UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[StevenCalder]

The debunkers and skeptics of this forum cry long and loud about how evidence is necessary to "prove" UFOs, yet when it comes to their own pronouncements, then suddenly no evidence at all is required. This is simply a double standard. It is nothing short of hypocritical.

Because as I explained in the other thread, those are presumptive mundane explanations, not posited as conclusions but as a way of showing people that other options exist when they hold argument from ignorance based ET style conclusions.

Given this very odd thread and its almost lack of a point you can't fault people for mistaking you for promoting a hypothesis, when you did hint at one in the OP and subsequent posts.
Read the thread from that perspective and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Rramjet]

Regarding the issue of seeing unidentified aircraft with the naked eye...

I was a firefighter under the DOD stationed at a Naval Air Station (1977 - 1986). One of our duties was to monitor the takeoffs and landings of all flights. During the course of my nine years at the base I had the opportunity to witness the take offs and landings of every type of U.S. military aircraft (at the time) from helicopter to even Air Force One, both in daylight and night and under every conceivable weather condition. I was never short of amazement at the possible optical effects aircraft have when traversing though clouds, storms, sunlight, with running lights, landing lights, at various altitudes, and direction of approach, etc. Having experienced all of the above, I would be skeptical to the extreme of any eye witness UFO reports.

Again with the argument "It might have been, therefore it is".

Evidence. For once can someone produce any real evidence to back their assertions. You require it of me, yet strangely you do not require it of yourselves.

AND there is a general complaint that anecdotes are not evidence and then here is one trying to make a point against the veracity of the eyewitness testimony.

Moreover, the conditions for perceptual fallibility are well known and have been extensively studied. We can and DO therefore account for these factors when examining UFO reports.

Please address the case in question.(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

 

[StevenCalder]

But the main point is that you ARE precisely and directly arguing that "physics is dead" - that what we know now is all there is to know - and that no new discoveries will be forthcoming.

No he's obviously not.

 

[Rramjet]

Because as I explained in the other thread, those are presumptive mundane explanations, not posited as conclusions but as a way of showing people that other options exist when they hold argument from ignorance based ET style conclusions.

Given this very odd thread and its almost lack of a point you can't fault people for mistaking you for promoting a hypothesis, when you did hint at one in the OP and subsequent posts.
Read the thread from that perspective and you'll see what I mean.

So and your girlfriend really think that the photos of the blimps supplied by StrayCat resemble the UFO described in the Rogue River case?

Sure... I propose hypotheses, as any good scientist will - indeed must - in the face of the unknown, but I have consistently denied that we can draw conclusions from the evidence that any of the hypotheses are therefore true.

If that is too subtle for people then I am sorry. I apologise for overestimating people's ability to understand my argument.

This thread is only odd because people consistently REFUSE to look at or rationally deal with the evidence. The "blimp" thing is a case in point. Hands up all those who have actually gone to the site (now available at (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and read the research found therein?

People asked me for the evidence to support my contentions.
I then posted that evidence in response to that request.
Then people simply refuse to look at it. That is hardly my fault.

All I see is the same arguments repeated over and over. For example
It might be therefore it IS.
Physics is a dead science.
The burden of proof should be turned on its head to require the person listening to the argument to prove the contention of the person giving the argument.

And then when I provide arguments against those positions, hoping for a rational debate... all I get in reply is a repeat of the original assertion.

THAT is why the thread might seem odd.
Nobody is looking at the evidence.
Nobody it seems is interested even in a rational debate.

But I contend and continue to contend - the evidence is there.

 

[Rramjet]

No he's obviously not.

But again you state something without providing supporting evidence.
Merely asserting that something is so does not MAKE it so.

No he's obviously not because...?

 

[StevenCalder]

But again you state something without providing supporting evidence.
Merely asserting that something is so does not MAKE it so.

No he's obviously not because...?

Hes asking you to posit how they got here.

Yes future advances are possible in interstellar travel but not assured, so he's asking you to show a way for them to surmount the impassible problems we see.

"Future Tech Dunit" is an insufficient answer as its not guaranteed.

I know there are a lot of responses, but please try to read the ones you respond to in greater detail without assuming things which are not written.

 

[Rramjet]

^ That's what I like to call intellectual dishonesty.

Let's be perfectly clear about this. The link you posted in the OP, under the heading "Physical Evidence", http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm is simply a page of yet more links.

When kitakaze referenced that page, stating that most of the subsequent links were bad, I visited the page and clicked each of the links. I found only two working pages. Hoping to save other people the same frustration, I re-posted those two links.

If that is the case then I apologise to you Pantaz.

It was my original intention to have people explore the BODY of evidence contained in the links on that site...to single a single one out - I admit necessity because the other links weren't working -without the benefit of being able to refer to others as counter-arguments is unfortunate.

