UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Nonpareil]

Can I check I'm understanding this right: Rramjet acknowledges that none of the "evidence" is convincing, but the sheer amount of unconvincing anecdote somehow turns it into proof?

Yep. You got it.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

The drawings are "vague"? Have you even looked at the report? The drawings are particularly precise actually.

You are correct. The drawings are very precise. I have seen them, and I agree with you that they are precise. They also look precisely like a blimp.

A.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You are also confusing "alien" with "ET" - there is a difference.

Which is... what exactly?

 

[Rramjet]

And exactly what are your judgements?

I'm losing patience here, Roger. This question has been asked of you many times, in a number of ways, in several different threads: What are you trying to convince us of?

StevenCalder has got it closest.

My object is to try and point out, using evidence, that the misperception and hoax explanations for UFOs just don’t explain what is going on at all. More: That we do not know what IS going on, thus the ET hypothesis is also mistaken.

Mundane?
No. I believe we do have enough evidence to say with some confidence that this does explain it all.
ET?
We have no evidence to conclude that.
What then?
We need a concerted, peer-reviewed, scientific research program.

First and more of a comment, the early UFO history information is weak evidence.

But still evidence nevertheless. Not proof certainly, but still suggestive and certainly pointing to the fact that this phenomenon is a truly historical one. It has been with us for as long as historical records have been kept.

Which brings me to my second point about the links. They are, overwhelmingly, eye witness accounts.

Yes, but not all, there are multiple witness accounts, photos, videos, radar, physical trace evidence cases…they all ADD up.

In most cases, the person isn't lying, but does not have an accurate assessment of what they saw. Even expert witnesses are often unqualified to identify an object, particularly when exposed to the object for a brief period of time. Eye witnesses are further subjected to a kind of group mentality…

But this is just the debunker line parroted again as an article of faith.
How CAN you be the judge of whether what a person reported was an accurate description of what was observed?
“Unqualified” does not mean the witness cannot accurately describe what they saw. “Brief periods of time”? But this does not stack up against all the cases that occurred of lengthy periods of time.
“Group mentality”? If you actually read the reports these people are often traumatised by what has happened to them. They wish it never occurred. They are not following the herd at all. They experience something and it affects them deeply. Individually. Personally.

Third, there is an absence of citations for many of these articles you have linked.

Well, most actually DO have citations.

A good example of this is the very first link in the "reference" section.

Yes, I addressed that above, but what of the pictorial representations in the second two links? The evidence needs to be taken as a whole. Cherry picking examples that suit your purpose, while ignoring others that do not is disingenuous.

If the government denies that there was a UFO, those that believe there was a UFO will call this a cover up.

Actually, I chose the links because they (mostly) provided the reports of the eyewitnesses before (or within) any discussion. It is the REPORTS I am interested in. The discussions you take with a grain of salt.

Rather, I'd recommend removing the events that do not contain physical evidence, finding better cited articles for these links, and then focusing on discussing these events. Additionally, the links with the photos should be grouped with the appropriate event, not left at the end for the reader to sort through.

Yes, that would be one way of doing it. I suggested (and some agreement was reached) that we discuss just one case for now…the Rogue River Case…but wouldn’t you know it…the link has gone down! I would at this point tear my hair in frustration, but…what can I do…I am sure it will be back up soon…

If "weight of evidence" was enough to convince me of something I would be convinced of the validity of dowsing, telepathy, ghosts, homeopathy, psychic abilities, etc etc. There is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence for all of them, including hundreds of eye witness accounts. Sceptics point out that there are mundane explanations for all of it, believers counter that "just because the explanation could be mundane that doesn't prove it [/i]is[/i] mundane. There is so much evidence, there must be something to it".

But you list together phenomena that MAY also be PART of the picture of “reality” that we are “missing”. Nevertheless I know homeopathy has scientifically been proven to be pretty much unworkable on the evidence of studies conducted. But as for the rest…who really knows? …I suggest we keep an open mind…but of course THAT is an unpopular stance. Keeping an open mind does not mean we must reject science, logic and rationality. There may be something to these phenomena, there may not. As yet there seems to be no decisive evidence either way…and THAT, I suggest, is telling in and of itself.

