Cork Skeptics

Promoting Reason, Science & Critical Thinking in Cork City & Beyond

A little bit of UFO debunking

2 Comments

Just before our last Cork Skeptics meeting, a good friend of mine showed me the following photograph, apparently taken by astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle mission STS-37 in 1991. It purports to show a circular orb near the Earth’s horizon. I thought it might be the Moon, but it looked odd. I didn’t pass much comment on it at the time, but I decided to look into it a bit later, to see what I could find.

Upon beginning my research, I quickly discovered photos of a similar anomaly on a completely different shuttle mission, this time in a picture taken during an STS 51A space walk in 1984. The strange object here is the one at the top right hand of the picture (the large object, with an astronaut hanging off it at the bottom, is a satellite).

So, what was going on?

Discovering a rational explanation for photos such as this can be hard work. No matter what you type into Google – “UFO debunking”, “UFO explained” or “UFO skeptic” – the results invariably return pages upon pages of UFO believer websites.

Eventually, I discovered a discussion about it on a forum at Randi.org. The whole phenomenon quickly fell into place.

First of all, there is a video of the STS-51A mission shown below. If you play the video from the 10 minute 30 second point, you will see it soon afterwards.

Just a water droplet. Interestingly, not even noted by the editors of the video as anything particularly remarkable.

There is also a video of the first encounter from STS-37.

Just before the object arrives around the 25 second mark, there is a distinct camera movement. The phenomenon is clearly associated with something inside the spacecraft, and not outside it.

Again, it’s just a water droplet on the window as the field of view is adjusted. Note that the upside down refractions are entirely consistent with what you would expect from a droplet.

What this little example shows is how true believers and sceptics differ in their approaches. A sceptic, when presented with a “evidence” of an interesting oddity, will first try to identify natural or simple explanations that might account for the anomaly. A true believer wants to immediately accept the anomaly as cast-iron evidence of alien spacecraft and if challenged on it, will attempt to prove why a more obvious explanation won’t work. It can be quite entertaining watching how they do this and what rationalisations are provided. The arguments, inevitably, are not about strange spacecraft and alien intelligences, but about mundane things like the existence or origin of burned grass, raindrops and random specks on film.

Examples of good UFO debunking websites include Forgetomori, BadUFOs, and Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “A little bit of UFO debunking

  1. I think you are right. Often times people reason in reverse. “I believe in UFO’s…that looks odd…it must be a ufo.” But when you say the difference between “true believers and skeptics is…,” you are just using rhetoric. The Catholic Church were skeptics and Galileo was the “true believer” who won that argument? Too many UFO believers look at ANYthing and believe it…but too many “skeptics” are stuck in their own beliefs on what is and is not possible that they refuse to even CONSIDER that it could be true; for both the believer and the skeptic this is being a “true believer.”

    I’ve read a lot about UFOs; the idea of aliens fascinates me. I do not believe Bush knocked down the towers. I DO believe we landed on the moon….and I do believe in UFOs. Read “UFOs” by Leslie Kean (Sp?). She is a career investigative journalist (i.e., not a career ufologist) and the book is well documented, well written, and damn convincing. Read it. I don’t know if you’ll believe it; I do promise you will say to yourself, “Maybe.”

    • I think you have it wrong regarding Galileo. He didn’t just use belief to convince people. He used a telescope. He could see spots on the sun. He could see moons around Jupiter. He could rely on decades of careful observations of the planets to come to a conclusion that had nothing to do with belief. It had to do with evidence. And that’s pretty much how science has worked ever since. Scientists base their theories and insights off the evidence that is gathered. True belief is believing something in the absence of, or despite, the evidence. Two very different things.

      Also can you tell me if there are any items in the book that do not rely on third party eyewitness accounts, personal convictions or photos that could be interpreted in many different ways? Any new materials found that could not possibly be of this world? Any scientific papers recording an anomaly collected from teams of astronomers (who spend more time studying the skies than anyone else)? What is her best argument? The most convincing to you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s