Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A unidentified flying object is just that—a flying object that has not been identified. There need not be evidence of alien hi-jinx.

My criteria for a credible UFO report would include:

  • Verified by authentic photographic evidence or several eyewitness reports.
  • Insufficiently explained by natural or human-caused phenomena.
  • Furthermore, such an explanation must not be scientifically suspect, and also must be substantiated. There probably could be a reasonable explanation for all such events, but there must be some underlying evidence that the stated cause was, in fact, in effect at the time. For instance, if it is explained by some human-made aircraft, there must be evidence that such aircraft was flying in the vicinity of the sighting.

Of course, as reasoned skeptics, you are free to apply any criteria you deem relevant.

share|improve this question
9  
I don't understand your third criterion. Why ask for evidence to identify flying objects when you're specifically looking for unidentified ones? –  David Thornley Mar 13 '11 at 0:35
    
@David: I was trying to exemplify some cases where an explanation could be suspect. At any rate, it seems I was a tad bit too specific. I'll try and find a middle ground for my next question. :-) –  Patches Mar 13 '11 at 1:26
    
What I would find more interesting, is how far you can forge a video evidence today. I've once seen some quite good quality footage... –  jokoon Mar 13 '11 at 1:33
    
@gokoon: I think that would make a rather interesting question. You should ask it! –  Patches Mar 13 '11 at 1:38
    
patches: haha, no you do it :p –  jokoon Mar 13 '11 at 13:10

2 Answers 2

up vote 25 down vote accepted

No UFO has ever been revealed to be an alien spacecraft. That said, we can't explain all UFOs through natural phenomena. In some cases the sightings remain mysterious.

From 1947 to 1969 a project called "Blue Book" was run by the USAF to investigate UFO sightings. The results are the following:

From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was terminated Dec. 17, 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified."
-- source

As such, I would say that, yes, unidentified flying phenomena that cannot readily be explained away are quite common, 1 every 11 days on average (in the United States alone).

share|improve this answer
4  
++ It's really easy to generate UFOs. Just have something flying, and don't have enough money/time/interest to research it. I do sometimes enjoy watching History Channel shows where these people keep trying to sneak onto military bases, trying to expose what the government is hiding, which could, by implication, be alien spacecraft, else why would it be secret? –  Mike Dunlavey Mar 24 '11 at 20:50
26  
Any UFO that is positively identified as an alien spacecraft would cease to be a UFO :) –  jwenting Apr 20 '11 at 8:26
    
Official FOIA source for the same document: archives.gov/foia/ufos.html (US National archives website) –  jwenting Apr 20 '11 at 9:15

They are not flying and they are not objects.
But people saw them :)
(you can find a colection of reports of events in my site)

The events are more correctly called: UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

Because I've been always skeptic I studied this subject several years ago (during months),
and I concluded that two classes of UFO events can be physically explained. (edit add: I decided to offline the content because no one care to know what I found)
IMO they are just Aerial Phenomenons. If you are so skeptic as I am you will have to study what I've explained there.
I'm expecting some comments if you deny my view point and downvote.
(the physical papers that I've consulted in relation to ice crystals and contrails... will be included in the site in the future)

quote from "Pilot Survey Results” at NARCAP.ORG (the site is offline in the moment of writing)

This paper presents the results of a confidential aircrew survey presented to 298 currently rated and flying commercial pilots employed by a U. S. airline. Table 5

Results Related to Reporting One’s Sighting


Total number of pilots having seen a UAP . .. . 16 (100%)
Number who did report the sighting . . . . . . . . 4 (25 %)
Number who did not report the sighting . . . . . 12 (75 %)


If there are about 600,000 commercial pilots currently flying in the U.S.A. and 23 percent of them saw something they couldn’t identify this amounts to 138,000 witnesses.

colections of reports on UFOs:
COMETA report (French association) detail the results of a study by the Institute of Higher Studies for National Defense
COMETA_part1.pdf 23 pages
COMETA_part2.pdf 47 pages

UK gov. National Arquives, UFO files Files released in March 2011
NASA ASRS Database world's largest repository of voluntary, confidential safety information provided by aviation's frontline personnel, including pilots.
National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena- NARCAP
Narcap: 300 cases analysed

a few selected cases:
Chicago O'Hare airport: Narcap report
Astronautics & Aeronautics July 1971 Unidentified Object in the ~South-Central U.S., July 17,1957
L'observation du vol AF 3532 1994, Coulommiers, France (more here)
Analysis of a Photograph of a High Speed Ball of Light Jul 16, 1988 - I clearly see a contrail where sunlight is reflected.
google search "Police Chase UFO over St. Atham, Cardiff", in UK 2008