Fortunately in most cases there is a simple way to find out who is right: test the phenomena under conditions where mundane explanations are carefully and methodically excluded, and see if they still occur.

Well hooray! Some rational, scientific, critical thinking. I applaud you Pixel42. That is of course they way forward.

As everyone posting on this JREF forum knows, they never do.

But they DO…and the debunkers then deny that research as valid…They attack the researcher who posted his analysis of the Rogue River case for example…on what grounds is NEVER precisely outlined… it is always vague references to “Oh, but he is a believer…” or some such unfounded assertion.

We therefore conclude that all the "weight of evidence" is indeed due to the well known and well understood ways in which the perceptions of even intelligent, rational people can be fooled.

But here again is unfounded assertion not based on the evidence. WE UNDERSTAND how and when perception is likely to be “fooled” and we can take that into account when we examine the eyewitness testimony. We CAN look to see if any of the conditions are present that might cause a misperception. If those conditions are not present… then conclusions such as you have just reached are fallacious.

There are, however, cases where this method is difficult to apply - ghosts, for example, because ghost sightings are not predictable. So while we may strongly suspect that ghost sightings are also due to these same faulty perceptions, we cannot dismiss them with the same confidence that decades of methodical testing have given us when we dismiss claims of paranormal abilities.

You dismiss UFOs based on research into “ghosts” and “paranormal” abilities?

The precedent of all the other cases where "the weight of evidence" was proved to be misleading may justify a strong suspicion that the same is true here, but no definitive proof will ever be available.

This is merely another version of the “physics is dead” argument. How do you know “proof” will never be available.

You seem to have missed my question,

GeeMack, your persistence is admirable (if somewhat frustrating) considering I have answered your question innumerable times already…

Simply there has been no research study that I am aware of that has set out to answer your question. So my answer must be “No research has answered that question”. Can you point to any research project that has as its your question as its’ starting hypothesis? If you can I will look to see how they concluded and report back to you.

Your inference is repeated here in another of your typically smart-assed replies to Stray Cat...

I suddenly find myself disinclined to correspond with you further.

If you didn't want my opinion, why did you come here? I think the drawings are vague, and the reports are typical. Did you want me to give someone else's opinion?

Does anyone other than Bruce tout this incident and report on it?

Okay, sure, I can see your point and I apologise for any offence caused by my reply.

But at the same time I fund it hard to accept yours is an objective opinion in the face of the drawings as presented. They seem very precisely detailed. Perhaps you could point out to me exactly why you think the drawings a “vague”?

It IS contained within Blue Book SR14, but as far as I know, no-one else has researched the incident as Dr Maccabee has. Is that a problem? Someone has to be first after all.

Rramjet, please disprove the blimp hypothesis in the Rogue River case. You know, of course, that anecdotal evidence won't provide proof, right?

Okay, lets look at it rationally.
1. The AirForce investigated the case.
2. The conclusion they reached was (either) “kite” or “Airplane”.
3. The question MUST be asked: If it was a blimp, then why did they not say it was? Especially if, as you contend, blimps were common in the area… yet there is NO mention of blimps in the area by any of the investigating officers. All I require is a link or reference or anything that will show me that blimps were in fact in the area at that time.
4. The witnesses described speeds of a “jet plane. Does that suggest “blimp” to you?
5. Moreover, two of the five witnesses examine the object through binoculars and both those witnesses were variously described as “responsible” and “reliable”.
6. “Blimp” does not make sense, either rationally or on the evidence.

Just a week or so ago I asked about the Phoenix Lights on this skeptic site and others and I got surprisingly little, if no, good explanations for the entire chain of events which encompassed much more time and distance than just the more publicized PL scenario.

Here's the basic run down I came up with and the questions that arose for me that have as yet to be answered satisfactorily:


• There were two separate events – The first event starting in Prescott, Arizona at approx. 8:15pm and the much publicized Phoenix Lights event starting at approx. 10:00pm. In Phoenix.

(…)

Any help in areas or details I have missed or misstated would be greatly appreciated, especially a good explanation for the 1st event starting in Prescot.

Thanks.

