Credibility In Ufology: Fact Or Fiction?

[Old Master Q]

Earlier, I was trawling through a dead-thread (mainly out of boredom) about UFOs over Scotland...

What, even the famed Bonnybridge triangle?

http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/small-scots-town-more-300-3654314

Note the date on that article...

• 00:01, 4 Feb 2015
• By Scotland Now

"Publicity concerning the sightings started in 1992 when businessman James Walker said he noticed some strange lights in the sky while driving home."

So, that article, complete with obligatory photo of 'Billy the Bam' is popping up a full quarter-century since the flap was first started and two decades after said Mr Buchanan started flogging that (now long dead) horse in his desperation for publicity. - Seemingly it's a common filler for very slow news days.

Mid-90s, during the time Cllr Buchanan was promoting this nonsense , I happen to have been one of a handful of local freelance cameramen who went out at various times with producers from assorted news and documentary organisations (both British and American) to shoot footage of assorted 'witnesses' - including Buchanan himself. Many concur with my opinion that he is a nutter!

...I recall, one day, while I was lecturing on the old TV production course at Springburn College, a couple of my students returning with footage of mad Billy's ranting and his business card; they'd been accosted by him as they practised shooting 'vox pops' on a Glasgow street, and could barely get him to shut up and go away! - The professional type camera had been like a magnet to him apparently; and he even left them with an invite to 'visit Bonnybridge' and do more!

Buchanan is/was obsessed with his 'Scotland's Roswell' notion; and even at one time had imaginings of opening a UFO theme park in the district... A place, which, sadly still suffers from chronic unemployment, crushing poverty and all that goes with it.

Personal opinion... Having actually dealt and met the man several times? Disingenuous for a start; but also really quite unhinged with it all. His 'ambitions' were only ever unfeasible fantasy.

As to the others?

A 'common factor' with almost all the 'witnesses' I filmed (and no, I'm not going to identify any of them - for legal reasons) is that as far as I can tell they were almost-all stoners, some unemployable wasters, and others being of very low educational level/professional standing. - It's hard to take a 50-year-old Milanda (queen of the haulf loaf) Van boy that never made driver seriously; 'specially when he's constantly draggin' on a spliff that you have to keep reminding him to keep out of shot!

And by-and-large that was the the mettle of the 'triangle' witnesses I met. Drug-induced paranoiacs, robbed of the wee bit sense they had by the Ganga and seeing little green men around every corner.


I also happen to live at the 'base' of the 'triangle', very close to where the 'Tarbrax abduction' took place and within minutes of where Forestry worker Bob Taylor had his experience.

Daily, I look out across the open 'UFO country' of the Pentland hills as I work at my desk. - And I'm often out and about in the area with broadcast cameras to hand - indeed, as I do sometimes shoot news footage, I always have at least one small camera to hand, charged and ready to go at all times. - That's not unique either; I could probably point you in the direction of another half-dozen people in a similar position.

I've lived in the district for around 25 years... Never seen let alone filmed, a solitary thing that couldn't be rationally explained.

That's not to say you don't see some odd things in the sky mind you! Quite apart from the flight corridors for Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, there are a couple of small airports and airfields. Not a mile from here is a flying club and (RAF-owned) airfield. Glider training was common until a few years ago. You see odd helicopters sometimes (pilot training) and transport planes and 'copters making their way up the east coast to Leuchars (even now). - I could even point out two or three locations nearby where people have their own little airstrips; microlights are not an uncommon sight over the hills.

Then there are the drones...

But of course the issue (or credibility) isn't just limited to Scotland.

The Redoubtable Jenny Randles in her recent pieces seems a little deflated by the direction things have taken in recent years.

The other day I listened to an (American) podcast wherein the guest was making an excellent job of dissembling Tom Delonge's "To The Stars Academy" project which, based on easily-findable evidence does indeed seem to be nothing short of a fairly cynical money-grabbing scam.

The chap in question bolstered his indignation by claiming his own position as a 'serious' Ufologist who worked hard to research his subject, invested much of his own money etc. and was affronted by this cynical millionaire trashing 'his subject' for the sake of' a quick, Barnumesque Buck...

I took the time yesterday to watch some of this fellow's output on YouTube; suffice to say I was underwhelmed. - It all struck me as the owner of a country side-show bleating because the big top was coming to town.

- Why is no-one out there (apparently), who is engaged in this hobby/interest/field of serious study (delete as you think fit!) able to assimilate the principles of photography and/or video camerawork sufficiently well to buy the correct equipment and use it effectively?

Now; don't get me wrong, I have no issue with people making a living from Ufology nor for that matter anything else 'of mystery'. What I do object to is coldly, cynically conning the weak-minded and the credulous - and there are, both historically and contemporaneously, many examples of this scattered across various fields (not just Ufology).

The discussion point I'd like to raise herein, with it clearly understood that the matters I've cited are just exemplars, is;

Has Ufology reached a point where it is stalled as a potentially serious avenue of research? And if so, is this entirely down to the influence of fakes, frauds and flim-flam merchants?

 

[Jayceedove]

I enjoyed your post. It has many good things to say and I agree with many of them.

The background to the Bonnybridge story was known quite some time ago and has occurred in other window areas. There is usually a charismatic figure that they focus around in some way.

Though I recall getting into trouble with some Scottish researchers when I wrote about this 20 years ago, possibly in FT.

