Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[Rramjet]

Project Blue Book - Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14

I am still trying to find a copy of the actual report...anyone know where I can do that? This synopsis seems to be ubiquitous (all over the web)... Just type in "Blue Book Special Report No. 14" into your search engine and you will see...) so lets place it here too for your convenience seing as I am banging on about it so much

Project Blue Book - Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14
In late December 1951, Ruppelt met with members of the Battelle Memorial Institute, a think tank based in Columbus, Ohio, near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Ruppelt wanted their experts to assist them in making the Air Force UFO study more scientific. It was the Battelle Institute that devised the standardized reporting form. Starting in late March 1952, the Institute started analyzing existing sighting reports and encoding about 30 report characteristics onto IBM punch cards for computer analysis.
Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was their massive statistical analysis of Blue Book cases to date, some 3200 by the time the report was completed in 1954. Even today, it represents the largest such study ever undertaken. Battelle employed four scientific analysts, who sought to divide cases into "knowns," "unknowns," and a third category of "insufficient information." They also broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. E.g., cases deemed excellent might typically involve experienced witnesses such as airline pilots or trained military personnel, multiple witnesses, corroborating evidence such as radar contact or photographs, etc. In order for a case to be deemed a "known," only two analysts had to independently agree on a solution. However, for a case to be called an "unknown," all four analysts had to agree. Thus the criterion for an "unknown" was quite stringent.
In addition, sightings were broken down into six different characteristics--color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed--and then these characteristics were compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically signficant difference.
The main results of the statistical analysis were:

• About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified; about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown," down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies, but still a very large fraction of the cases.
• In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations. Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases. A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.
• The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified unknown. 35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, whereas only 18% of the poorest cases. This was the exact opposite result predicted by skeptics, who usually argued unknowns were poorer quality cases involving unreliable witnesses that could be solved if only better information were available.
• In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.​

Despite this, the summary section of the Battelle Institute's final report declared it was "highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge." A number of researchers, including Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who extensively reviewed the data, have noted that the conclusions of the analysts were usually at odds with their own statistical results, displayed in 240 charts, tables, graphs and maps. Some conjecture that the analysts may simply have had trouble accepting their own results or may have written the conclusions to satisfy the new political climate within Blue Book following the Robertson Panel.
When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. Critics of this claim note that the report actually proved that the "unknowns" were distinctly different from the "knowns" at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%. They further claimed that the residual 3% would probably disappear if more complete data were available. Critics counter that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information," whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination. Also the "unknowns" tended to represent the higher quality cases, i.e. reports that already had better information and witnesses.
The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, "These cases ... pose a real question." (Randles and Houghe, 202)

 

[lionking]

Late to this thread, but Rramjet, do you think that skeptics do not want to see actual proof of aliens? I don't know one who would not be personally thrilled with aliens existing (well until the anal probing part).

So far the evidence sucks.

 

[makaya325]

What is surprising that one of the biggest group of woo's, specifically religions, would go crazy if alien life was ever discovered. (Remember, they wanted "God" to waste all of that space for earth)

 

[arthwollipot]

Many many different things. No one explanation can possibly cover all circumstances. Some reports may be delusion. Some may be misidentifications of terrestrial phenomena. Some may be optical illusions. Some may be aircraft. Some may be something else.

To conclude that any given sighting is of an extraterrestrial spaceship, one would have to rule out all other possibilities. Since we can't do that, we can't make that conclusion.

I agree entirely arthwollipot. You are right on the money here.

Then what the hell are we arguing about?

UFOs exist. To deny it is to deny the bleeding obvious. But then… there is a whole industry of vested interests built on the “denial” process and its momentum is very hard to sway. All I am asking is that you look with a critical eye and an open mind at the evidence.

The difference is that "we" have come to a conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to conclude aliens. You still seem to be accepting that possibility. And that's fair enough - so long as you don't either:

1. Conclude that the lack of evidence is itself evidence of aliens

or

2. Claim that there actually is evidence of aliens.

Both of these claims are factually untrue. The first on logical grounds, and the second because it's just plain wrong.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ummm... I am not sure of the relevance here. Do you intend to propose a link between "Lake Monsters" and UFO reports? If so you must provide evidence of that link. Otherwise you are just waving in the breeze my friend.