Welcome and well posted. I would like to see explanations for the questions you have posed too!

I think this is a brilliant idea! Would you be so kind as to start with The Rogue River Sighting and present your view on what could've/should've been done differently in the investigation of the case in order for it to reach a more definitive conclusion?

Do you ever get the feeling that people here simply do NOT want to examine the evidence? They talk all around it, but never address it directly.

And yet this is exactly what you keep doing...
You are claiming that these UFO events actually amount to something when over and over they have been shown to be at the very most UNEXPLAINED. Which as we all know doesn't mean unexplainable.
Not a single one has EVER been conclusively explained by "the alien hypothesis" non have EVER been conclusively proven as Alien Space Craft. Mundane conclusion has NEVER been completely ruled out.

I merely claim, as I have done many times, that the “mundane” hypothesis simply does not cover all UFO sightings, nor CAN it when the evidence is examined.
I agree that the most we can then conclude is that the cases therefore are, as you say, Unexplained”.
But I DO go further.
“Unexplained” does not mean that there is simply a black hole into which all reseach and explanatory power must necessarily disappear. No, we have vivid descriptions of “things” that are extremely suggestive of, for example, “aliens”. BUT saying that we STILL cannot conclude ET – simply because we can imagine other scenarios that might explain the “presentation as if ET” but actually NOT ET.

The 'evidence' you post contains the extraordinary claims... without providing the extraordinary evidence to back any of them up.

Yes, some may claim away. It is up to us as rational, intelligent, critically minded people to ensure that unwarranted conclusions are NOT reached and to point out where such fallacious thinking has occurred.

Mine is a much more humanly based one that involves making a few extra dollars in retirement.

Yes of course, the “They are in it for the money” argument. I ask you then to examine the Rogue River case and tell me whether your contention holds true.

Hartman stated in the Condon Report that the possibility of a hoax couldn't be completely ruled out and indeed Sheaffer's later work managed to convince him that it was sensible not to completely rule out a hoax.

Ughh… I will get back to you with Hatmann’s quotes on the issue. You again resort to unfounded assertion. If you make such assertions you should provide the evidence that what you say is at least grounded in reality.

I don't believe the estimates of speed and size because it is impossible to tell speed and size... even to a trained observer

The first link point to an abstract that talks about “geometric angles” and “speed of rotation” – so THAT is not relevant.

The second link points to an article talking about “size perception based on monocular cues” – so THAT is not relevant (in Rogue River 5 sets of eyes and two of them using binoculars).

The third.. well let me quote the conclusions then…

“Three conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the observers were able to interpret the size change stimuli as moving in depth. Second, when making speed judgments, most observers can ignore the size change as long as it is not associated with an acceleration into depth (contracting stimulus in orthogonal speed experiment). Third, using a center-tracking strategy is the most efficient means to judge speed based on the retinal speed of the stimulus.”

So this is saying that people generally CAN discern speed. Which directly contradicts your assessment.

I have no idea what then to make of you posting such links. Did you think no-one would bother to check?

Then the whole of your stance is a charade.

Maybe, maybe not, but you merely stating that it is so, does not MAKE it so.

But you still keep accepting such faulty research as the examples you have given?

Again I ask you. Is Blue Book SR14 faulty research? Is Condon? Is the British UAP study? And so on…

The unscientific ones are the Maccabees, who's default setting is it's an Alien Craft until someone proves us wrong.

Point to anything in the Rogue River research by Maccabee that states or even implies that he is concluding FOR an “alien craft”. You cannot because it is just not there. I really wish you would cease making false assertions before even examining the evidence. Moreover, exactly HOW is that research “unscientific”? Please…

…is the s**tpile of hoaxes that have fooled the unprofessional UFOlogists since the 50's, which have later been exposed as hoaxes.

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

You don't base anything on Facts or Research because you promote your original set of links as something they are not.

I don’t “promote” or make anything of them. I simply posted the links and asked others to judge…based on examination of the evidence contained within them…something you obviously are not willing to do… I cannot help you there.

What they are is mostly badly researched reports devoid of verifiable facts, done by people with an emotional investment in providing a mystery to people because it's more profitable than providing an answer.