But please accept my apologies for my seeming "intellectual dishonesty" - I admit I could - indeed should -have chosen my words more carefully.

 

[StevenCalder]

People asked me for the evidence to support my contentions.
I then posted that evidence in response to that request.
Then people simply refuse to look at it. That is hardly my fault.

Its not our fault you found the evidence unconvincing. When you tell us on the first page the evidence does not confirm any interesting hypothesis your not going to get a lot of interest.

The internet is full to the brim with non-confirmatory evidence of all sorts.

Bring confirmatory evidence of something, or even if you just think it is, and the dynamic changes.

But I contend and continue to contend - the evidence is there.

Unfortuantly by evidential standards its useless. How do I know? You told me

 

[Rramjet]

Hes asking you to posit how they got here.

Yes future advances are possible in interstellar travel but not assured, so he's asking you to show a way for them to surmount the impassible problems we see.

"Future Tech Dunit" is an insufficient answer as its not guaranteed.

I know there are a lot of responses, but please try to read the ones you respond to in greater detail without assuming things which are not written.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument then.

The argument posited was: "They cannot be here because our understanding of physics precludes that."

My response was: "That argument presupposes that no advances in physics are possible that would allow such travel."

I suggest that is a reasonable reply on my part that refutes the original contention. Have you another position on the matter?

I "assume" nothing... and as you well know...I do read every post and reply to as many as I can in as much detail as is warranted. If I make a mistake in reply, when it is drawn to my attention, I admit and apologise for that mistake. Others rarely if ever seem to accord that same courtesy in reply to me.

You seem to be a relatively reasonable person Steven.
What more do you ask of me?

 

[Rramjet]

(...)

Bring confirmatory evidence of something, or even if you just think it is, and the dynamic changes.

Unfortuantly by evidential standards its useless. How do I know? You told me

Okay Steven, you want more "meaty" substance...how about this then in relation to the interdimensional hypothesis.

Well, for example many UFO reports (and you'll have to take my word on it for this post) seem to have a "nuts and bolts" feel to them (they look solid and three dimensional, they are opaque, they physically affect the environment around them) and then they "disappear" or even "fade out". Where did they go? I am loathe to conclude "invisiblity cloak" (although energising themselves to levels beyond our perception is a possibility) but one hypothesis is that they moved into another dimension.

Also...if you are inclined to the ET hypothesis, then BY DEFINITION "they" must be inter-dimensional, because our (current) understanding of physics would seem to preclude direct spatial travel over such vast distances...

So just two examples...

 

[Nonpareil]

Okay Steven, you want more "meaty" substance...how about this then in relation to the interdimensional hypothesis.

You can't quote yourself to support yourself.

 

[jhunter1163]

I had never heard of the Rogue River sighting before, so I'm probably as good a juror regarding this case as anyone could be. I read the entire document and agree with Dr. Maccabee that the "kite" explanation should be excluded. The radar kites as described don't match up with what the witnesses described at all.

However, the "blimp" explanation cannot be so easily dismissed. There were known to be Navy blimps within 200 miles of the sighting area. I don't know what a blimp's cruising range might be, but given that the Hindenburg could cross the Atlantic I would assume that a Navy blimp wouldn't reach "bingo" (the point at which an aircraft doesn't have enough fuel to get back to its base) in 200 miles. The drawings by the eyewitnesses, further, do look a lot like profile views of blimps. The lack of sound and relatively sedate movements described by the witnesses (no turns on a dime, no 10,000 foot instantaneous climbs) also fit well with what would be expected if the object seen was a blimp.

I was also a little puzzled by Dr. Maccabee's complete omission of any reference to the Navy base where the blimps were stationed. Knowing that such a base existed but wasn't mentioned did make me think that his presentation was somewhat slanted.

In summary, I'd have to say that the blimp explanation is the most plausible one. Is it the only one? No. The UFO/alien hypothesis isn't excluded or confirmed, IMHO; however, there is a plausible alternative to it. Sharpen up Occam's razor.

 

[Rramjet]

(...)
Oh yeah, Rramjet, there was a good suggestion earlier. About moving to examine the 'top case' research-wise...how about it? What case do you feel has got the best research behind it's conclusions?

Right you are then Tapio. A new case? How about this one then?

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)

 

[StevenCalder]

You seem to have misunderstood my argument then.

The argument posited was: "They cannot be here because our understanding of physics precludes that."

<snip>

You seem to be a relatively reasonable person Steven.
What more do you ask of me?

Here's seems to be where you've gone wrong.

Just once, I would like to see something that could possibly get them here.

Until they arrive, there is no reason to analyze poor photographs and listen to anecdotes.

That does not equal:

"They cannot be here because our understanding of physics precludes that."

That equals :

Hes asking you to posit how they got here. "Future Tech Dunit" is an insufficient answer as its not guaranteed.