Deliberate deflection from you Rramjet?

You asked how or why witness statements were unreliable didn't you?

This is just one of many pointers to the fact they are unreliable... The subject matter doesn't really come into it. But if you need further proof that people aren't accurate with reporting what they see, another more relevant case has already been mentioned on the previous page, with the woman at Seti who reported the moon as a UFO.

As to the matter of if any particular eye witness is more reliable than another... I've no idea what information you would take into account to provide evidence that your assertion is true. As there is no one (that I am aware of) who is immune from any of the possible reasons for inaccuracy in observation and reporting.

 

[Rramjet]

Late to this thread, but Rramjet, do you think that skeptics do not want to see actual proof of aliens? I don't know one who would not be personally thrilled with aliens existing (well until the anal probing part).

So far the evidence sucks.

Well, I believe many people do fear the concept of alien visitation and actively refuse to look at possible evidence. I think the thought of humanity losing its independence is a big part of that (look at what happens to indigenous cultures when “discovered” by “westernised” cultures) – and I really don’t think that “anal probing” is to be found anywhere in the UFO eyewitness testimony. That is just some “woo” nonsense, invented as a derisory remark, aimed at ridiculing abduction cases, and that now seems to have passed into some sort of realm of quasi-truth judging by your use of the throwaway line…

The “evidence” does not exactly “suck” as you put it. There is strong evidence that something is occurring that is outside our “common” conception or reality. The problem is we do not have any firm theoretical basis to conclude just what that might be. This is because there has been a lack of a concerted research effort aimed at exposing just what is going on here. The odd study (of often dubious motivation) that has been conducted does not constitute a “research program”. Look how long it has taken the science of physics, or biology, etc to develop the theories we have today, even after hundreds of years and millions of man hours we still have contentious theories and consider we are still a long way from an exposition of the whole. Yet those UFO studies that HAVE been conducted invariably point out that there are inexplicable things that need further research.

Then what the hell are we arguing about?

The difference is that "we" have come to a conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to conclude aliens. You still seem to be accepting that possibility. And that's fair enough - so long as you don't either:

1. Conclude that the lack of evidence is itself evidence of aliens

or

2. Claim that there actually is evidence of aliens.

Both of these claims are factually untrue. The first on logical grounds, and the second because it's just plain wrong.

Actually, I also agree the evidence is insufficient to conclude alien visitation. Nothing I have written could possibly lead you to conclude otherwise because at EVERY turn in EVERY post I have explicitly ruled out the drawing of ANY conclusions from the “evidence”. Therefore you must simply see my posts through the lens of “woo” under some sort of generalised “believer” light and so assign to them (and me) (false) meaning in that context. THIS is an example of what I mean by the uncritical thought processes prevalent in this forum. I actually gave you a rap in another thread arthwollipot, stating you were the closest I had met to a critical thinker in the JREF forums, but I also noted you still were labouring under some fundamentalist assumptions… see how I was right?

AND THAT is why we are still arguing. You (and others) keep making illogical, uncritical, antirational statements about me and about UFO reports – not realising that all the while I just might happen to agree with your conclusions on the matter. I am interested in promoting critical and logical thought processes and while I see the opposite is propagated I will stand up against it WHEREVER it happens to be.

Deliberate deflection from you Rramjet?

No, this is a UFO thread, not a lake monster thread. And even if it were not, my questions to you remain legitimate. You brought “Lake Monsters” into this. I was merely responding.

You asked how or why witness statements were unreliable didn't you?

BUT you have not answered my question. WHAT have lake monster reports to do with UFO reports (do people mistake otters in the sky for UFOs for example? – for that is what you seem to imply)

This is just one of many pointers to the fact they are unreliable... The subject matter doesn't really come into it.

Oh but it does! Please don’t make me go into a lengthy exposition on WHY it does… just tell me that you get my point…please… think critically about your statement for a minute, that's all I ask.

But if you need further proof that people aren't accurate with reporting what they see, another more relevant case has already been mentioned on the previous page, with the woman at Seti who reported the moon as a UFO.

