here is actually a better explanation of my position.

I either observed something, hallucinated something, or have seen an illusion, or a hoax, which had conjured the appearance, false, or not, of what seamed to be a craft with extraordinary flight characteristics.

As such, I have a problem, that I have to wonder what really happened. I can think of various hypothesis, but none of them I can conclude.

When people make up their minds prematurely, they risk losing some of their sense of reality, which can in some instances be traumatic.

I'm not going to become willingly delusional about the characteristics of reality just to fulfill some curious gray matter in the back of my head.

So I have to consider a whole bunch of possibilities, and live with the curiosity.

And for me, I want to know what the cause of this appearance may have been. I understand from your point of view it could have been any random story.

However, my honest and exhaustive efforts could not explain what I appear to have seen in a mundane way.

For me, in my position, the fact that so many people, including astronomers, astronauts, generals, pilots, government officials, guards, etc, have reported very similar experiences; strengthens my gut feeling there is something very real and strange about the phenomena.

 

[nismaratwork]

One comment... I know that I'm not qualified to say what are or are not "extraordinary flight characteristics"... are you? I'm not trying to pick on you, just point out that at the most basic level of your description is the assumption that what you saw was extraordinary in its movements, that it was in flight, and that what you saw was a vehicle of some kind.

 

[Hurkyl]

However, my honest and exhaustive efforts could not explain what I appear to have seen in a mundane way.

But have you made an honest and exhaustive effort to explain it in a non-mundane way? Meaning, in particular, that you hold the non-mundane to at least the same standard of proof that you require of a mundane explanation?

(My apologies if I'm seeing an implication you didn't intend)

 

[jreelawg]

It could be that there was no planning as in your scenario, but that people saw a test platform on a balloon, took the admonition to keep quiet as confirmation of their assumptions... and the people testing x, y, or z technology simply ran with it as a good chaff-cover.

An alternative to that chain of events, is that it could have been a test to see how the faculty of the facility would behave under a given apparently threatening situation.

Maybe they wanted to test how they would react under the threat of a possible Russian Attempt at a nuclear first strike.

Under this model, it would be wise to deactivate the weapons just in case someone freaks out and tried to bomb russia before they bomb us. So they deactivate the weapons as a safety measure, while conducting an emergency drill.

From this they could conclude who reacted how under pressure. Who were good observers. They could find out who could keep secrets as they classify the drill top secret, and have them swear to secrecy etc.

An extra possible motive could be to afterwards study the witnesses and observe what they make of what they see.