UFOs are Nothing Burgers

The phenomenon of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) has captured public attention intermittently, with renewed interest in recent years. In 2022, a historic US congressional hearing on UFO sightings took place—the first in over 50 years—and in late 2024, a surge of sightings in the Northeastern United States prompted another. While mysterious reports of unknown aerial anomalies are undeniable, UFO enthusiasts often imply that these observations are evidence of something profound, something that, if proven, would fundamentally alter our understanding of reality. Although not always stated explicitly, their underlying suggestion is that UFOs could be advanced technology hidden from the public, possibly of extraterrestrial origin. Skeptics, on the other hand, contend that the explanations are far more mundane, rooted in misidentified natural and man-made occurrences.

As a skeptic, I find debates about UFOs frustrating due to the inherent difficulty of definitively resolving each individual sighting. The volume of reported sightings alone—over 180,000 since 1974, according to the National UFO Reporting Center—creates a persistent reservoir of cases for believers to draw from. While most of these reports are isolated incidents supported by scant evidence beyond personal testimony, some are accompanied by photographs or videos—though these are almost always of low quality. Curiously, we never seem to obtain a high-resolution image of an alien spacecraft. One might assume that the lack of clear evidence would weaken UFO believers' confidence, but paradoxically, the absence of conclusive proof only fuels their imagination, allowing them to fill the gaps with wild theories.

UFO enthusiasts who have fully immersed themselves in the subject can cite examples in impressive detail. As with other far-fetched beliefs and conspiracy theories, an asymmetry exists: hardcore believers tend to be more knowledgeable about specific cases due to their fascination with the topic, whereas skeptics generally do not see value in becoming experts on something they view as dubious. Unless a skeptic is willing to match a true believer’s level of research and spend hours investigating each claim, the UFO believer will often appear more prepared in a debate. They can reference obscure cases that the skeptic is unfamiliar with and thus unable to directly refute. Moreover, the sheer number of unresolved sightings ensures that some cases will remain mysterious—no matter how thoroughly they are investigated. However, while it may be unsatisfying to admit 'I don't know' in such a debate, it is an unwarranted leap to conclude that UFOs must therefore be extraterrestrial spacecraft or hidden advanced technology. But UFO proponents set their evidentiary bar so high that unless skeptics can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what caused each sighting, they persist in believing their preferred explanations.

This is an unreasonable standard. To illustrate, consider magic tricks. A skilled magician can create illusions that seem to defy the laws of physics—causing objects to disappear and reappear, teleporting items, reading minds, and more. Witnessing a magician’s performance can be a mind-blowing experience, and yet we know their feats are achieved though clever, but ultimately ordinary, trickery. But suppose someone refused to accept this and instead believed magic had a paranormal basis. In a debate, such a person could cite numerous examples of astonishing tricks that are difficult to explain. Even magicians themselves might struggle to immediately deconstruct tricks performed by their peers. I, for one, would be unable to adequately explain every trick I’ve seen. My best rebuttal would be to appeal to the general techniques magicians use: sleight of hand, misdirection, various props and gimmicks, the power of suggestion, etc. While I may not be able to describe how every trick is done, I am confident that these techniques are at play. Yet to the magic believer, such a general explanation might seem insufficient. Unless every trick is explained in full detail, they might remain convinced of their supernatural hypothesis.

Similarly, in the UFO debate, while I cannot definitively explain every sighting, I can appeal to general explanations for the phenomenon. Whenever a UFO report has been resolved—when it has been identified—it always turns out to be something ordinary or well understood. Typically, these objects are aircraft, drones, birds, balloons, flares, or celestial bodies like stars or planets. Optical illusions caused by parallax or camera movement can make objects appear to hover in place, travel at impossible speeds, or dart erratically. Equipment such as radars and odometers can malfunction, falsely detecting objects or miscalculating their speed and movement. Mirages, such as Fata Morganas, can distort how objects on the horizon appear. In some cases, no actual object exists—camera artifacts create the illusion of something present. And occasionally, UFO reports result from deliberate hoaxes, where individuals doctor images or fabricate claims.

Adding to the confusion is the social hysteria aspect of the UFO phenomenon. Whenever a sighting gains widespread media attention or is discussed in a congressional hearing, public fascination spikes, leading to a wave of new reports. This is known as a “UFO flap,” a surge of sightings concentrated in a particular geographic area. When a UFO flap occurs, people who otherwise would not have been looking skyward begin doing so, primed to interpret any unusual light or object as extraordinary. Others may exacerbate the situation by launching drones or balloons outfitted with unusual lighting as pranks. This generates further media coverage, fueling a feedback loop of heightened interest and new reports, ultimately culminating in mass excitement over what is, in reality, nothing remarkable.

When faced with an unresolved UFO case, I think it is reasonable to default to well-documented explanations rather than leap to conclusions about aliens or secret government technology. The principles of Bayesian reasoning suggest that when evaluating the likelihood of an event, we should weigh prior probabilities. Since every UFO case that has been conclusively identified has turned out to have an ordinary explanation—whether a misidentified aircraft or a celestial body—we should assign a high probability to these causes in future sightings. In contrast, the hypothesis of alien visitation remains unproven and speculative, so it should be treated with skepticism and require extraordinary evidence before it is taken seriously. UFO enthusiasts counter by claiming that in their cited cases, all of the standard explanations have been ruled out. However, this resembles the magic believer who insists they were paying close attention and are certain no sleight of hand was involved. Perhaps their certainty exceeds their perceptiveness.

In conclusion, I remain unconvinced that UFOs warrant the level of attention they receive. While some cases may remain unresolved, I see no persuasive reason to believe they represent super-advanced technology or alien spacecraft. Ultimately, my disagreement with UFO enthusiasts stems from our contrasting responses to uncertainty: I am content to default to conventional explanations with strong prior probabilities, while they feel inclined to bridge the gaps with elaborate, often outlandish theories. While others may be awestruck by blurry dots on grainy footage, I remain unimpressed and wish this topic would fade from public discourse until compelling, high-quality evidence emerges.