Sagan’s UFO Paradox: Fostering Scientific Rigor Through Skepticism and Advocacy
A landmark event highlighted the Carl Sagan UFO controversy: the 1969 symposium he co-organized for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This meeting notably brought together leading UFO proponents, such as J. Allen Hynek.
Cameo of J. Allen Hynek in “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”, an UFO encounter category he defined himself..
The meeting also included prominent skeptics, like the first theoretical astronomer of the United States, Donald Menzel. In 1968, Menzel testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics – Symposium on UFOs, stating that he, Menzel, considered all UFO sightings to have natural explanations.
While critics accused Sagan of legitimizing what they considered a “pseudoscience,” Sagan defended the AAAS symposium. He argued that significant public interest in UFOs warranted serious scientific scrutiny.
Carl Sagan was a prominent advocate for the search for extraterrestrial life. Yet, he remained a skeptic regarding Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) as evidence of alien visitation. This seemingly contradictory stance fueled the ongoing debate between UFO skeptics and believers. This is often referred to as the Carl Sagan UFO controversy.
Sagan’s influence on UFO studies produced its most significant beneficial effect by pushing researchers to ground their investigations more firmly in scientific methods. This emphasis on rigor contributed to the emergence of two distinct categories of researchers in the field.
SKEPTICS VS. BELIEVERS: The Secret War Over UFOs
A: Serious UAP researchers who set themselves the goal of identifying and cataloging UFOs, with the main focus on the assumption that there can be no extraterrestrial UFOs. Their focus was on finding conventional, or “banal,” explanations for sightings. They aimed to demystify the phenomenon and bring it within the realm of established science. The Carl Sagan UFO controversy played a role in how these explanations were pursued.
B: Marginalized Fringe UFOresearchers, who in contrast remained open to, or actively pursued, the hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence behind UFO sightings found themselves increasingly on the periphery. This group, while not necessarily uncritical or prone to accepting every hoax, was willing to explore unconventional explanations. These were explanations that the “serious” camp often dismissed outright.
UAP or UFO? The Government’s Sneaky Word Game to HIDE the Extraterrestrial Truth!
The contemporary preference for the term UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) rather than UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) starkly reflects the divide between serious and fringe research.
While both terms essentially refer to the same core mystery—observed objects or phenomena in the sky that are not immediately identifiable—’UAP’ has gained traction among those seeking to legitimize their research. They want to avoid the cultural baggage and stigma associated with ‘UFOs,’ which are often colloquially synonymous with alien spacecraft. This shift is part of the Carl Sagan UFO controversy, as different terminologies affect the perception of research.
Researchers, particularly those affiliated with governmental or academic institutions, often opt for ‘UAP’ to protect their professional reputations. They use it to signal a more data-driven, agnostic approach, free from preconceived notions of extraterrestrial involvement.
“BANAL” OR ALIEN? Inside the Bitter Feud Splitting UFO Hunters in Two!
The comparison between a case like the authors “Mufon UFO case #111680” and a frame from the Pentagon’s “Gimbal UAP” video can illustrate this division:
A MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) case, typically investigated by citizen researchers often aligned with the “fringe” category (though MUFON itself has varying methodologies), might present evidence and interpretations that lean towards or explicitly suggest an extraordinary (extraterrestrial) origin.
A government source released the “Gimbal” video, and serious UAP researchers—including military and intelligence analysts—analyzed it. They discussed its flight characteristics, sensor data, and possible but elusive mundane explanations. Although they acknowledge the video’s anomalous nature, they focus their rigorous approach on ruling out known technologies or natural phenomena.
In contrast, the “fringe” perspective may treat the footage as evidence supporting an extraterrestrial hypothesis. But this is due to careful consideration.
Unusual Flight Characteristics in Navy’s 2015 Gimbal UAP Sighting
A study by Yannick Peings and Marik von Rennenkampff analyzes the Gimbal UAP video.
“FRINGE” RESEARCHERS FIGHT BACK
In essence, Carl Sagan’s legacy in UFO studies is complex. His insistence on scientific rigor undoubtedly elevated the quality of investigation in certain quarters. It helped to filter out less credible claims. However, it also contributed to a climate where exploring the more speculative, yet potentially profound, extraterrestrial aspects of the phenomenon became scientifically and academically challenging. As a result, these inquiries were pushed to the margins. This is a key part of what makes the Carl Sagan UFO controversy so enduring.