But you can provide a MILLION explained UFO reports and that would not alter the fact that merely ONE counterexample from me would be enough destroy your whole contention. That’s science Stray Cat AND logic: How many times now do I have to write …

I have only seen black crows, therefore all crows are black is FALLACIOUS before someone gets the point. AND this is just logic 101 - let alone some of the more convoluted fallacies propagated throughout JREF - that must wait until the basics settle in (like the one above that I pleaded with you to “get” without my having to explain it).

As to the matter of if any particular eye witness is more reliable than another... I've no idea what information you would take into account to provide evidence that your assertion is true. As there is no one (that I am aware of) who is immune from any of the possible reasons for inaccuracy in observation and reporting.

Ughh - so you reject all observational testimony of all scientist, including Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc… just because humans are fallible observers? It just does NOT make sense Stray Cat. Please… I wish I could teach you guys Logic 101 in a single post, but that is a whole course and there is not enough space. Currently I am having to point out the SAME fallacies made by the SAME people over and over… I am optimistic that one day the penny will drop and we can move on.

I get the feeling that nobody actually READS my posts, but then again I am optimistic that when the penny drops, some might go back and do just that.

 

[King of the Americas]

What is surprising that one of the biggest group of woo's, specifically religions, would go crazy if alien life was ever discovered. (Remember, they wanted "God" to waste all of that space for earth)

What if "God", isn't omni-anything...

...and is/are merely "god(s)" instead?

They are merely a 'little more evolved' than us, they're not THE creator/first mover of all things- "God".

Religion's problem is simply over capitalization.

 

[Stray Cat]

No, this is a UFO thread, not a lake monster thread. And even if it were not, my questions to you remain legitimate. You brought “Lake Monsters” into this. I was merely responding.

The point was about the accuracy of eye witness accounts, which you are fully aware. The focus is on the eye witness at this point (the human observer), what they are witnessing is irrelevant.

BUT you have not answered my question. WHAT have lake monster reports to do with UFO reports (do people mistake otters in the sky for UFOs for example? – for that is what you seem to imply)

Strawman and not even a subtle one.

Oh but it does! Please don’t make me go into a lengthy exposition on WHY it does… just tell me that you get my point…please… think critically about your statement for a minute, that's all I ask.

As you will be fully aware, there MANY cases where eye witness reports of UFO's have been conclusively shown to be inaccurate... So NO, I don't get your point.

But you can provide a MILLION explained UFO reports and that would not alter the fact that merely ONE counterexample from me would be enough destroy your whole contention. That’s science Stray Cat AND logic: How many times now do I have to write …

Why?
I'm not saying that all eye witness account are inaccurate, only that we KNOW that they can't ever be safely 'accepted' without other validation from another source. But again your deflection from the fact that I just provided an example of why (directly related to UFO's) witnesses can't be solely relied upon didn't go unnoticed.

I have only seen black crows, therefore all crows are black is FALLACIOUS before someone gets the point. AND this is just logic 101 - let alone some of the more convoluted fallacies propagated throughout JREF - that must wait until the basics settle in (like the one above that I pleaded with you to “get” without my having to explain it).

There is also no need to assume that any white bird you see is a crow though is there? Unless you can back up the claim with corroborating evidence. And just because someone gives an eye witness account of seeing a white crow, doesn't mean it is accurate.

Ughh - so you reject all observational testimony of all scientist, including Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc… just because humans are fallible observers? It just does NOT make sense Stray Cat.

Using your own method: Did Galileo, Darwin, Einstein see UFO's?
What has this got to do with what we are talking about?
The point you seem to missing is that Galileo's, Darwin's and Einstein's observations were all corroborated by other sources, all testable and though not all 100% accurate at that time, the information gleaned from their observations has been taken by others and worked with and expanded and improved. The world of UFOlogy is firmly stuck in the 60's and has learned nothing from past mistakes.

Please… I wish I could teach you guys Logic 101 in a single post, but that is a whole course and there is not enough space. Currently I am having to point out the SAME fallacies made by the SAME people over and over… I am optimistic that one day the penny will drop and we can move on.