As for me getting 'deflated'. (I am Jenny Randles by the way). I think your suspicious about my concerns are largely correct. In fact I have written of them in an editorial piece for my website www.ozfactorbooks.com as part of issue 187 of Northern UFO News, which will be free on that website monthly.

Issue 187 followed 186 after a delay of only 16 years!

Aside from writing my columns for FT I have been out of the loop in UFO terms since then because I was acting as a full time carer and so unable to travel.

But now that - sadly - I have the time again I might become a little more active.

I have spent the summer helping 'abductee' ex police officer Alan Godfrey publish his own story as a book - Who or What Were They? - which I enjoyed doing as it was the first serious book writing that I have done since 2003. Hopefully, it will not be the last.

There is more on that book on the website above too. Though I only had a hand in writing and putting it together and have not published it nor do I have any stake in it financially, but it does add some things about the case that have had to be kept secret until now.

So I am pleased that Alan is doing well from it and in just 10 days it has already had to reprint twice.

 

[michael59]

Has Ufology reached a point where it is stalled as a potentially serious avenue of research? And if so, is this entirely down to the influence of fakes, frauds and flim-flam merchants?

The short answer to both your questions is, yes.

It just chokes me that you have been "at the ready" for 25 years with the right equipment, credentials, training and back-up needed. Yet you have witness nothing.

You are the type of person that people like me have been wishing for for decades. I used to believe I was alone with that wish, now I know I am not.

Your post has brought to mind a experience I witnessed on Christmas eve, 2009....

The sky was heavy and gray it was definitely going to snow. It was around 2:30pm and I was having some family and friends over for dinner around 7pm. Things were hectic but running smoothly. All I had left to do was make a fast trip to the pharmacy to pick up my prescription medicine. I was pissed at myself for having submitted the prescription at a pharmacy so far from my house. It was going to take a minimum of 20 minutes to drive there and that was only if there was light traffic. Pharmacy's close early on Christmas eve, 5pm, but I figured if I left by 3pm, that would give me plenty of time.

I had forgotten that we had a heavy snowfall the night before. It took about 25 minutes to start the engine and let it warm up, brush off the car and then shovel around it. As it turned out, the traffic was not light, it was bumper to bumper. It was now 4:10pm and I was not even half way there. I was starting to sweat.

As I inch toward this major intersection, with 4 way traffic lights. The light is red, there are about 15 cars in front of me. I look up to the sky and in front of me but to my right, there is this huge dark gray circular object in the sky. At first glance, I thought, cloud. The shape was so perfectly outlined so that's why it kept my attention. The traffic lights have run a full cycle and now, there are about 6 to 8 cars in front of me waiting for the light to turn green again. I've moved forward, my foots on the brake, it's safe to look up again, right then, part of this object falls down a bit and it now looks like there are 3 or 4 steps. That's what it reminded of, steps. I look around at all the other cars to see if anyone else is seeing this. Nope. No one is looking up. The light does another full cycle, there is now only one car in front of me at the red light. I look up, right then, a bright flash of light and then a huge puff of black smoke appears where the "steps" are. I look around again. NO ONE is seeing this except me!!

What I wanted to do was throw the car into park. Get out and walk to the center of the intersection and yell, "Look at this, people, what the hell is it?" The light turned green and I drove on. As I clear the intersection, another big cloud of black smoke appeared in the same spot.

My mind was racing. It was on the outskirts of the city. I can only guess at how far away it was but, it was so big that if it was overhead, I am pretty sure it would have covered most of the city of Edmonton. I don't own a cell/mobile phone, I had a quarter tank of gas, no money on me, it was going to be dark out within the hour and I had to pick up that damn prescription. As much as I wanted to drive straight toward that object and check it out. I couldn't.

This is the first time I have told anyone about this incident. It is one of hundreds that I have experienced. If I had done what I wanted to do and stand in the center of the traffic intersection, I would have been the next "nutter" appearing on the 6 o'clock news. If I had told anyone, no one would have believed me.

So, here's my question to you, Old Master Q. What would you have done in my stead? How would I have gone about legitimizing my experience?

I'm not alone. Thousands of average everyday people go through what I go through. But, it is not a science. There is no way to predict when anyone will have a sighting. It is impossible to prepare for. Ufology is real. Trust me, or don't. It's up to you. I don't know how anyone would go about researching and legitimizing these kind of sightings.

 

[Old Master Q]

I enjoyed your post. It has many good things to say and I agree with many of them.

You're very kind Jenny... My writing is often rather incoherent I'm afraid; I struggle a wee bit with dyslexia, which tends to make my construction of prose akin to someone throwing wet spaghetti at a wall!

If I may, I'd like to offer my belated condolences on your loss; these things are never easy. - My wife has an old table-top sundial left to her by her great aunt; a souvenir from her aunt and uncle's travels back in the 50's, it came from Copenhagen and says (in Danish) 'Do as I do, see only the bright times'. - It's a worthy and at times comforting sentiment.

Your column in FT is generally the first thing I turn to when my copy flops through the letterbox and you're one of the few that I will stop and immediately listen to. - And that has to do with your being consistently level-headed and direct. - So I'll be certain to both visit your site and acquire a copy of Alan's book! If I may quote from your latest...