In essence, Carl Sagan’s legacy in UFO studies is complex. His insistence on scientific rigor undoubtedly elevated the quality of investigation in certain quarters. It helped to filter out less credible claims. However, it also contributed to a climate where exploring the more speculative, yet potentially profound, extraterrestrial aspects of the phenomenon became scientifically and academically challenging. Consequently, such inquiries were pushed to the margins.
SAGAN’S PARADOX: Did His “Science First” Rule KILL the Search for Alien Life?
Was Sagan a hero of reason—or did his skepticism accidentally suppress the truth? The ongoing debate and the terminological distinctions highlight this enduring tension between cautious, mainstream scientific inquiry and the persistent, more speculative allure of the unknown inherent in the UFO/UAP enigma. Discussions continue over his role and influence in shaping public perception and scientific investigation of unexplained aerial phenomena. The Carl Sagan UFO controversy exemplifies this tension.
A Science Fiction Short Story: In a universe filled with mysteries, the discovery of an extraterrestrial signal could change everything.
Chapter 1: The Question
Ray Faser leaned back in his chair, fingers steepled, staring at the projection of Earth’s nuclear test history—a timeline of detonations stretching from 1945 to 1996. The data pulsed like a slow, irregular heartbeat.
Two thousand nuclear blasts. Each one had sent an electromagnetic scream (EMP) into the void.
On the other side of the screen, Dr. Elias Varen, a senior astrophysicist with the SETI Institute, adjusted his glasses. “You’re suggesting we’ve already announced ourselves.”
“I’m saying we lit a bonfire in the ‘Dark Forest‘. And now we’re whispering ‘Hello?’ like we’re afraid of being rude.”
Varen exhaled. “The difference is intent. A nuclear EMP is noise. A structured message is a handshake.”
Ray leaned forward. “You think an advanced civilization hears a thousand atomic explosions and thinks, ‘Hmm, must be background radiation’? They’ll know what it is. And they’ll know it’s dangerous.”
Chapter 2: The UAP Variable
The Pentagon’s recent disclosures hung between them like an unspoken specter. Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena—craft defying known physics, lingering in Earth’s skies for decades.
Ray tapped the table. “If they’re already here, silence isn’t caution. It’s stupidity. We should be sending ‘We come in peace’ in every frequency we’ve got.”
Varen’s jaw tightened. “Or we’re confirming we’re a threat. Nuclear weapons, uncontrolled emissions—what if they’re waiting to see if we grow up?”
“Or waiting to see if we shoot first,” Ray countered. “The Dark Forest isn’t just a theory. It’s a mirror. We’re the ones who nuked ourselves two thousand times. We’re the predators.”
Chapter 3: The Silence Gambit
A new voice cut in—Dr. Elena Papadakis, a xenopsychologist. “Assume they have detected us. Silence could be read as hostility. A predator hiding.”
Varen shook his head. “Or prudence.”
Ray laughed bitterly. “Prudence? We’re ostriches. Heads in the sand, asses in the air.”
He pulled up the latest UAP footage—a tic-tac object maneuvering at Mach 10. “They aren’t hiding. Why are we?”
Chapter 4: The Decision
The room fell quiet. The screen flickered, overlaying Earth’s radio bubble—expanding at light speed for a century, a glowing sphere of TV broadcasts, radar pings, and nuclear EMPs that might just serve as an unintended extraterrestrial signal.
Elena broke the silence. “If they’re here, they already know who we are. The question isn’t if we signal. It’s what we say.”
Ray leaned back. “How about ‘We’re not all psychopaths’?”
Varen didn’t smile. “Or we prove it.”
Outside, the stars burned cold and distant. Waiting.
Epilogue: The First Message
Three months later, the Arecibo successor array sent a single, repeating sequence toward a UAP hotspot.
Not mathematics. Not science.
Music. Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.”
A handshake—or a plea.
The Dark Forest listened.
——————-
Author’s note The character of Ray Faser (and his author) have been waiting for reactivation ever since their first and last appearance in a short science-fiction story in a school newspaper in 1979.