I agree that fundamentalist scepticism is as dangerous as fundamentalist wooism. Logic doesn't come into either position, but the majority of people on this forum mostly make very good arguments, using an informed viewpoint. All in this thread have openly admitted that the UNEXPLAINED part of UFO is simply that "unexplained"... Their veiwpoint has been reached in most cases I'm quite sure in the same way mine has by actually researching the evidence instead of taking everything at the face value it is presented as by UFOlogists, who's agenda isn't usually to explain that there are unexplained sightings of aerial phenomena, but to promote the idea that these sightings are alien in origin... for which there is no evidence. The evidence to show how many people were mistaken in one of the many ways people can be mistaken (honest misidentifiaction or dishonest misidentification) far out weighs anything that has been reported as alien craft, bringing me back the point of not being able to accept eye witness accounts as evidence without further sources of corroboration.

I get the feeling that nobody actually READS my posts, but then again I am optimistic that when the penny drops, some might go back and do just that.

Usually it's the people who don't/can't explain themselves properly that are misunderstood... But although I think I broadly understand (and to an extent) agree with your POV, I see some of your arguments as false.

 

[jakesteele]

Rramjet, I’m going to make some suggestions to try to help you out a bit because you are experiencing a classical debunker trait; Rat Packing or Piling On. You are also experiencing the typical “anecdotal rejection” syndrome; theirs counts but yours doesn’t. On your side of the anecdotal fence you have many highly qualified military/commercial pilots, radar people, etc. But none of those count, because they are all wrong. They are either innocently mistaken, lying or deluded.

But on their side of the fence you have things like the two amateur astronomers in the Phoenix Lights who ‘allege’ that they saw planes. Debunkers consider that golden and beyond reproach.

Another example is Jimmy Carter, who ‘alleged’ he saw a UFO. Debunkers labeled him woo until he recanted and said he saw Venus. Then he became golden.

If you take 100 people who witness a UFO sighting and 99 say it was a for real UFO and 1 person says it was a weather balloon, then in the debunker’s mind the 1 is right, proof positive, and the 99 are either woos, innocently mistaken or deluded, etc.

Here is link that is a list of “possible” UFO explanations compiled by Donald Menzel, a noted debunker of the 50s and 60s. They fall under the below listed main headings. Each heading has a number of variations on the same theme, but they’re too numerous to list here. For the complete list go to:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

A. MATERIAL OBJECTS
B. IMMATERIAL OBJECTS
C. ASTRONOMICAL
D. PHYSIOLOGICAL
E PSYCHOLOGICAL
F COMBINATIONS AND SPECIAL EFFECTS
G PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS
H RADAR
I HOAXES

My personal favorites that are embedded in the list include the following. I’m having them bronzed so I can prominently display them on my mantle.

*paper and other debris
*leaves
*insects
swarms
*moths
*seeds
milkweed, etc.
*feathers
*tumbleweeds
*spider webs
*matches
*smoker lighting pipe
*cigarettes tossed away
*ghost of the Brocken (I don’t know what that is, but it sounds pretty cool. Kind of like one of those low budget movies you see on The SyFy channel)

You are fighting a valiant battle, but you need to keep in mind that there are several Laws of Debunkery that to a debunker are like the Commandments carved on a stone tablet. In their minds these laws are immutable, the unchanging and everlasting truth.

The first one you are encountering is:

the Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

The next one is:

the Law of the “Official Story” – The Official Story is always right. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then by God, it was; proof positive, case closed.

The next one is:

the Law of Forced/plausibles – Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit, it fits.
It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right. It is the antithesis of Ocaam’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)

For a classical example of this and for a good belly laugh, go to this site. It is a History Channel special on Human Levitation. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU
Go to the 1:15 mark and hear Shamless Joe Nickell give the most ridiculous, ludicrous
pathetic attempt of a Forced Plausible I’ve ever seen. Any debunker worth his salt would denounce him tell him to get out of town.

Personally, if I was you, I would pick out two, maybe three posters that are the main ones, and only respond to them so as to cut down on the overwhelm. This will enable you to keep focus on your viewpoint. Make your replies shorter so as to lessen the diffusion factor. If someone you are not replying to gets pissed, tell them to PM the main ones and submit their questions to them.

As an aside, I am donating these slogans to Randi so he can make bumper stickers and sell them to his loyal constituents for a profit.

since a thing can be faked, it must be a fake

I am always right because I’m a debunker; and I’m a debunker because I’m always right”

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

It cannot be, therefore, it is not



Good luck to you

 

[Tumbleweed]

Beats me given their clever disguises and catch 22 evidence they deploy to snickerdly avoid detection. Being inquisitive, I just wanna know how the hell they got here! Worm holes or what?