"This begs the question whether there is even a point to the return of NUN. And, in some large degree, whether the UFOlogy that existed during the 1970s, 80s, 90s and (very early) 00s throughout which it was issued has been consigned to history along with it."

http://www.ozfactorbooks.com/northern-ufo-news-october-2017.html

A general view of mine is that where something 'grass roots' has become for the most part ruined by various shades and degrees of cynical exploitation, then everything possible should be done to preserve and develop the kernel of integrity at its heart. - So yes, of course there is a point to its return; it's work that needs to be done

There are probably several 'prongs' to the problem itself... And probably a long book (or a Doctoral thesis) in rounding up the study of all the influences. One such 'prong' (in very wide terms) is that, UFOlogy, like many Fortean concerns (and indeed many other things that people are concerned and campaign about) has been subsumed into what might be viewed as a 'new wild west' cottage industry; hoaxing! ...And sometimes that industry is operated on a not-so-cottagey basis!

The background to the Bonnybridge story was known quite some time ago and has occurred in other window areas. There is usually a charismatic figure that they focus around in some way.

Though I recall getting into trouble with some Scottish researchers when I wrote about this 20 years ago, possibly in FT.

Well... There's research and there's grasping at straws. During the flap I was happy enough to get the work; but equally, disappointed and embarrassed for the wider population of the area; especially when working with foreign teams. Many of the vox-pops I shot (don't know if they were ever transmitted) were of people angry at Buchanan making 'bloody fools' of the town.

Matters such as Bob Taylor and possibly the Tarbrax incidents (both local to me) do leave questions worth looking for an answer to... Just quickly thumbing through Ron Halliday's book, I see matters in there that fall into the same category; including cases within 'the triangle'.

- But then the 'researcher's' (I use the term loosely) I mostly see 'round these parts are one particular eijit who thinks shape-shifting "tran-sit vaaans" service an alien spaceport (actually an old waterworks) wherein 'the aliens' have based themselves! And another who has apparently spent a decade or more resolutely not-learning about the theory and practice of video camera use in order to promote himself as a leading skywatcher/ufo spotter. ...I'm sure there are sane people out there, but also that I'm not alone in wanting to carefully avoid getting involved with either cranks or fakers.

 

[Jayceedove]

Most close encounters occur exactly as you say, Michael. Spontaneously and almost as if they were personally aimed at you.

We cannot do much about preparing for that. Alan Godfrey told me recently that over the past 37 years since he had his close encounter the one regret he has always had is similar to yours. That he did not get out of his patrol car and pick up a rock from the side of the road and throw it at the UFO right in front of him to confirm it was real and would go 'clang'.

What we can do - though - is create monitor sites in locations where there are optimum conditions to record something even over a long period of time.

There are sites out there - for goodness sake - where members chip in £30 a year and between them they fund dozens of 24/7 see in the dark video camera all accessible to 'members' to watch as they wish. They are in several countries in Europe and in the USA. They also record details of everything that passes in snapshot form.

I intend to suggest this in an FT column and see how many people might be interested in trying to make this work. It seems a simple thing that crowd funding could easily bring about.

But what is this self created and funded set up already out there and running now being used for?

To watch trains pass by on busy rail lines.

A similar set up monitoring selected UFO sites is surely feasible and would at least be a starting point to create some hard data that is independent of eyewitnesses.

 

[Jayceedove]

Thank you for your considered reply Old Master Q. And your condolences.

Yes it has been tough. But I have kept myself busy and am lucky to have close family.

Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) it means I also have time to get involved in something for which I have never lost interest.

Hopefully there are things that together we can do to claw back some credibility. I am heartened that there are still some sound and sensible people out there to make this possible.

 

[David Plankton]

(I am Jenny Randles by the way)

Hello Jenny, have you seen any of the threads concerning time slips? I think your input would be appreciated there.

 

[Old Master Q]

This is the first time I have told anyone about this incident. It is one of hundreds that I have experienced. If I had done what I wanted to do and stand in the center of the traffic intersection, I would have been the next "nutter" appearing on the 6 o'clock news. If I had told anyone, no one would have believed me.

So, here's my question to you, Old Master Q. What would you have done in my stead? How would I have gone about legitimizing my experience?

Oddly enough Michael...

One day in the late 70s, around this time of year in fact, I found myself walking with a friend, heading west along the north side of Petershill drive in Glasgow. Quite a crisp, clear day... This was the northern edge of the 'Red Road' housing scheme; highest dwellings in Europe at one time, close to the highest part of the city.

In the sky, to the north of the city - probably above the Campsie Hills was a 'rod' shaped object; hexagonal in profile. Silver or white reflecting in the setting sun, and well 'modelled' by it. The ends of the object were black, and frankly, it looked manufactured - man made you might say...

No wings, no noise, not a plane nor anything else I could put a name on.

It hung to the North of the city for about three minutes before moving off, quietly and quite gracefully but at quite a lick, in the general direction of Ben Lomond. - Skylab had (IIRC) fallen to earth earlier that year; and we toyed with the thought that it might have been something similar. But then, I think we might have heard if 'somehow' a space vehicle had managed to enter the atmosphere and carry on flying? - Nah! We looked at each other, agreed we had no effing idea what that was, if we tried to tell anyone about it we'd never live it down, and so agreed not to talk about it!

It's not-quite the first time I've mentioned this. And, sadly the friend in question passed away some years ago. But I think my answer to your question is that in that position I did exactly the same as you did... And probably still would unless I had managed to capture an image of the thing.