Reference: The history of nuclear testing began early on the morning of 16 July 1945 at a desert test site in Alamogordo, New Mexico when the United States exploded its first atomic bomb. In the five decades between that fateful day in 1945 and the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world. https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-nuclear-tests-day/history
Just the facts: PDF: Doppler Blueshift Calculations for WOW! signal (1977): download here | Discussion on the paper: Academia.edu
Preamble
In 2022, I published The WOW! signal, Part 1: Not made by humans?. For the longest time (3 years), I wondered why I left the possibility open for “Part 2” instead of just writing “The End.”
It’s now become clear that Part 2 is essential because it includes an important detail that was missing before: EQUATIONS!
Anyone can write anything, but without mathematical equations, it’s just prose. So, here, now, for anyone to check, are the steps required to verify the movement of the Wow! signal towards Earth at 10.526 km/s in 1977.
This truly represents a significant paradigm shift. Previously, the Wow! signal was just the most plausible and only candidate for a radio transmission of non-human extraterrestrial origin in space. Now it is shown that this signal was moving and en route to Earth.
Whatever this means (We Are Not Alone?), it is remarkable that the Doppler calculations on this signal have never been published before. Did the authorities believe it would cause a panic?
Introduction
The Wow! signal has been the strongest and only serious candidate for ETi radio communication for almost half a century. New calculations support that the Wow! signal may have originated from a moving source heading for Earth, adding to its significance in the search for extraterrestrial life.
The text describes the Wow! signal, a strong radio transmission detected by the Big Ear telescope on August 15, 1977, at a frequency of 1420.4556 MHz, which corresponds to a wavelength of 21.105373 cm. The signal’s expected frequency, based on hydrogen, is 1420405751.768 Hz, translating to a wavelength of 21.106114054160 cm. The Doppler shift calculations yield a speed of approximately 10,526 m/sec (37,893 km/h), suggesting that the signal originated from an object approaching Earth. Shown here are the steps to calculate the Doppler shift speed. For context, the average speed of asteroids is around 18–20 km/s, while comets that impact Earth typically travel at about 30 km/s. In comparison, the human-made Voyager spacecraft 1 and 2 are currently traveling at speeds of 15 to 17 km/s.
Image NASA: example of atmospheric entry, showing the Mars Exploration Rover aeroshell (MER).
For a better understanding, I added the illustration of the Mars Exploration Rover’s entry into the Mars atmosphere. NASA did choose this shape for its aerodynamic properties. It is possible that the Wow! signal originated from a UFO about to enter Earth’s atmosphere, as much as any other interpretation.
In conclusion, the Wow! signal appears to have originated from an unknown type of source that was approaching Earth at a speed of 10.5 km/s, as indicated by observations and these calculations. It is unknown if this is due to the source’s approach to Earth or the galaxy’s relative movement to Earth. Both scenarios are possible.
Investigations of the Wow! signal to date have not accounted for or mentioned the Doppler blueshift of the signal.
Doppler Shift Calculations for Wow! signal (1977), Page 1Doppler Shift Calculations for Wow! signal (1977), Page 2
“Extraordinary?” Sagan’s 1977 Standard Stuns UFO Dreamers
In 1977, when the film “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” was released, Washington Post readers first heard of the “Sagan Standard”: that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.“
Carl Sagan uttered this aphorism in relation to the first film scene. In the scene, planes were found in the Sahara which years earlier disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle. The notion of extraordinary claims was central to Sagan’s skepticism about extraterrestrial causes.
“There is no evidence that lights in the sky or the disappearance of ships or planes are due to extraterrestrial interference (in the Bermuda Triangle)”, Sagan said.
Reference: Second View, Sagan on ‘Encounters’
NEW YORK — Carl Sagan, the 43-year-old glamor boy of astronomy, is hunched down in the fifth row of the Ziegfeld Theater on West 54th Street, waiting for the five o’clock matinee to roll. Whoooooosh! A sandstorm rages across the screen, enveloping viewers in a yellow haze.
Bermuda Triangle, 1986: Nine years later, in the shadowy depths of the North Atlantic, the Russian nuclear submarine K-219 vanished beneath the waves. It left a chilling mystery in its wake. As the vessel settled silently on the ocean floor—nearly 18,000 feet (5.5 kilometers) below the surface—a more disturbing discovery emerged. The submarine’s full arsenal of nuclear warheads had inexplicably disappeared, raising extraordinary claims about what might have occurred.