The Scientists have been divorced of the UFO problem:
Society for Scientific Exploration: Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: (1994) : Part 1 and Part 2


My viewpoint of the case reported by a military pilot in the page 9 of Cometa report (pag 7 of pdf), Mirage IV - UFO encounter, March 7, 1977:
Chaumont 48° 6'40.76"N , 5° 8'23.67"E
Luxeil Air Base 47°46'59.00"N ; 6°21'1.29"E

Not reported, but it is true:
No one noticed that the path of flight was in the directon of the Full Moon, South India, and the contrail was above Switzerland (cold atmosphere, no wind for sure at the time of the event). The contrail stood straight for long enough time and transported the light of Full Moon, below the horizon, to the cockpit.
Just check the images bellow, obtained with help of HPlanet - Home Planet software and Google Maps)

Physical explanation:
A contrail is made of ice crystals that in non turbulent atmosphere descend slowly exposing the bigger faces (frequently hexagonal) parallel to the ground (they go down like a large leave falling from a tree). The normal to that face oscilates around 8º max and they offer a continuous mirror for light that jump from crystal to crystal without leaving the contrail when light is injected along the longitudinal axis of the contrail. The total reflection in the faces are due to the low angle of incidence providing a 'natural low loss optical fiber'. And that was the case of this report. The pilots usually can not see the contrails made by their own jets. This case is an exception. The contrail was there in the right direction and the moon light (full moon) made the impossible: for brief moments the pilots saw the moon. Most of the UFO lights seen by night are made by some invisible contrail in the right direction to sunlight or, the less frequent moonlight, when the sun or moon are already below the horizon.

Position of full moon over South India at the time of the event. position of full moon over South India

Local path of the flight over France and Switzerland local path of the flight

At left two red points (zoom it) is the path of the Mirage over France/Switzerland and a large white stripe to mark the path of the moon ligth. at left (red points) the path of the Mirage over France/Switzerland and a large white stripe to mark the path of the moon ligth

Check the report of the pilot:

They noticed a brilliant light coming towards their Mirage from their exact right and on a collision course with them, and first thought it may be a jet fighter, but when they radioed to the ground control at Contrex?ville for reporting it and getting it identified, they learned that the ground radar showed nothing and that no other aircraft was known to be in that area. The ground controller asked them to check their oxygen, which indicates that he thought the pilots may be hallucinating.

The light appeared bigger and bigger as it approached their aircraft from their rear right. The pilot was flying at Mach 0.98 and made a turn to the right and then to the left to make sure the light was not a reflection of some sort on the cockpit. As he did these maneuvers, both of the crew could distinguish that the light was the front of a dark solid object. Despite the evasive maneuver, the unidentified object managed to stay exactly behind them for a few seconds, a very dangerous situation if the unknown object were to be hostile. The then object made a turn to the North-West at an estimated speed of Mach II, and went away to the left of the Mirage IV.

and reappeared 45 secs later to tease again the pilots.

In my oppinion this report of the pilots is credible. Also credible is the existence of the contrails, even if we can not see them by night time. Incredible, IMO, is the lack of imagination of the scientific community and others, that in the absence of a theory try to put down the testimonys, or waiting for help from some alien people.

By day time the testimonys are mostly correct but the physical explanation is based in the well known (in this moment I dont have the name in my head)... effect, and ....

They report 'objects' but they saw 'light'.
Find a suitable source of Light and a path thru the medium (atmosphere).

share|improve this answer
    
Let me know if you can not see the images I've included, because the computer I'm using has stored all passwords and I may be fooled. –  Helder Velez Mar 25 '11 at 15:57
    
the images load after you click some links –  Jader Dias Apr 14 '11 at 19:27
    
@Jader Thanks. (Now I've updated the answwr to other link more actualized). As I'm not a natural english speaker I do not know if I said my ideas clearly in physical and english terms. Tanks for your feedback. –  Helder Velez Apr 20 '11 at 3:32
    
it's spelled "thanks" =) –  Jader Dias Apr 20 '11 at 11:19
    
I was still awake at five o'clock in the morning and mistakes happen. I'm Portuguese and I think you are Brazilian and lives in Brazil given the timing of your comments. But what I like to know is whether it is easy to understand what I try to explain in my link. Obrigado. –  Helder Velez Apr 20 '11 at 11:44

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.