Again with the unfounded assertions. SHOW me the money.

 

[StevenCalder]

Which is... what exactly?

:

His new ambiguous presumptive-conclusion which includes within its possibilities things such as like time travellers and multi-dimensional travellers. He hasn't seem to have noticed yet that positing a wide range of wild unsubstantiated hypothesis is just as invalid as positing one when your evidence does not confirm them.

 

[SnidelyW]

Now instead of repeating the mistakes of the UFOlogists past 50 years of unprofessional/unscientific 'research', why not spend some forum time with a thread on how methods of researching UFO's could be vastly improved?
This, I'm sure would be more use than examining the past mistakes over and over again.

I think Stray Cat is on to something here. As much as I agree with Rramjet on taking an overall look at the pattern, Stray Cat really strikes at the heart of the matter.

Perhaps instead of examining 'best cases', we really should be looking at 'best researched' and agreeing on what it was about that case that skeptics and believers can agree on.

That way, good research can be identified within the discussion, and used as a basic standard of reference.

Are there any events that stand out for their exceptional research qualities?

 

[Rramjet]

The UFO sites claim "genuine UFO" the official report claims "aircraft" or "kites" - both show a complete lack of real investigation.

Until and unless you actually EXAMINE the research report at the link I posted then you simply are not talking from ANY position of authority on the matter. I want you to examine the evidence...yet that is the ONE thing you do not do!

Stray Cat you make unfounded assertions on the matter with such regularity that I guess you hope that people will merely "take you on your word" for such opinion. I on the other hand require evidence, facts and research to back my contentions. And YOU require that of me also ...so why is it you seemingly display such a double standard?

Anyone reading your posts should examine the evidence for themselves - because you simply supply NO evidence to support your assertions.

 

[Rramjet]

Can I check I'm understanding this right: Rramjet acknowledges that none of the "evidence" is convincing, but the sheer amount of unconvincing anecdote somehow turns it into proof?

I acknowledged nothing of the kind.

I contend that no single report will be enough to "convince" anyone... but taken as a whole, then something larger emerges. If you find the evidence unconvincing then, for the case under discussion...the Rogue River case, please tell me what about it you find "unconvincing".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Okay, lets look at it rationally.
1. The AirForce investigated the case.
2. The conclusion they reached was (either) “kite” or “Airplane”.
3. The question MUST be asked: If it was a blimp, then why did they not say it was? Especially if, as you contend, blimps were common in the area… yet there is NO mention of blimps in the area by any of the investigating officers. All I require is a link or reference or anything that will show me that blimps were in fact in the area at that time.

Where do I contend this?

4. The witnesses described speeds of a “jet plane. Does that suggest “blimp” to you?

Please disprove that witnesses can be mistaken about the speed of an object which is of unknown size and distance.

5. Moreover, two of the five witnesses examine the object through binoculars and both those witnesses were variously described as “responsible” and “reliable”.

Please disprove that reliable and responsible witnesses can be honestly mistaken.

6. “Blimp” does not make sense, either rationally or on the evidence.

As you've noted before, simply stating this as fact does not make it fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

Ughh...The Rogue River link is down... Jeez... Gimmee a break! Frustration is an understatement...but that's life... you take the good with the bad I guess...

 

[BlackKat]

...
Why wasn't the second official explanation ('aircraft') given a corrective ('blimp') if that was indeed the case? Or is the whole report so utterly biased that it can't be relied on as an actual reference for the case?

The UFO sites claim "genuine UFO" the official report claims "aircraft" or "kites" - both show a complete lack of real investigation.
...

I might note also that a blimp is an aircraft.

 

[Rramjet]

His new ambiguous presumptive-conclusion which includes within its possibilities things such as like time travellers and multi-dimensional travellers. He hasn't seem to have noticed yet that positing a wide range of wild unsubstantiated hypothesis is just as invalid as positing one when your evidence does not confirm them.

Ummm... actually I conclude UNKNOWN - but then it would seem have the ingeniousness (temerity) to come up with some hypotheses as yet untested that might have a bearing on those unknown cases. That's how science progresses. It does NOT progress by proposing many kinds of misperception, or hoax, or miremembering, or tall tales, or ...even other unknown phenomena as FACT even before the evidence is examined. That is the difference between our positions SC.