There are sites out there - for goodness sake - where members chip in £30 a year and between them they fund dozens of 24/7 see in the dark video camera all accessible to 'members' to watch as they wish. They are in several countries in Europe and in the USA. They also record details of everything that passes in snapshot form.

I intend to suggest this in an FT column and see how many people might be interested in trying to make this work. It seems a simple thing that crowd funding could easily bring about.

But what is this self created and funded set up already out there and running now being used for?

To watch trains pass by on busy rail lines.

A similar set up monitoring selected UFO sites is surely feasible and would at least be a starting point to create some hard data that is independent of eyewitnesses.

...Well, train spotters are people too Jenny!

Your biggest issue there is that, compared to the sky, railways are small. To watch the sky, and achieve any kind of meaningful resolution you'd need an array of cameras watching relatively small 'patches'. - One of the biggest obstacles being that video cameras are (relatively speaking) inherently low resolution devices. - An 'HD' frame is just 1920x1080 pixels. ...'4K' 3840x2160. - Then there is lens quality to consider; despite what consumer hype would have people believe, good lenses are both bulky and expensive - and require to be affixed to expensive camera bodies.

More feasible would be the open source development of some sort of 'skywatching' software/hardware that could control small camera arrays of say 4-8-16 units and tracked/logged unexpected movements. This might be something where co-operation between astronomers, electronics enthusiasts, computing enthusiasts and rational UFOlogists could be harnessed? And made even more useful if arrays could be made to work interactively/in concert via the web?

 

[INT21]

The biggest problem with ufology these days is the very thing that should be the making of it.

The internet.

Back in the day there was a very long delay between something happening and it being investigated.

People got news from the papers, had to write letters, make landline phone calls etc.

Today we have instant communication. It should be easy. But it isn't.

And the main problem is that a very large part of the scene has been taken over by jokers. Trolls who are there soley for giggles. And it sometimes takes years to fathom out who they are.

I once proposed a system for expediting the investigation of sightings, even to being able to do it in almost'real time'.

But the more I thought about the more it became obvious that some tosser could easily lead people of on wild goose chases. And a co-inordinate group of them could waste hundreds of hours of genuine peoples time.

So I have come to the conclusion that the only case you can be sure of is the one you have yourself.

People just can't be trusted anymore.

Micheal59 wrote...

..More feasible would be the open source development of some sort of 'skywatching' software/hardware that could control small camera arrays of say 4-8-16 units and tracked/logged unexpected movements. This might be something where co-operation between astronomers, electronics enthusiasts, computing enthusiasts and rational UFOlogists could be harnessed? And made even more useful if arrays could be made to work interactively/in concert via the web?..

Just what I was referring to. But it would fail for the above reasons.

INT21

 

[eburacum]

What we can do - though - is create monitor sites in locations where there are optimum conditions to record something even over a long period of time.
There are sites out there - for goodness sake - where members chip in £30 a year and between them they fund dozens of 24/7 see in the dark video camera all accessible to 'members' to watch as they wish. They are in several countries in Europe and in the USA. They also record details of everything that passes in snapshot form.
I intend to suggest this in an FT column and see how many people might be interested in trying to make this work. It seems a simple thing that crowd funding could easily bring about.
But what is this self created and funded set up already out there and running now being used for?
To watch trains pass by on busy rail lines.
A similar set up monitoring selected UFO sites is surely feasible and would at least be a starting point to create some hard data that is independent of eyewitnesses.

You surely know that these 'monitoring sites' do exist, and do return lots of useful information about the sky?
They are called 'meteor cams'.
http://cams.seti.org/
https://ukmeteornetwork.co.uk/

However these cams are not detecting any significant, or even insignificant level of UFO activity. Seems likely that UFOs are not the sort of phenomenon that can be studied in this way.

 

[Old Master Q]

The biggest problem with ufology these days is the very thing that should be the making of it.

The internet.

INT21

Quite so... But then hoaxers, attention-seekers, the mentally ill and outright criminal fraudsters have always been with us!- For it is they who are at the heart of the internet's problems!

As a small boy - growing up in the tallest dwellings in Europe - I developed quite an interest in electronics and in radio; at that height quite extraordinary reception was possible. And I often listened to many of the American SW and AM stations that broadcast all sorts of eccentric things from shacks in the middle of nowhere. This is one of the reasons why I developed a secondary interest in Forteana, as many of these stations were of quite an esoteric nature; and as such a relief from mainstream boredom.

But it has to be said, as entertaining as these guys can be, many of the promoters of these things were (as many on the internet today are) out and out nutcases! Plainly so! And (though by no means exclusive to the U.S.) it's from that American tradition (in itself something that grew out of the old travelling flim-flam and snake-oil shows) that much of the structure modern-day internet has grown.

Per exemplar - if you take (in its widest sense) the 'truth movement' and 'truthers'; the latter, particularly, has become a pejorative term as has the phrase 'conspiracy theorist'. Some theorise that that situation is itself something that has been manufactured as part of of a wider conspiracy to distract people from the truth.

And that makes sense if you consider (again; purely by way of example) the output of people like Alex Jones or David Icke. - Buried in among the 'fear porn' and fairy stories may well be (I don't necessarily claim there is!) very valid, serious concerns. But the public are distracted from these things. the 'baby' of truth is thrown out with the bathwater of transparent lunacy - they are 'wolf criers' pure and simple.