Any attempt to retrieve or remove the warheads should have been impossible at such an unfathomable depth. It was beyond the reach of all human technology in 1986. Yet, the weapons had vanished nonetheless, leaving behind only unanswered questions and a silence as deep as the ocean itself.
Official records claim that the catastrophic incident aboard K-219 took place hundreds of miles from the Hatteras Abyssal Plain. This spot was the very location where the lost submarine ultimately came to rest (Wikipedia).
Yet this contradiction is curious, to say the least, inviting extraordinary claims and speculations.
Deep-Sea Riddle: Vanished Russian Nukes Hide Under Triangle
Consult the Marine Gazetteer Map, and you’ll notice a small dot nestled between Miami and Bermuda. This is the location of the Hatteras Abyssal Plain. In other words, it is inside the notorious Bermuda Triangle.
Science moves forward through doubt, evidence, and the enduring patience to pursue both. But in a case like this, extraordinary claims about the vanished nukes cannot help but intrigue those. These claims make people wonder what secrets still lie hidden beneath those mysterious waters.
Location of the sunk Russian nuclear submarine K-219. Until now, no publication has linked it’s sinking and the disappearance of it’s nuclear arsenal to the presence of the Bermuda Triangle.
Cosmos Mania: Sagan Turns the Universe into Prime-Time TV
In 1980 the name Sagan finally became a household name when Carl presented his extraordinarily successful TV series “Cosmos.”
The series covered topics ranging from the origin of life to a perspective of our place in the universe.
The Sagan Standard, first phrased in the Washington Post article from December 1977, that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” became the mantra of the series. Carl claimed that nearly every UFO sighting is based on optical illusions and misinterpretations.
Carl Sagan wrote regarding UFO claims:
“When confronted with a claim for which there is no compelling evidence, we should reserve judgment. I know of no evidence for visits to Earth by beings from other worlds.”
Imagine, for a moment, a solitary spacecraft drifting beyond the edge of our solar system. Onboard, a golden record spins silently, carrying whispers of human laughter, the songs of whales, and the crackle of a mother’s heartbeat. This artifact, this Voyager, is a testament to our yearning—a bottled message cast into the cosmic ocean. Yet, as it voyages through the interstellar dark, one question lingers like a shadow: If its call were answered, would we truly be ready?
The Fragile Mosaic of “Humanity”
We speak of “humanity” as a single chorus, but ours is a symphony of dissonance and harmony. Seven billion souls, fractured by borders, ideologies, and creeds, yet bound to a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. Could we, in the face of an extraterrestrial Other, set aside ancient grudges and newfound fears? Or would we splinter further, our divisions magnified under the cold gaze of the universe?
Are we, in our adolescence as a species, prepared to shield our flame—and to recognize the light of another?
Equipped: Beyond Ray Guns and Radio Telescopes
To be “equipped” is not merely to wield the tools of detection—the arrays of antennas listening for faint stellar murmurs or laboratories teasing apart Martian soil for microbial hieroglyphs. It is to cultivate the wisdom to wield them well.
The Moral Universe: Whose Ethics Will Guide Us?
What ethical compass will steer us if we encounter beings whose very biology defies earthly logic? Creatures who breathe methane, communicate in ultraviolet, or perceive time as a spiral rather than an arrow? The Golden Rule, ancient and universal, may falter in the face of such radical difference.
Passive Dreamers or Active Architects?
We are the ones whispering into the void, sending probes and involuntary signals like children skipping stones into a bottomless sea. But what if the sea answers? Have our antennas maybe already picked up a signal—a cosmic “hello”, that may rewrite our theology, science, and philosophy, if understood?
A Call to Cosmic Citizenship
The challenge before us is to mature as a species—to see ourselves not as tribes or nations, but as Earthlings. To recognize that every war, every injustice, and every act of ecological myopia weakens our readiness for the cosmos.
In the words of Sagan, “Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.” The universe does not care if we fail. But if we succeed—if we unite in curiosity, compassion, and foresight—we might yet earn a place among the stars.
So let us gaze upward, not with fear, but with the courage to confront our flaws. Let us craft a future worthy of the cosmos we seek to join. The night sky is alive with possibilities. The question is: Are we?