 

[riptowtan]

My take on the Rogue River UFO:

I really don't find this case too convincing. It's all anecdotal. There's no radar or photographic evidence to corroborate their accounts. Just because some of them were engineers, doesn't make them better observers.


Explanation from Agent Brooks' report:

"On August 2, 1949, Air Force radar installations at Treasure Island and the military reservation at Fort Baker, both in the San Francisco area, (informed me that they) send aloft radar testing devices known as "kites" twice each day, at around 1000 and 1600. These devices are of aluminium sheet, approximately five feet on a side, roughly diamond- shaped and containing a double set of triangular fins on the top side. These are carried aloft by gas-filled balloons approximately two feet in diameter when they leave the earth. When these devices reach a high enough altitude, the expanding gases cause the balloons to burst and the devices known as "kites" fold and drift earthward. It is possible that one of these "kites" may have blown as far north as Gold Beach, Oregon on 24 May, 1949."

Dr. Bruce Maccabee claims that the radar kites couldn't have traveled the 345 mile distance, and that the eyewitnesses would have seen the balloons attached. If the one of these kites were launched at 10 am, it could have blown to the Rogue River area by 5 pm, and it didn't have to be a steady speed. He is wrong about the balloons being attached as it says clearly in the "Agent Brooks report": "When these devices reach a high enough altitude, the expanding gases cause the balloons to burst and the devices known as "kites" fold and drift earthward. " The witnesses could have noticed the kites after the balloons burst.

This all seems extremely unlikely, but so is the claim that extra terrestrials/interdimensionals are visiting us.

 

[StevenCalder]

So and your girlfriend really think that the photos of the blimps supplied by StrayCat resemble the UFO described in the Rogue River case?

Sorry I missed this, no the images in the link you provided, I do skim these once in a while.

 

[StevenCalder]

Okay Steven, you want more "meaty" substance...how about this then in relation to the interdimensional hypothesis.

If you have any confirmatory evidence I'm interested. If not I'm off to read a book

 

[Astrophotographer]

If you feel there is no evidence, then why don't you comment on the case directly under discussion, the Rogue River case? (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

What is it you fear? If you had a rational case against the evidence, then you would produce it.

"nice blimps" simply does NOT make the case explicable in terms of blimps.

You know, I pointed out in the other thread what I felt about the case. What is the point of repeating myself endlessly. We know that goes nowhere. However, in case you missed it, the witnesses described three different distances to the object in their varying testimonies. This makes any estimates they made wild guesses at best. Since the object is "UNIDENTIFIED" by defintion, we don't know if it was a foot across or a mile across. It is impossible to solve the case since we don't have data that can give us any idea about the particulars (i.e. angular measurements and speeds would at least be appropriate).

That being said, I was just enjoying the blimp photographs and commented on them. I am not particularly married to it as an explanation. It is an interesting theory though. I find it more likely than an alien spaceship or something unknown to science. It could have easily been a partially inflated balloon, a trash bag in the wind, a pelican seen through very bad optics, a guy in a parachute, etc. etc.

 

[Rramjet]

I had never heard of the Rogue River sighting before, so I'm probably as good a juror regarding this case as anyone could be. I read the entire document and agree with Dr. Maccabee that the "kite" explanation should be excluded. The radar kites as described don't match up with what the witnesses described at all.

However, the "blimp" explanation cannot be so easily dismissed. (...)

You agreed that the "kite" explanation doesn't "match up with what the witnesses described at all." Yet when the witnesses observe "speeds of a jet aircraft" you don't pause to think THAT might not match the "blimp" hypothesis?

Moreover, you thus dismiss the evidence of size and shape described with the advantage of binoculars.

Moreover, the drawings produced and the descriptions provided bear little resemblence to the photos of blimps variously provided in earlier posts... perhaps if there were a picture of a blimp produced that even remotely resembled the descriptions and the drawings then you might have the beginnings of a case... but STILL there is absolutely NO evidence of blimps in the area. Merely stating that a blimp might be an explanation does NOT make it into one.

Then, I guess Maccabee did not see any evidence in the official reports or the eyewitness accounts that indicated a blimp was even a remote possibility. And don't you think, if the AirForce even remotely suspected a blimp was the answer...and on the evidence of all their previous research... they would not have jumped onto that one with alacrity?

No, the "blimp" hypothesis breaks down on a number of fronts. It is proposed merely s a red herring because the case is I contend substantive and unassailable from any other angle.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But I contend and continue to contend - the evidence is there.

Evidence of what? You have been vague and evassive over what you want to present. You state the Rogue River case is a "TRUE" UFO. I am sorry if I have a problem with the difference between and UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT and a TRUE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT. Perhaps you can tell me what the difference is.

I have read the report and it is Unknown. No conclusions because there is not enough information to close the case. There are too many variables and a big problem is the inability of the witnesses to be consistent in their estimates of distance (not that it can be considered that reliable in the first place).