And there is money to be made from such flim flam... Not just from the patent medicine either!

This brings me on to a further point about the credulity and vulnerability of targeted audiences... Essentially, the more poorly-educated, or mentally ill, delusional or just plain 'broken' the better as far as hoaxers are concerned. and the more likely they are to find mutual affirmation and community with each other. - I would say the only really new thing that the internet enables is that that this can take place over vast distances. And that greater scale can be achieved.

...An acquaintance of mine coined the phrase "Webcam Lickers". - Akin of course to 'Window Lickers'.

It (mainly) describes all those people who sit drooling into their mobile phones and laptops droning on, and on, and on and on for interminable hours via YouTube and/or Skype about one infantilised thing or another. - Some (in their own minds at least) parroting the performances of Jones or Icke. Others just talking at the echo chamber and wallowing in whatever attention they get by way of feedback. And of course some scams tread quite sinister waters, in which some very fragile and vulnerable people can be found, not waving but drowning, and ready to grasp at any straw.

Now; I've probably painted quite an indistinct picture here; as I said, I'm not good with words. But hopefully I have at least drawn a vague outline of something that in essence isn't too different from the wild-west travelling shows of old; and in all honesty, I think that's where we are in the virtual world, as far as the internet is concerned. and clearly, there is not much that is new or exceptional about a lot of it.

The question then is how to we recover and nurture that which is honest and rational from the mix of nonsense? And it surely must be possible? - Even in Barnum's day, there were honest people about!

 

[Old Master Q]

You surely know that these 'monitoring sites' do exist, and do return lots of useful information about the sky?
They are called 'meteor cams'.
http://cams.seti.org/
https://ukmeteornetwork.co.uk/

However these cams are not detecting any significant, or even insignificant level of UFO activity. Seems likely that UFOs are not the sort of phenomenon that can be studied in this way.

Having taken a quick look at the UK site I can well understand why, and if you look at the website for the software, the point I made earlier (i.e. the necessity for arrays of cameras) becomes clearer.

https://ukmeteornetwork.co.uk/equipment-camera-and-lens/

On the face of it they seem blissfully unaware that this (really very old) capture card not only has a fixed resolution of 720x576, (regardless of what the camera/lens combination might be alleged to resolve) but that it compresses the video images quite dramatically; which makes later image analysis 'challenging'. - To be fair I suspect this is of no consequence in relation to the intended purpose of the setup and what the group in question seek to achieve. But I don't think this would be of much use for detecting or identifying unknown aircraft.

These are HD samples from the software manufacturer's page, using rather more advanced equipment...

http://sonotaco.jp/HDsamples/

Again, how would you expect to spot let alone later resolve an unidentified aircraft in this type of image?

 

[Coal]

The question then is how to we recover and nurture that which is honest and rational from the mix of nonsense? And it surely must be possible? - Even in Barnum's day, there were honest people about!

The same way you always do. Evaluate each instance critically, explore all assumptions and run them to ground, only use first hand accounts as any kind of evidence and exclude hearsay, that is, second hand or third hand accounts. 'No first hand account' = 'no evidence'. Don't place any extra credence on the nature or occupation of the witness, the 'appeal to authority' argument "Well, the witness was a trained observer..." type of stuff or "the had no motivation to make something up..." rubbish.

Remember that a real sighting by a hoaxer is indistinguishable from a fake sighting from a hoaxer and don't waste any time on such.

And in the final analysis, remember that some people seeing a UFO is not necessarily evidence of a UFO, it's evidence that some people saw something they thought was a UFO.

Have fun. I went through this loop in the early 80's and came (sadly) to the conclusion that there's nothing outside of people's minds to find, only inside, and that our interpretation of fugues, fits and hypnagogic states will vary according to our beliefs and the culture surrounding us, and what we see, especially objects that are vague, far off and in poor light conditions will be interpreted in the same way. Once, people were kidnapped by elves, now it's aliens.

Finally, Mr Coal senior (and I know I'm repeating) worked on the UK early warning defence radar system for more than a score of years and during the height of the cold war and he never saw anything on a radar screen that was 'unexplained' nor heard any first hand accounts of such. And their job was to spot it fast and shoot it down.

 

[Jayceedove]

Hello Jenny, have you seen any of the threads concerning time slips? I think your input would be appreciated there.

Not yet. But I will take a look when I get a chance. Thanks for the pointer.

 

[Jayceedove]

Oddly enough Michael...

One day in the late 70s, around this time of year in fact, I found myself walking with a friend, heading west along the north side of Petershill drive in Glasgow. Quite a crisp, clear day... This was the northern edge of the 'Red Road' housing scheme; highest dwellings in Europe at one time, close to the highest part of the city.

In the sky, to the north of the city - probably above the Campsie Hills was a 'rod' shaped object; hexagonal in profile. Silver or white reflecting in the setting sun, and well 'modelled' by it. The ends of the object were black, and frankly, it looked manufactured - man made you might say...

No wings, no noise, not a plane nor anything else I could put a name on.