 

[StevenCalder]

That is the difference between our positions SC.

You never did get round to reading those posts of mine in the other thread did you?

 

[MattusMaximus]

His new ambiguous presumptive-conclusion which includes within its possibilities things such as like time travellers and multi-dimensional travellers. He hasn't seem to have noticed yet that positing a wide range of wild unsubstantiated hypothesis is just as invalid as positing one when your evidence does not confirm them.

I'm just as confused as others here in trying to figure out just what the hell he is proposing as an explanation. It'd be nice if Rramjet were to just come out and say it, as opposed to acting all mysterious. Otherwise, this entire endeavor is little more than mental masturbation.

As for me, it's all about the leprechauns, baby...

 

[MattusMaximus]

I acknowledged nothing of the kind.

I contend that no single report will be enough to "convince" anyone... but taken as a whole, then something larger emerges. If you find the evidence unconvincing then, for the case under discussion...the Rogue River case, please tell me what about it you find "unconvincing".

Convince us of what, exactly? Are you actually going to propose a hypothesis, or are you going to continue running around playing Internet Mystery Man?

 

[Rramjet]

Where do I contend this?

What IS your contention about the availability of blimps in the area then?

Please disprove that witnesses can be mistaken about the speed of an object which is of unknown size and distance.

Please disprove that reliable and responsible witnesses can be honestly mistaken.

As you've noted before, simply stating this as fact does not make it fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence.

(chuckles) Wow, a contortionist too!
I think you may be missing my point.
I was arguing from the perspective of rational sense.

That is, that if the AirForce had blimps in the area, they would have been the very first to say so. Is that not a reasonable conclusion to reach?

Besides, no-one has yet shown ANY evidence of blimps in the area.

And absence of blimps is absence of blimps. Full stop.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ummm... actually I conclude UNKNOWN - but then it would seem have the ingeniousness (temerity) to come up with some hypotheses as yet untested that might have a bearing on those unknown cases. That's how science progresses. It does NOT progress by proposing many kinds of misperception, or hoax, or miremembering, or tall tales, or ...even other unknown phenomena as FACT even before the evidence is examined. That is the difference between our positions SC.

Hunh? A wall of text which means... nothing, apparently. Rramjet, instead of blathering on and on non-sensically, how about actually proposing a hypothesis? Otherwise you're just posting meaningless gobble-de-gook.

 

[Rramjet]

Convince us of what, exactly? Are you actually going to propose a hypothesis, or are you going to continue running around playing Internet Mystery Man?

Actually "convince" was a poor choice of words... I merely present the evidence and hope people will examine it and then judge on that basis.

I see NO evidence that anyone is actually going to examine the evidence yet...apart from Tapio...and for that rational approach he must be commended. I believe (I could be wrong) he is a true skeptic. He holds a position similar to most people here (again I could be wrong) but at least he is willing to examine the evidence. That is ALL I am asking of anyone.

Moreover I have posted a number of speculative hypotheses. For example:
ET
Indigenous "aliens"
Inter- or intra-dimensional
Jungian consciousness
Time travellers
...and the list could go on - but these are MERE speculations. All I CAN conclude, on the evidence, is that we are dealing with true unknowns.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case728.htm

You can see the drawings here. They look like many UFO claims and not unlike a blimp of the time. They also look a bit like an airplane when viewed at an angle.

Note that it was "wrinkled" like a blimp might be.

 

[StevenCalder]

Besides, no-one has yet shown ANY evidence of blimps in the area.

And absence of blimps is absence of blimps. Full stop.

Are you seriously attempting to disprove mundane hypotheses to prove that UFO's fall into one of the hypotheses that are under your "alien" definition?

I don't get the point of this at all.

In something like this, there's just too many variables, as I've already said we could disprove all mundane theories today, come up with 3 more tomorrow, 5 more next week and 10 years down the line we might find a mundane explanation which accurately and completely identifies a given event. And we never get any closer to an "Alien" proof.

If you want to prove that a given event is attributed to a given hypothesis, great! Prove that it is attributed to a given hypothesis!