After all, the stars are not just distant suns. They are mirrors, reflecting back who we are—and who we might become.
The pilots of the USS Nimitz officially tracked the TicToc UFO (or UAP) using the state-of-the-art Spy One Aegis System. Specifically, the phased array (SPY-1(V) [AEGIS]). The radar operator Kevin Day aboard the Nimitz’s consort, USS Princeton, played a pivotal role in this encounter.
This advanced military-grade passive radarsystem comes at a staggering cost of approximately $20 million! (For more info, check out: SPY-1 Wikipedia.)
But what if I told you that you could build your very own passive radar system at a fraction of that price? Imagine tracking not only commercial aircraft and meteorites entering Earth’s atmosphere. You could potentially track UFOs themselves—if luck is on your side!
A bit of SETI Passive Radar history
A temporarily unverified anecdote: In 2018, Peter Davenport, the Director of the National UFO Reporting Center, revealed to a friend that he had contacted Dr. Jill Tarter on February 3, 2014, about his paper advocating the use of “passive” radar to detect UFOs near Earth.
He emphasized that his goal was to propose a collaborative effort for a thorough investigation. However, Dr. Tarter’s reply was brief and somewhat dismissive; she mentioned that she had retired from SETI and would forward his message to Gerry Harp, the new Director.
ET to SETI: can you hear us now?
Despite Davenport’s follow-up attempts, he received no response from Harp, suggesting a reluctance within SETI to engage with UFO research initiatives. My friend described this reaction as surprising, given SETI’s public perception as pioneers in the search for extraterrestrial life.
SETI’s reaction, however (or lack thereof), is not surprising to me.
Firstly,SDRstands for “Software DefinedRadio.” This incredible technology emulates everything you would expect to find in a conventional radio receiver through software. This makes SDR radios much more affordable and loaded with features that traditional counterparts can only dream of!
A depiction of a passive radar experiment from 1935 with two “antennas.” The antennas consist of lengths of cable suspended above the ground. One of the antennas picked up a signal from the BBC directly. Then the second “antenna” picked up the reflection of that same signal from an aircraft, enabling the creation of a radar image. More directional antennas produce better results.
To construct this phenomenal passive radar station, all you need are twoSDR radio dongles for your computer. In 2025 these are priced at $35 each (Amazon.com). Yes, you read that right! You will also need two antennas. (A link to the instructions you find at the end of this page.)
The Magic of Passive Radar
Here’s the best part: you don’t need a license to build and operate a passive radar station! As the name suggests, it operates entirely passively, meaning that your setup does not emit any radar beams.
Instead, you harness radio signals from local radio stations as your signal source. These signals naturally bounce off objects like meteorites, aircraft, or even those elusive UFOs!
Building Your Own SDR-based Passive Radar on a Budget!
Let’s kick things off with proof! Below you’ll find an animation showcasing measurements of airplanes and meteors captured by a radar system created with a few easily accessible components. Get ready to be thrilled!
What can you expect from this DIY Passive Radar? Check out this recording:
Of course, you’ll be much more likely to see plane traffic, meteorites, and low-flying objects like the International Space Station. This is more probable than any more exotic objects passing through your field of view.
The worlds first UFO case confirmed by amateur passive radar!
A round of applause to Josef Garcia and GEP for achieving the first amateur verification of a UFO via passive radar! Link (German):
UAP Case Dataset 20240920 B
On September 20, 2024, at 5:34 a.m. CEST, a UAP sighting occurred in Friesenheim-Oberweier, Germany. A federal police officer reported observing a bright apparition in the clear sky, characterized by a wave-like form with colon-like dots to the left. Subsequent confirmation of the sighting was provided by a signal from a passive radar operated by Josef Garcia, a member of GEP.
Take a look at these remarkable amateur passive radar images contributed by Josef Garcia:
This radar track shows an object doing rapid 80° degree turns. Image courtesy of Josef Garcia, 2021 In comparison the smooth flight path of the ISS. Image courtesy of Josef Garcia, 2021
AI-driven filtering and detection of UFO radar tracks
Unlocking the Skies: How AI Is Revolutionizing UFO Detection
Picture this: a radar blip streaks across the screen at 74,000 km/h (46,000 mph), halts mid-air, then pivots instantly—defying gravity, physics, and every known aircraft on Earth. This isn’t science fiction. These are the jaw-dropping maneuvers that set UFOs apart from conventional planes, drones, or even meteorites. But how do we spot these anomalies in a sea of ordinary radar data? The answer lies in the flight patterns no human pilot or machine could survive—and the AI that’s learning to track them.