 

[Stray Cat]

Rramjet, I’m going to make some suggestions to try to help you out a bit because you are experiencing a classical debunker trait; Rat Packing or Piling On. You are also experiencing the typical “anecdotal rejection” syndrome; theirs counts but yours doesn’t. On your side of the anecdotal fence you have many highly qualified military/commercial pilots, radar people, etc. But none of those count, because they are all wrong. They are either innocently mistaken, lying or deluded.

Anecdotal evidence when backed up by physical evidence or corroborated in some other way is completely different from the kinds of vague eye witness reports that are quite rightly noted but not relied upon by good researchers.

But on their side of the fence you have things like the two amateur astronomers in the Phoenix Lights who ‘allege’ that they saw planes. Debunkers consider that golden and beyond reproach.

The accounts were backed up by the sightings of the the squadron of Snowbirds all the way from Vegas down to Phoenix. Traveling at the speed of planes and following the flight path a squadron of planes would take.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, (...) Good luck to you

Jakesteele...

What can I say… you summed it all up perfectly.

There are some other “Laws” I would like to add:

The Law of Endless Repetition: This is a simple matter of ignoring whatever your opponent has to say and to repeat your fallacious contention over and over, no matter what, until your opponent becomes frustrated and hopefully makes an unwise or otherwise ill-considered move, or simply becomes sick of your implacable obtuseness and goes away.

The Law of the Sweeping Generalisation: Use sweeping generalisations wherever possible. For your opponent to point out the fallacy of such statements will force them to use many precious resources, in hours of research and many pages of text to explore and dispel the many unfounded assumptions and misconceptions contained in that single throwaway line. You on the other hand have wasted no resources, merely a single line of text and no research necessary.

The Law of the Rational Opponent: As a debunker, you realise that your opponent is committed to logic and rationality and thus cannot use any of your own tactics against you. This confers an enormous advantage to you. You can use charlatanism and legerdemain with impunity, knowing your opponent cannot.

The Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then). This has a twofold effect. First it distracts and frustrates the questioner from their original line of attack, hopefully permanently and second, it forces them to open another front to deal with the new fallacy you have just thrown into the battle – thus putting them on the defensive and dispersing their resources, hopefully into ineffectualness.

The Law of Transposed Sin: Illegitimately accuse your opponent of own sins, then let them try to justify themselves. This immediately turns attack into defence. It deflects attention away from you and works particularly well if you get the accusation in before your opponent realises you are not here to engage in a logical debate. For your opponent to then turn around and legitimately accuse you of those very same sins they will seem at the very least churlish and will also be deemed not to have denied the accusation.

There are no doubt other “Laws” that could be formulated in this way but suddenly we run into the problem pointed out in the Law of the Sweeping generalisation. I have suddenly used a great deal of resources and time and there is suddenly a great deal of text on the page… in addition to your own, all because some idiot states “UFO reports are not evidence and besides, they are not reliable, show me proof that it is not otherwise”.

And of course an answer to that could fill a book and still not be finished dealing with all the unfounded assumptions and logical misconceptions implied.
I will therefore now try to be more succinct in providing the evidence for UFOs:

Blue Book Special Report No. 14. Results:

• About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified; about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown," down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies, but still a very large fraction of the cases.
• In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations. Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases. A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.
• The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified unknown. 35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, whereas only 18% of the poorest cases. This was the exact opposite result predicted by skeptics, who usually argued unknowns were poorer quality cases involving unreliable witnesses that could be solved if only better information were available.
• In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.​

Point 1: This was a research study conducted under the strictest of scientific conditions by qualified experts – as such the results may be considered conservative (ie; erring on the side of caution)

Point 2: There are three broad categories of report: Known, Insufficient information and Unknown.

Point 3: To quote from Dr. J. A. Hynek (The Hynek UFO Report, 1978)

“Next they dealt with observer credibility and the self-consistency of the report itself, that is, the absence of contradictions within the report and its general consistency part by part. The observers were rated in a complex way according to age, training, “attitude”, fact-reporting ability, occupation, etc. Reports were then subdivided into Excellent, Good, Doubtful, and Poor (remember that almost 800 of the poorest had already been eliminated from further consideration). (p.275)

“ It is especially important to note the great care that was taken, especially with “Unknowns” because Battelle’s results in this particular category brought some interesting information to light. One would intuitively expect that more “Unknowns” would be generated by the less reliable observers, and that, therefore, we should find the highest percentage of “Unknowns” among the Doubtful or Poor reports. (Condon and others had indeed indicated that unexplained sightings came invariably from poor observers.)