It hung to the North of the city for about three minutes before moving off, quietly and quite gracefully but at quite a lick, in the general direction of Ben Lomond. - Skylab had (IIRC) fallen to earth earlier that year; and we toyed with the thought that it might have been something similar. But then, I think we might have heard if 'somehow' a space vehicle had managed to enter the atmosphere and carry on flying? - Nah! We looked at each other, agreed we had no effing idea what that was, if we tried to tell anyone about it we'd never live it down, and so agreed not to talk about it!

It's not-quite the first time I've mentioned this. And, sadly the friend in question passed away some years ago. But I think my answer to your question is that in that position I did exactly the same as you did... And probably still would unless I had managed to capture an image of the thing.



...Well, train spotters are people too Jenny!

Your biggest issue there is that, compared to the sky, railways are small. To watch the sky, and achieve any kind of meaningful resolution you'd need an array of cameras watching relatively small 'patches'. - One of the biggest obstacles being that video cameras are (relatively speaking) inherently low resolution devices. - An 'HD' frame is just 1920x1080 pixels. ...'4K' 3840x2160. - Then there is lens quality to consider; despite what consumer hype would have people believe, good lenses are both bulky and expensive - and require to be affixed to expensive camera bodies.

More feasible would be the open source development of some sort of 'skywatching' software/hardware that could control small camera arrays of say 4-8-16 units and tracked/logged unexpected movements. This might be something where co-operation between astronomers, electronics enthusiasts, computing enthusiasts and rational UFOlogists could be harnessed? And made even more useful if arrays could be made to work interactively/in concert via the web?

That's a good point that I had not considered.

Was not getting at train enthusiasts, by the way. My partner Paul was one. And when I lived in Wales I lived right beside the coastal main line beside a bridge where they used to gather so I often used to chat to them about what they were waiting for when taking my mum in her wheelchair on the coastal path. That's where I heard about the cameras.

 

[Old Master Q]

That's a good point that I had not considered.

Was not getting at train enthusiasts, by the way. My partner Paul was one. And when I lived in Wales I lived right beside the coastal main line beside a bridge where they used to gather so I often used to chat to them about what they were waiting for when taking my mum in her wheelchair on the coastal path. That's where I heard about the cameras.

I was of course, pulling your leg Jenny... A habit of mine. Trains are something I have a passing interest in myself; the Red Road Flats (where I grew up) were built on the roads of the former Balornock sheds of the Caledonian Railway; my blue remembered hills as it were. Plus, Grandad had been a railwayman at one time; and I do enjoy a good bit of railway lore.

 

[Jayceedove]

You surely know that these 'monitoring sites' do exist, and do return lots of useful information about the sky?
They are called 'meteor cams'.
http://cams.seti.org/
https://ukmeteornetwork.co.uk/

However these cams are not detecting any significant, or even insignificant level of UFO activity. Seems likely that UFOs are not the sort of phenomenon that can be studied in this way.

That may be true, of course. But I did once work with some big business man who was determined to create a UFO monitor station on the moors amidst a hotspot which would be funded by running it jointly as an observatory where people could pay to use the telescopes under supervision and the profits would fund UFO monitoring equipment. Not just cameras bit those recording other data that might detect something useful.

He got the local mayor interested and I went over there and gave a talk to get some local media interested but it never led anywhere in the end.

 

[Old Master Q]

And in the final analysis, remember that some people seeing a UFO is not necessarily evidence of a UFO, it's evidence that some people saw something they thought was a UFO.

Excellent points all... In my own case I can only tell you that I saw an object, apparently flying (if the day had not been calm one might as easily assume it was floating and being blown about high in the air) and it remains unidentified. It seems hard to find another starting point for any other similar thing.

 

[Coal]

Excellent points all... In my own case I can only tell you that I saw an object, apparently flying (if the day had not been calm one might as easily assume it was floating and being blown about high in the air) and it remains unidentified. It seems hard to find another starting point for any other similar thing.

Begging your forgiveness in advance, I absolutely don't dispute you literally saw an object you couldn't explain. However that doesn't mean it was actually there, or was as you saw it. For that matter it doesn't mean that it wasn't either. It's all to do with how the brain interprets what the eye intercepts and context makes a big difference.

It's possible UFOs are, for example, spacecraft of an as yet un-contactable alien race. The issue I have, even with this possibility in mind (which I'd quite like to be true*), is that there is a butt-load of evidence that people interpret 'vague or far off things' according to the context, their expectations and their beliefs, effects which have been shown in loads of replicated experiments.

Meanwhile, volume of evidence of a similar quality for alien visitation is vanishingly small.


* As this would mean (a) there is some intelligent life in the universe and (b) we're still alive, so 'Alien Plan A' isn't to exterminate us off the cuff.

 

[Old Master Q]

Begging your forgiveness in advance, I absolutely don't dispute you literally saw an object you couldn't explain. However that doesn't mean it was actually there, or was as you saw it. For that matter it doesn't mean that it wasn't either. It's all to do with how the brain interprets what the eye intercepts and context makes a big difference.

It's possible UFOs are, for example, spacecraft of an as yet un-contactable alien race. The issue I have, even with this possibility in mind (which I'd quite like to be true*), is that there is a butt-load of evidence that people interpret 'vague or far off things' according to the context, their expectations and their beliefs, effects which have been shown in loads of replicated experiments.

Meanwhile, volume of evidence of a similar quality for alien visitation is vanishingly small.


* As this would mean (a) there is some intelligent life in the universe and (b) we're still alive, so 'Alien Plan A' isn't to exterminate us off the cuff.