UFOs don’t follow the rules.
They hover silently, sometimes for hours, accelerate faster than a hypersonic missile, or execute 90-degree turns at speeds that would shred any human-made craft. While not all UFOs pull off these physics-defying stunts, those that do leave a glaring signature: a trail of radar data that screams “this isn’t from our world.”
But here’s the catch: manually scouring radar feeds for these rare, split-second events is like finding a needle in a cosmic haystack. It’s tedious, time-consuming, and prone to human error. Enter AI-powered pattern recognition—a game-changer in the hunt for the unexplained. Imagine training algorithms to flag the impossible.
Machine learning models can digest decades of radar data, learning the difference between a commercial jet, a weather balloon, and an object that stops dead in the sky before vanishing at Mach 60. These systems never sleep, never blink, and process millions of data points in real time, alerting scientists only when they detect the extraordinary: sudden accelerations, inhuman G-force maneuvers, or objects that defy aerodynamic logic.
(Image: Amateur passive radar setup) Machine learning isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about unlocking mysteries. By automating the detection of UFO signatures, AI turns a once-impossible task into a scalable mission.
Researchers can focus on analysis instead of endless screen-watching, accelerating our understanding of these enigmatic phenomena.
The skies are stranger than we think. And with AI as our co-pilot, we’re finally building the tools to decode their secrets—one anomalous blip at a time. 🛸✨
Ready to rethink what’s possible? The truth isn’t just out there… it’s in the data.
Curious about passive radar technology? (the AI part comes later)
Click below to find out how to built your own Passive-Radar-Station.
Building Your Own SDR-based Passive Radar On A Shoestring
Let’s start off with proof. Below is an animation of a measurement of airplanes and meteors I made using a radar system that I built with a few simple easily available pieces of hardware: two…
Are UFOs over US airspace allowed to travel at superfast speeds, but it’s not allowed over European airspace? A Ukrainian UFO raises questions.
Update Feb 24, 2024 (Newsweek).
Mystery disk-shaped UFO spotted by recon drone in Ukraine
“I’m telling you, it’s a UFO, for sure. It is staying in place, on the screen,” a Ukrainian soldier can be heard saying in the video.
A groundbreaking UFO study published by Ukrainian astronomers has stirred up speculation with claims of mysterious flying objects captured on radar, leaving both skeptics and believers buzzing.
Half a year after the onset of the Russian invasion, these researchers unveiled striking evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena soaring across the skies, clocked at astonishing speeds of up to 54,000 km/h!
But as renowned astronomer Avi Loeb throws cold water on the findings—asserting they could simply be artillery shells—the debate over what truly lurks above Ukraine intensifies. Is it extraterrestrial life, or are earthly conflicts warping our perceptions? Buckle up as we dive into this cosmic controversy!
SETI pope Avi Loeb claimed that Ukrainian astronomers mistook Russian artillery shells for UFOs. The UFOs were clocked at 54,000 km/h.
But this cannot be artillery shells: the world’s fastest artillery shell travels at 2,977 km/h. The world’s fastest missile (Avangard) reaches 37,044 km/h. That’s well short of the reported 54,000 km/h.
Avi Loeb then asserted that the astronomers had only estimated the distance, resulting in a ten-fold error in both distance and speed. (Even then, the objects photographed would still too fast to be artillery shells.) It’s not true that the astronomers only estimated the distance: they computed the distance by triangulation. That’s a scientific method with very precise results!
Then Avi Loeb claimed that no HUMAN-MADE objects can travel at these speeds in Earth’s atmosphere, as otherwise, there would be a fireball around them due to intense air ionization and friction.
Case In Point: the objects were not HUMAN-MADE.
And why does Avi Loeb initially dismiss the observations of the Ukrainian astronomers as being wrong, but then later argues that if the observations were valid, it wouldn’t be possible due to air friction?
54000 km/h vs. 74000 km/h? Whaaat?