Quite the opposite proved to be the case: out of 970 Excellent- and Good-rated reports, 259, or 27 percent were classified “Unknown”. But out of 1,229 Doubtful – and Poor-rated reports, 175 or 14 percent were classified “Unknown”. (pp. 276-277)

“The Battelle study further differentiated between military observers and civilians and found nearly 38 percent of the Excellent reports turned in by military observers were “Unknowns” while only 21 percent of the military reports rated Poor were unknown.” (p.277)

“More simply stated, the most reliable reports contained about twice as many “Unknowns” as did the poorer reports! This surprising and significant result was nowhere mentioned in the report conclusions or in later press releases. It WAS buried in the report itself, but how many reporters and media people bothered to dig it out? None to my knowledge. (p. 277)​

Point 4: The more reliable the observer, the greater percentage of “Unknowns”. The implications are far reaching. Implicit is that we are probably vastly underestimating the number of “Unknown” reports and overestimating the number of “Known”. Researchers, because of their implicit caution, are allowing the “debunkers’ to hijack the statistics.

Point 5: While it might surprise people to discover the “true” statistical picture, we still cannot conclude ET visitation.

Point 6: Serious research is needed.

 

[mike3]

Does anybody on this site think/believe/know if there have been ETs that have visited Earth? If not, do you think that all of the reports/photos, etc. have plausible explanations, even the ones that can't be explained due to a lack of data?

To be fair, I will go on record as saying that I think there is a more probable than not possibility that there were or are.

It is possible, I'd think, that life could exist elsewhere in the universe. As for visiting Earth, there's no good evidence or proof yet.

Now onto UFOs. UFOs are just that: Unidentified Flying Objects. An object that is not in contact with the ground and which you can't identify. Most will often turn out, with research, to be ordinary objects. If eventually identified, a UFO becomes an "IFO", an identified flying object, and is usually referred to afterward by what it has been identified as. Some cases are still unknown. Does this equal an alien spacecraft? No, it equals unknown. Maybe it's a strange natural phenomenon instead. Maybe it is still something "known" but not to the researcher who tested it. And so on. Of course that doesn't mean it CAN'T be an alien spacecraft either, but one would need strong evidence to back such a claim up.

 

[shandyjan]

To say my flabber is gasted would be an understatement. See I said the word ingenuous once tonight already. But it applies to this post, I see you flail against all the things you do while projecting it on others. I call troll, liar or serious delusion is at play somewhere in these threads. I see it with my own eyes.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually, I also agree the evidence is insufficient to conclude alien visitation. Nothing I have written could possibly lead you to conclude otherwise because at EVERY turn in EVERY post I have explicitly ruled out the drawing of ANY conclusions from the “evidence”.

Okay, I'm going to go back now to your very first post in this thread:

Bottom line?
UFOs exist.
THAT much we DO know.
What we DON'T know is the full explanation.
Sure we can apply post hoc rationalisation and call them misperceptions or hoaxes, or mis-rememberings, etc.,
However, even after we do this using rigorous scientific, critical and logical methodology, there REMAIN cases outstanding for which we have no explanation.
That is the bottom line.
It is up to researchers to discover what is going on to cause (for example) the abduction phenomena.

This is where the substantive part of your post leaves off. The rest is simply railing against debunkers and their methods.

Your very first post assumes that there are "abduction phenomena" when in fact, no such claims have ever been substantiated. You are moving from a very rational position of "we don't know" to "needs more investigation" to "abduction phenomena are real".

You're falling into the "just asking questions" tactic, Roger. Sure, you're not providing any answers but you are leaving no-one in any doubt about what answer you have come to.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that any UFO reports have a nonterrestrial origin. We have no reason to assume that any still-unexplained instances are substantively different from instances that have been explained.

