Ask A Genius 1359: UFOs and UAPs: Debunking Common Misconceptions
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/27
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is UFOs, Part Two. Any quick points before we start?
Rick Rosner: The basic mathematics regarding the number and timing of civilizations argues against us being visited. The speed of light presents a significant barrier.
With our current technology, you cannot even travel at 10% of the speed of light, and doing so even hypothetically would involve massive energy costs and engineering challenges. Additionally, the point at which a civilization might arise on a planet in a nearby solar system could be anywhere from two billion years before us to two billion years after us, making synchronized contact unlikely. The relative unlikelihood of any given solar system harbouring an advanced civilization further argues against frequent or easy visits. The math is tricky. All right.
Jacobsen: Here we go. Main argument one: Numerous civilians and qualified military personnel have reported sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). These reports sometimes describe apparent aircraft capabilities such as sudden high-speed movements, silent flight, and abrupt changes in direction.
Rosner: The keyword in UFO is “unidentified.” Countless objects and phenomena—such as atmospheric effects, astronomical bodies, optical illusions, and human-made artifacts—can be mistaken for aircraft or spacecraft. The fact that they do not behave like conventional aircraft is not necessarily evidence of alien origin; it often points instead to misinterpretations of natural or artificial phenomena. Thus, these sightings are not by themselves convincing evidence. I am not convinced.
Jacobsen: What about the consistency of witness reports across different locations and accounts?
Rosner: It is worth considering. Consistent observations might be expected across similar environments if the phenomenon is atmospheric, optical, or related to sensor errors. Many non-extraterrestrial theories, including various atmospheric phenomena, could explain recurring features of sightings.
Jacobsen: The U.S. government has officially acknowledged the existence of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and released unclassified reports summarizing observations by military personnel.
Rosner: What is a UAP?
Jacobsen: It stands for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, a broader and more neutral term than UFO.
Rosner: Some whistleblowers and former intelligence officials have claimed that the government possesses evidence of non-human technology. However, no verified physical evidence has been publicly presented to confirm these claims. While these reports fuel speculation about a cover-up, they do not constitute proof of extraterrestrial visitation.
Jacobsen: You have already discussed the scientific probability involved, so we do not need to revisit that. What about technological superiority? You mentioned the possibility of eccentric civilizations developing highly advanced technologies and visiting less advanced civilizations like ours.
That overlaps with earlier points about low probability and vast technological and logistical hurdles. What about observing objects that seem to exceed known human technological capabilities—such as rapid acceleration, deceleration, or hovering without visible propulsion?
Rosner: Other explanations beyond atmospheric phenomena are possible but remain speculative. It could involve sensor glitches, misinterpretations of natural phenomena, undisclosed human technology, or other unknown factors. I am not an atmospheric physicist and have not read this area exhaustively. However, when events seem to defy the known laws of physics, it becomes more plausible that we are seeing projections, reflections, or misinterpretations of existing phenomena rather than encountering literal craft operating beyond known physical limits.
Jacobsen: What about historical sightings and historical patterns?
Rosner: Hold on. So, according to relativity, you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. However, you can shine a laser beam across the sky or a planet’s surface. For example, if you had a powerful enough laser, you could shine it from Earth onto the moon and make the point of the laser beam move faster than the speed of light across the surface. That is because you are not moving a physical object; you are moving the point where the light beam is aimed.
When you have things in the atmosphere that appear to move incredibly fast or seem to accelerate and decelerate at impossible rates, it raises the possibility that you are not seeing a solid object—or at least not where you think it is. Atmospheric distortion effects could make something look like it is behaving impossibly. So, anyway, I would throw out Occam’s Razor here: the simplest explanation is that you are seeing something that is not there in the way you think.
Jacobsen: What about people who are genuinely mentally unstable? What percentage of people do you think are hallucinating rather than observing atmospheric phenomena?