Avi Loeb disregarded the observations of a team of Ukrainian astronomers over Ukraine airspace as unlikely, because the UFOs traveled at 54 000 km/h. His theory being that at these speeds the air molecules surrounding the UFO would ignite by friction (air resistance), creating a huge flaming fireball. This was clearly not the case. Hence, Avi Loeb says, the speed must have been wrongly deduced.
However, the Pentagon TicTac video shows a UFO that traveled at a top speed of 72,000 km/h. How is it possible for UFOs over US airspace to travel at superfast speeds, but it’s not allowed over European airspace?
Here is the in-depth TicTac video analysis by Dr. Kevin Knuth from the Entropy Magazine, estimating the TicToc UFO top speed at 46,000 mph (74,000 km/h):
Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles
Several Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible’ flight characteristics.
And here is the non-scientific version from Meer.com, by Dr. Tim Mounce (though he got the speed wrong: its 46,000 mph and not 45,000 mph).
USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO: unveiling inexplicable physics
Physics analysis reveals astonishing maneuvers beyond human understanding
And here, now, is the story of Ukraine UFOs:
The Ukraine UFO study
Half a year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in spring 2022, the Ukrainians published a UFO study.
It was claimed that not one but two meteorite-observing stations had discovered something extraordinary at the same time: flying objects moving faster than the unaided human eye can see.
“The eye does not fix phenomena lasting less than one-tenth of a second,” the paper said. “It takes four-tenths of a second to recognize an event. “ — Ukrainian UAP study
One observing station was based in the capital of Kyiv and the other in the village of Vinarivka, 132 km to the south.
The Ukrainian astronomers detected the UFOs with specialized meteorite detection equipment:
“Ordinary photo and video recordings will () not capture the [unidentified aerial phenomena]. “ — Ukrainian UAP study
Triangulation
The equipment was 132 km apart, meaning that they could triangulate the speed, position, and size of the objects really well.
Triangulation is a technique that astronomers do all the time. For instance, it’s used to determine the distance of stars.
The objects measured between 3 and 12 meters and were clocked at speeds up to 54,000 km per hour (33,554 mph)!
Publication
The Ukrainians first published their findings on a preprint server named Arxiv:
“Unidentified aerial phenomena, I. Observations of events”
Scientists use Arxiv to receive feedback from peers before publication. Arxiv also provides public access to papers that might otherwise be hidden behind paywalls.
Everybody assumed (without basis in fact) that the Ukrainian UFO sightings were somehow related to the raging Ukraine—Russia conflict. — Erich Habich-Traut for the Contact Project
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who had gained worldwide fame in 2018 with his theory that comet Oumuamua was an extraterrestrial probe, was aware of the Ukrainian study.
But he hadn’t looked at it closer until he was asked by the director of the new UAP office in Washington, DC, to write a short paper about it.
The Contact Project first heard of Avi Loeb’s “debunking” of the Ukrainian study from his email:
Quote: “You might enjoy the essay and related paper below. I was reluctant to even read the Ukranian paper, but on Monday night I was visited at home by the director of the new UAP office in DC and he asked me to write a short scientific paper on UAP. So yesterday morning at 4.30AM (before my routine morning jog) I had a look at the Ukrainian paper and within an hour figured that they got the distance to their dark objects wrong by a factor of ten (or else there would be a huge fireball around each of them as a result of the friction with the air). After correcting that everything falls into place, with the parameters of artillery shells As Feynman noted, there’s a great pleasure in figuring things out. There is no way out of this argument because they claim the objects are dark, meaning that they block light. The cross-section with photons implies that the objects must interact with air molecules.” — Avi Loeb
Morning Jog at 4:30 am
According to his email, Avi quickly reviewed the “Ukranian” paper before starting his daily morning jog at 4:30 am. Within one hour he had already concluded that the objects could not move at the speeds claimed by the Ukrainians (because the air would burn around them from friction), and they were, in fact, artillery shells:
Avi Loeb contended that the Ukrainian astronomers had failed to exercise due diligence, resulting in a ten-fold miscalculation of the UFOs’ speed. He said that was because they had not triangulated the distance of the objects and only estimated their distance.
Then Avi Loeb said the UFOs were in reality (Russian) artillery shells.
From that point on, the “debunking train” rapidly gained momentum, leading nearly every publication that had previously supported the story to criticize the Ukrainian astronomers’ findings as inaccurate Russian artillery.