Bearing in mind the same thing was seen by two people, both at the time young with excellent eyesight, and (literally) out of a crystal clear blue sky, the evidence (which is first-hand) would tend to indicate there was something physically there; i.e. it wasn't the result of a foreign body in the eye, some temporary physiological abberation or the like. - It wasn't seen without a reference point either as to the other side of us were a group of 300' high tower blocks. And it bore no resemblance to any of the normal air traffic we were quite used to seeing.

What it was is the unanswerable question.

I'm not offering aliens (or anything else for that matter) by way of possibility. - I'm simply describing the shape colour and behaviour as best it can be described in the language I have available; which is all that is ever humanly possible.

Frankly - I've always rather hoped someone else saw it too, and was able to identify it as something or another; not knowing does rather irritate me. It would be fascinating if it emerged to be the 3:30 shuttle to Proxima Centauri, but ...that's not the interpretation I'm putting on it at all.

 

[Coal]

Bearing in mind the same thing was seen by two people, both at the time young with excellent eyesight, and (literally) out of a crystal clear blue sky, the evidence (which is first-hand) would tend to indicate there was something physically there; i.e. it wasn't the result of a foreign body in the eye, some temporary physiological abberation or the like. - It wasn't seen without a reference point either as to the other side of us were a group of 300' high tower blocks. And it bore no resemblance to any of the normal air traffic we were quite used to seeing.

What it was is the unanswerable question.

I'm not offering aliens (or anything else for that matter) by way of possibility. - I'm simply describing the shape colour and behaviour as best it can be described in the language I have available; which is all that is ever humanly possible.

Frankly - I've always rather hoped someone else saw it too, and was able to identify it as something or another; not knowing does rather irritate me. It would be fascinating if it emerged to be the 3:30 shuttle to Proxima Centauri, but ...that's not the interpretation I'm putting on it at all.

So out of interest, how did you and your companion come to the agreement you saw the same thing?

 

[michael59]

So out of interest, how did you and your companion come to the agreement you saw the same thing?

What exactly does that mean, Coal?

If someone cooks you bacon & eggs for breakfast, that's what gets put in front of you, yes? Or do you actually see steak instead?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Old Master Q]

What we came to agreement about was that we had both seen 'something odd' and neither had any idea what it was.

- My friend, incidentally, was at the time an Air Cadet, and something of a lifelong plane/aircraft spotter; till the day he died, he could not offer any explanation for what he had seen that day. He would, I believe, have described it more in terms of a 'wingless fuselage' of strange profile, but otherwise was as baffled as I am.

I am (by trade) a professional TV cameraman, at the time I had been a keen photographer for many years and was in the first few months of my apprenticeship. I've since gone on (among other things) to lecture in TV production; I'm more than averagely-well acquainted with the peculiarities of the human visual system, optics and the interplay of light; television and moving pictures generally being nothing more than a sophisticated optical illusion.

I suspect I see where you think you're going with this. ...In which case the subject becomes more about human psychology and visual perception. In which case we might then consider the following statement;

Mr Coal senior (and I know I'm repeating) worked on the UK early warning defence radar system for more than a score of years and during the height of the cold war and he never saw anything on a radar screen that was 'unexplained' nor heard any first hand accounts of such. And their job was to spot it fast and shoot it down.

...And attempt to debunk it as merely the product of ingroup behaviour and adherence to dogma. - Which I don't think would be any of fair, rational or at all progressive to any kind of debate.

 

[Coal]

What we came to agreement about was that we had both seen 'something odd' and neither had any idea what it was.

If you'd (for example) both written down what you'd seen, independently and then compared the results without any collusion, then two matching descriptions has merit. If you 'agreed' in conversation, then one or the other of you (or both) were influenced by the other to reach a consensus, and that consensus can be written (re-consolidated) into your memory of the event, such that you will only recall your agreed description at a later date.

- My friend, incidentally, was at the time an Air Cadet, and something of a lifelong plane/aircraft spotter; till the day he died, he could not offer any explanation for what he had seen that day. He would, I believe, have described it more in terms of a 'wingless fuselage' of strange profile, but otherwise was as baffled as I am.

I am (by trade) a professional TV cameraman, at the time I had been a keen photographer for many years and was in the first few months of my apprenticeship. I've since gone on (among other things) to lecture in TV production; I'm more than averagely-well acquainted with the peculiarities of the human visual system, optics and the interplay of light; television and moving pictures generally being nothing more than a sophisticated optical illusion.

I suspect I see where you think you're going with this. ...In which case the subject becomes more about human psychology and visual perception. In which case we might then consider the following statement;

Exactly so. While I don't say there are no UFO's, the elimination of the vagaries of visual perception, cognition, cognitive biases and memory errors, has to be part of the investigative process.

It's awkward because one in effect is indirectly challenging veracity, something often met with considerable negativity, and as most of us are wired to avoid conflict we back down and then agreeing with the subject's account biases us further.

Even if one gets around that, few of us are prepared to admit that something we saw may not be actually what we saw. It's shaky ground, the notion that our memory, and thus our view of our self is a little fluid and might be built on misconstruction.

...And attempt to debunk it as merely the product of ingroup behaviour and adherence to dogma. - Which I don't think would be any of fair, rational or at all progressive to any kind of debate.