Rosner: I do not know. When I had a bad breakup with my girlfriend in 1984, I was bummed out for many months, maybe even years. I forced myself to do something stupid once a week to get myself out of my funk. One week—I had been reading Omni Magazine, which was part of the Penthouse Magazine empire—so I wrote a letter to Penthouse as a joke.
I claimed, as myself, that I had gotten my high IQ from being kidnapped by aliens for sex or something equally absurd. I do not remember exactly. However, I made up a story about an alien encounter to do something ridiculous and get myself moving again. They did not publish the letter.
So, yes, a certain percentage of people who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens are probably bullshitters, just as I was. Some genuinely have a mental illness. Some may have been drunk or hallucinating. I do not know exactly, but none of them are super credible, in my opinion.
Again, the argument from last night still applies: People did not start reporting being kidnapped by little green or gray men with large heads and thin limbs until magazine articles in the mid-1950s popularized those images. That timing suggests that people are highly suggestible and full of it.
Jacobsen: Would this thinking apply to whistleblower reports from government and military insiders?
Rosner: Yes. The people flying at high altitudes and speeds are mostly military personnel. Those individuals are going to encounter atmospheric phenomena that most people at lower altitudes or slower speeds never see. Commercial pilots also see unusual things sometimes.
We know atmospheric phenomena like St. Elmo’s Fire, different types of lightning, electrical discharges, and light scattering by ice crystals. The people most likely to see high-altitude atmospheric phenomena are commercial pilots, flying about seven miles above the ground, and military pilots, who might be flying at altitudes closer to ten miles.
And so, yes, those are where your reports will come from. These are people who are trained to be objective observers. They are not drunken lunatics or random bullshitters claiming to be kidnapped; they are professionals who see unusual things and report them. As a group, they are not fabricators. They are professionals. However, just because you have a whole set of reports from professionals does not automatically make the reports more convincing.
Jacobsen: Why?
Rosner: Because no yahoos are flying around up there. These are skilled professional pilots. That was a weird way of flipping the usual argument: using the credibility of pilots not to confirm the alien hypothesis but to raise a different point.
Jacobsen: Are you flipping how they usually use military and professional pilot reports as a defence?
Rosner: Yes, exactly. Usually, people say, “Well, military pilots and professional pilots are credible observers, so their reports must be accurate.” I am saying the opposite: their professionalism shows that they are honestly reporting what they see—but what they are seeing is still not convincing evidence of alien spacecraft.
You have two different populations. You have people on the ground—wackos, to put it bluntly—claiming to be scooped up by tractor beams and having things done to them by skinny aliens with big heads. Those stories are detailed, or at least embellished with details, like the story I wrote to Penthouse decades ago as a joke. (I think I claimed they scooped me up in a tractor beam, and something happened—whatever. I barely remember. I did it because I did not give a fuck at the time.)
Meanwhile, professional pilots are reporting something completely different: dots in the sky, lights in formations, or maybe triangular groupings of lights moving strangely. That is an entirely different type of observation.
The credibility of the pilots does not change the core problem: the phenomena they observe are mostly distant, small, blurry, and lacking precise detail. There is no footage showing a fully visible spacecraft with intricate surface features, like something you would see in Star Wars. It is mostly dots or blurs, sometimes elongated shapes. None provides enough precise detail to be undeniable evidence of alien spacecraft—or anything beyond unknown or misinterpreted phenomena.
Jacobsen: All right. Next point: What about radar and other forms of evidence that produce data independently of human visual observation? Things you can read out as objective measurements?
Rosner: When humans see things and video cameras capture things, they record visual events—what our eyes or cameras can detect. The radar is different. It bounces radio waves off objects and detects their reflections. So when you get radar returns, you get data that is technically independent of human sight.
So, we are not doing sonar, which is sound waves underwater. Radar is different: you are bouncing radio waves. Radio waves are just another wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. So, if pilots and video cameras can detect anomalous phenomena, radar can also detect anomalous phenomena. It is the same basic physics. That is it.
Jacobsen: Yes. That is it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 