I scratched my head.
When were the observations made?
How did Avi Loeb know that the UFOs were artillery? The Russian bombardment of Ukraine had started after the 24th of February 2022. There was not a single mention in the Ukrainian UAP paper of when the observations were actually made. Only a vague reference in the footnotes to an Astronomical Schools Report from 2021.
Clearly, that was an omission. To find clarity on the matter, I wrote two letters to the Ukrainian astronomers:
Quote “Dear Mr. Zhilyaev, Avi Loeb has made a comment regarding your paper on Arxiv, that your observations are those of artillery shells. Do you believe this to be a possibility?” — The Contact Project
That first letter got no reply. Avi Loeb’s comments about artillery shells became the de facto explanation for UAP in Ukraine.
A few weeks later, I decided to write a second letter to the Ukrainian astronomers, being more precise in my question. I also put Avi Loeb in the BCC, in case he wanted to clarify his argument:
Quote “Dear Mr. Zhilyaev, writing on behalf of the Contact Project, (https://contactproject.org) I’m curious about your UAP sightings.
Arxiv: “Unidentified aerial phenomena I. Observations of events,” by B. Zhilyaev, V. Petukhov, and V. Reshetnyk https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf
I would like to note that your preprint archive paper does not say precisely WHEN your observations took place, and I am curious about that date.
In your references (2) regarding “phantoms,” you quote a publication from 2021, a date well before the Russian invasion in 2022.
(2) Zhilyaev B.E., Vidmachenko A.P., Petukhov V.N., et al., 2021, Astronomical Schools Report, 17, N 1–2, 1–8
Is it correct then to assume that at least some of the observations that are the basis of your preprint paper are from a time when there were no artillery shells flying through Ukrainian skies?
From my reading of your paper, I understand that you had access to two observation stations. You probably triangulated the object distance from that?
What do you say?” — The Contact Project
This time I did receive a short reply from the lead astronomer of the Ukraine UAP study:
Quote: “We have been watching UAP since 2018. We do not associate their activity with the war in Ukraine. Observations from 2 points are carried out for the purpose of triangulation.” — B.E. Zhilyaev
It was as I thought: the Ukrainians had claimed nowhere to have made their observations in 2022 during the war.
Instead, the UFO/UAP sightings date back to the year 2018. Furthermore, the Ukrainian astronomers had not “estimated” the distance of the objects; instead, they had used two observation posts to triangulate the distance scientifically. This also made it possible to calculate their size.
CONCLUSION
The observations made by the Ukrainian astronomers were from 2018, not during the war. In fact, they had been monitoring UFO sightings since then. Furthermore, the team used two observation posts to triangulate the distance of the objects scientifically, which allowed them to calculate their speed and size.
This information raises questions about Avi Loeb’s conclusions. Given that the observations were made before the war, it becomes unlikely that the objects were artillery shells. The ability to triangulate the objects also contradicts Avi Loeb’s argument.
The truth, in this case, requires persistence and the ability to interpret ambiguity.
(the authors published further papers, clarifying and doubling down on their findings): arXiv:2211.17085 [pdf, ps, other] physics.pop-ph astro-ph.IM Unidentified aerial phenomena II. Evaluation of UAP properties Authors:B. E. Zhilyaev, V. N. Petukhov, V. M. Reshetnyk Abstract: …sky led to the detection of two luminous objects at an altitude of 620 and 1130 km, moving at a speed of 256 and 78 km/s. Colorimetric analysis showed that the objects are dark: B – V = 1.35, V – R = 0.23. The size of objects is estimated to be more than 100 meters. The detection of these objects is an experimental fact. Submitted 13 November, 2022: 13 pages,34 figures, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies
arXiv:2306.13664 [pdf, ps, other] physics.pop-ph astro-ph.IM Unidentified aerial phenomena. Observations of variable objects Authors:Boris Zhilyaev, David Tcheng, Vladimir Petukhov Abstract: NASA commissioned a research team to study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts an independent study of UAP. A research team from San Diego also decided to conduct a study of UAP. Observations of events that cannot scientifically be identified as known natural phenomena established the existence of the UAP. Submitted 11 June, 2023: 5 pages, 9 figures, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