Ah hadn't thought of that, I wasn't attempting to make a statement that could not be refuted without offence being taken. Apologies. At the time he told me, my father had begun a large scale dig into UFO literature among other things, and for me, his statement is first hand evidence (for me) of no such radar UFO 'sightings', with significant provenance...if I was smarter I'd have asked him to write that down and sign it...

To you of course it's hearsay! Fell into my own trap there.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Having taken a quick look at the UK site I can well understand why, and if you look at the website for the software, the point I made earlier (i.e. the necessity for arrays of cameras) becomes clearer.

https://ukmeteornetwork.co.uk/equipment-camera-and-lens/

On the face of it they seem blissfully unaware that this (really very old) capture card not only has a fixed resolution of 720x576, (regardless of what the camera/lens combination might be alleged to resolve) but that it compresses the video images quite dramatically; which makes later image analysis 'challenging'. - To be fair I suspect this is of no consequence in relation to the intended purpose of the setup and what the group in question seek to achieve. But I don't think this would be of much use for detecting or identifying unknown aircraft.

These are HD samples from the software manufacturer's page, using rather more advanced equipment...

http://sonotaco.jp/HDsamples/

Again, how would you expect to spot let alone later resolve an unidentified aircraft in this type of image?

Looking at that, I'd say an upgrade is seriously overdue.
That resolution is pretty typical at the low end of CCTV. HD cameras are now available very cheaply.

 

[Old Master Q]

Looking at that, I'd say an upgrade is seriously overdue.
That resolution is pretty typical at the low end of CCTV. HD cameras are now available very cheaply.

They are... But as I also point out, even 'HD' is likely to be too limited on its own to be useful.

 

[Mythopoeika]

True.

 

[Old Master Q]

Sigh... 2nd attempt at a response since the first became truncated.

If you'd (for example) both written down what you'd seen, independently and then compared the results without any collusion, then two matching descriptions has merit. If you 'agreed' in conversation, then one or the other of you (or both) were influenced by the other to reach a consensus, and that consensus can be written (re-consolidated) into your memory of the event, such that you will only recall your agreed description at a later date.

Respectfully, I must dismiss this as excessive and unrealistic... It's simply not how normal people behave on the spur of the moment.

Besides which, I have not actually said that our descriptions matched. In fact, I've pointed out that my friend - being an air enthusiast - would have used quite different terminology to me. - What was 'agreed' was that neither of us could identify what we had just seen. And that (especially as my friend hoped to have a career as an airman) it was better not to talk about the incident!

Exactly so. While I don't say there are no UFO's, the elimination of the vagaries of visual perception, cognition, cognitive biases and memory errors, has to be part of the investigative process.

...Not actually something I would dispute. What I would point out though is that this needs to be based on evidence and not assumption.

It's awkward because one in effect is indirectly challenging veracity, something often met with considerable negativity, and as most of us are wired to avoid conflict we back down and then agreeing with the subject's account biases us further.

Both the application of Occam's razor and the basic principles of justice should tell you that having, as a starting position, the notion that your witness is 'half blind', 'thick', 'obsessive' and 'going senile' (not what you said I know, and gross exaggerations; but in essence the direction of travel here) is fatally flawed. - Of course people will react defensively to any such approach as well as be offended by it.

Elimination through lack of evidence is perfectly valid, provided it has been sought; and that not be something that causes any form of 'conflict' or even that the subject need be particularly aware of.

Even if one gets around that, few of us are prepared to admit that something we saw may not be actually what we saw. It's shaky ground, the notion that our memory, and thus our view of our self is a little fluid and might be built on misconstruction.

With respect, I think the only valid response to that is speak for yourself...

In my own case I have simply said that I, and one other, saw 'something' - apparently flying - that neither of us could identify. - Neither being physically defective, delusional, or dishonest, nothing is being claimed or speculated as to the identity of the object. And I have suggested nothing by way of extra-terrestrial origins for this sighting.

"Fugues, fits and hypnagogic states"? - No, it's just that ordinary people going about their daily business sometimes see things they cannot easily assimilate and that, from time to time, completely defy explanation.

Ah hadn't thought of that, I wasn't attempting to make a statement that could not be refuted without offence being taken. Apologies. At the time he told me, my father had begun a large scale dig into UFO literature among other things, and for me, his statement is first hand evidence (for me) of no such radar UFO 'sightings', with significant provenance...if I was smarter I'd have asked him to write that down and sign it...

To you of course it's hearsay! Fell into my own trap there.

Actually, what you were (also) doing was making an appeal from authority; something you had earlier cautioned against!

For the record, I do not agree with the notion that making an appeal from authority necessarily results in logical fallacy. Those who routinely assert this often seem to be promoting things that are unsupported by facts and so fear authority exposing the vacuity of their position. - Therefore I fully accept the validity of your Father's account and experience as contributing a valuable piece to what is a very complex puzzle.

 

[INT21]

Coal,

..Begging your forgiveness in advance, I absolutely don't dispute you literally saw an object you couldn't explain. However that doesn't mean it was actually there,..

So we may as well all give up and go home ?

INT21

 

[Old Master Q]

Coal,

..Begging your forgiveness in advance, I absolutely don't dispute you literally saw an object you couldn't explain. However that doesn't mean it was actually there,..

So we may as well all give up and go home ?

INT21

...Always assuming the home you literally have actually exists?