 

[Rramjet]

Okay, I'm going to go back now to your very first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Bottom line?
UFOs exist.
THAT much we DO know.
What we DON'T know is the full explanation.
Sure we can apply post hoc rationalisation and call them misperceptions or hoaxes, or mis-rememberings, etc.,
However, even after we do this using rigorous scientific, critical and logical methodology, there REMAIN cases outstanding for which we have no explanation.
That is the bottom line.
It is up to researchers to discover what is going on to cause (for example) the abduction phenomena.

(...)

Your very first post assumes that there are "abduction phenomena" when in fact, no such claims have ever been substantiated. You are moving from a very rational position of "we don't know" to "needs more investigation" to "abduction phenomena are real"..

Umm, no, you are again reading things into my statements from the perspective of your own personal bias. That there IS an “abduction phenomenon” is obvious – people report being “abducted”. That’s it. That’s the phenomenon. What we DON’T have is a properly constituted scientific theory as to WHY there is an abduction phenomenon (people reporting they were abducted by “aliens”). Again I reiterate: I draw NO conclusions from the existence of that phenomenon.

You're falling into the "just asking questions" tactic, Roger. Sure, you're not providing any answers but you are leaving no-one in any doubt about what answer you have come to.

I hope it is that “We can draw no conclusions on the evidence as it stands”. I don’t know how to put it any more succinctly. It is something I have repeated in EVERY post. You even cited my first post as an example of something opposite and yet …THERE are the words right there in plain English: “ … there REMAIN cases for which we have NO EXPLANATION” (emphasis added). What more do you want?

…and “just asking questions”? OMG! If I ask questions it is because I want answers! Are you seriously contending that if I ask a question it is somehow not legitimate? How about trying to ANSWER some of those questions?

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that any UFO reports have a nonterrestrial origin. We have no reason to assume that any still-unexplained instances are substantively different from instances that have been explained.

Have you READ my previous post? THERE is the evidence that proves your contention wrong. A strictly scientific research result that proves you wrong. You people really crack me up.

You are like a blind person telling sighted people that “vision” is just not possible. Pure Humbug!

I can see however you are adept at deliberatively applying the "Laws" of debunking jacksteele and myself have described above. Don't imagine I don't see an element of that in what you are trying to do here You can't possibly be as obtuse as your post makes you out to be...

 

[Marduk]

Have you READ my previous post? THERE is the evidence that proves your contention wrong. A strictly scientific research result that proves you wrong. You people really crack me up.

I read it, how many times do I need to read it over and over before I start to see a totally non committal set of statistics used to prove something which has no supporting evidence

 

[jakesteele]

Stray Cat;5146645]Anecdotal evidence when backed up by physical evidence or corroborated in some other way is completely different from the kinds of vague eye witness reports that are quite rightly noted but not relied upon by good researchers.

What about eye witness accounts that aren't vague, like group sightings?

The accounts were backed up by the sightings of the the squadron of Snowbirds all the way from Vegas down to Phoenix. Traveling at the speed of planes and following the flight path a squadron of planes would take.

Did these Snowbirds first start off in Henderson, Nevada where the first sightings took place?

 

[jakesteele]

It is possible, I'd think, that life could exist elsewhere in the universe. As for visiting Earth, there's no good evidence or proof yet.

Now onto UFOs. UFOs are just that: Unidentified Flying Objects. An object that is not in contact with the ground and which you can't identify. Most will often turn out, with research, to be ordinary objects. If eventually identified, a UFO becomes an "IFO", an identified flying object, and is usually referred to afterward by what it has been identified as. Some cases are still unknown. Does this equal an alien spacecraft? No, it equals unknown. Maybe it's a strange natural phenomenon instead. Maybe it is still something "known" but not to the researcher who tested it. And so on. Of course that doesn't mean it CAN'T be an alien spacecraft either, but one would need strong evidence to back such a claim up.

I agree with your statement. That's the take of a true skeptic vs a debunker.

 

[Stray Cat]

What about eye witness accounts that aren't vague, like group sightings?

Each eye witness testimony should be treated individually, but yes, of course if more than one person sees and reports the same thing, it gives it more credibility. But if one person reports one thing and some one else reports something else, the best you can say is that they saw something, with no way of telling who was being accurate.

Did these Snowbirds first start off in Henderson, Nevada where the first sightings took place?

Henderson, Las Vegas yes. If Henderson isn't actually a part of Vegas I apologise, I always see it as a suburb of Vegas.