Higher Beings?

[webplodder]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that some UFOs represent an intelligent presence here on earth. Are the objects that are observed probes, highly evolved conscious beings or simply mirages produced by some underlying alien intelligence? Or, perhaps, all of the above? Alternatively, could they have evolved independently from us from a different 'tree of life' a long time ago and simply represent a more advanced species that have existed on earth for much longer than Homo-Sapiens? The latter case would at least overcome the problem of having to travel the immense interstellar distances which many sceptics maintain is the main reason why they are probably not ETs. One other possibility is that they evolved on one of the other planets and when things became too inhospitable decided to migrate to earth. For all we know, UFOs could represent the real masters of earth whilst we might be just 'Johnny come latelys'.

[IanR]

Surely interstellar travel, if it is being done at all, is being done by intelligent machines rather than biological beings. Seems to me very short-sighted to assume that alien craft would be piloted by humanoids rather than robots. Any civilization advanced enough to be doing interstellar travel would have developed artificial intelligence long before setting out. Consider our own exploration of the Solar System which is all machine-based so far and getting smarter with every new probe.

On the other hand, the lack of any alien craft visiting Earth, along with the lack of any incoming transmissions from other civilizations, could well mean that we are the top dogs, at least in this part of the Galaxy. Someone has to be first and it could just be us. Now that really is a thought.

Ian

[webplodder]

Ian, what do you think about the many reports by pilots, both civil and military, of strange objects which often seem to have tagged along with their aircraft? We are often told that people such as pilots make more reliable witnesses than ordinary 'Joe public.' Are they simply as gullible as anyone else?

[IanR]

Ian, what do you think about the many reports by pilots, both civil and military, of strange objects which often seem to have tagged along with their aircraft? We are often told that people such as pilots make more reliable witnesses than ordinary 'Joe public.' Are they simply as gullible as anyone else?

Well it's difficult to generalize, as each case needs to be taken on its own merits (or demerits), but some pro-UFO people have looked into this.

As I say on my site:
>>
J. Allen Hynek, the pro-UFO astronomer who coined the famous term Close Encounters of the Third Kind, wrote in his book The Hynek UFO Report (p.271 of the paperback edition) that “commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses”. Hynek found that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects, just as they are for other UFO witnesses. Only slightly better results were found by Allan Hendry, who investigated over 1,300 cases reported to the Center for UFO Studies in the US during the course of a year. Hendry found that he could explain 75% of the sightings from pilots. In the case of sightings by police officers, the clear-up rate rose to 94%.

Another favourite claim is that the unidentified sightings are somehow qualitatively different from the ones that are identified, but again Hendry’s experience offers little comfort. Reporting on his findings in The UFO Handbook, Hendry pondered (p.284): “How can I be sure if my remaining “UFOs” aren’t simply IFOs [i.e. identifieds] misperceived to the point of fantasy?”
<<

With pilots, the point to remember is that their primary concern is air safety, so it pays to regard anything unusual as a potential threat. But the bottom line is that we are all human and all subject to the same misperceptions.

Ian

[Frank]

Hendry pondered (p.284): “How can I be sure if my remaining “UFOs” aren’t simply IFOs [i.e. identifieds] misperceived to the point of fantasy?”

That exact question was addressed by the Battelle Memorial Institute in 1952, in a statistical analysis ordered by the USAF Blue Book project. The report is on-line here: http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB1-1229

They statistically compared IFOs with UFOs. The probability was less than 1% that UFOs belong to the same class as IFOs.

Another important conclusion: The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified as UFO. 35% of the excellent cases were UFOs, as opposed to only 18% of the poorest cases. This was the exact opposite of the result predicted by skeptics, who usually argued unknowns were poorer quality cases involving unreliable witnesses that could be solved if only better information were available.

Encouraged by these results, they tried to construct a model of a UFO. For this purpose they used daytime UFO sightings that give detailed descriptions and drawings of the object observed. This was the case for only 12 of the 434 unknowns. Most of these 12 sightings were of short duration.

Six of these twelve cases describe a disc-shaped object. The other six vary in shape (cigar-shape, cross-shape, propeller shape). Battelle concluded that the descriptions in these twelve reports vary too much to construct a general picture of a UFO. Because of this and because of the absence of hard physical evidence, they concluded in 1954 that it is highly unlikely that UFOs represented extraterrestrial technology.

With pilots, the point to remember is that their primary concern is air safety

There is a special site where pilots can report their UFO sightings, “to improve aviation safety and enhance scientific knowledge.” http://www.narcap.org/index.htm

[IanR]

That exact question was addressed by the Battelle Memorial Institute in 1952, in a statistical analysis ordered by the USAF Blue Book project. The report is on-line here: http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB1-1229

Amazing, isn't it? Believers are still quoting a report from 1952. You'd think something better would have come up since then. Has the subject moved on in the past 60 years? Clearly not.

For a different take on the Battelle study (better known as Blue Book Special Report 14), see pages 13 and 14 of the latest SUNlite
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf

Ian

[Frank]

Amazing, isn't it? Believers are still quoting a report from 1952.

Well, you posed a question: How do I know my UFOs are not all just misinterpreted IFOs?

I gave you the best answer science has provided so far: By applying a statistical Chi-square analysis of the (subjective) data on several objective criteria – the answer is that UFOs very probably are not the same as IFOs.
I can't help it if we already know this answer for more than 50 years and science has done nothing with it since.

As your SunLITE article states, the data studied by special report nr 14 is subjective (eye-witness reports). This is also stressed by the report itself. But that does not invalidate a statistical analysis over a large amount of subjective eye-witness reports (in this case, 4000 reports). As the Battelle Institute states in the report: “In spite of these limitations, methods of statistical analysis of such reports in sufficiently large groups are valid.”

There are other fields of science with the same limitations of subjectivity. There, too, large-scale statistical studies are routinely applied to overcome this problem. An example is the effect of medication on subjective feelings like pain or psychic well-being. These kinds of medication are routinely validated by a large-scale statistical analysis on subjective patient reports.

Has the subject moved on in the past 60 years? Clearly not.

Verry little indeed.. The reason for that is also known since 1952, after an investigation by Dr Hynek (in his role as scientific advisor to the Blue Book project) among fellow astronomers.

“Over 40 astronomers were interviewed of which five had made sightings of one sort or another. (…) The great majority were neither hostile nor overly interested; they gave one the general feeling that all flying saucer reports could be explained as misrepresentations of well-known objects and that there was nothing intrinsic in the situation to cause concern. I took the time to talk rather seriously with a few of them, and to acquaint them with the fact that some of the sightings were truly puzzling and not at all easily explainable. Their interest was almost immediately aroused, indicating that their general lethargy is due to lack of information on the subject. And certainly another contributing factor to their desire not to talk about these things is their overwhelming fear of publicity. (…) There seems to be no convenient method by which to attack this problem, and most astronomers do not wish to become involved, not only because of the danger of publicity but because the data seem tenuous and unreliable.”

(Source: http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB1-956)

“The data seem tenuous and unreliable”. Well, we all know that after spending some time on this forum ..