UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[apathoid]

I did some Investigoogling on the Rogue River case. Two sets of eyewitnesses reported the craft and their estimates of size, speed and behavior vary.

... at approximately 1700 hours, 24 May 1949, she and four other persons, while fishing on the Rogue River near Elephant Rock, approximately 1 '/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object described as being round in shape, silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft. when first brought to Mrs. [name censored] attention by one of the other witnesses, the object appeared to be three or four miles away. It was coming from the east but later turned to the southwest. It appeared to be traveling at the same rate as a C-47. It made no noise, left no exhaust trail, and made no maneuvers. The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was traveling. Mrs. made the comparison between the object and a C-47 because she is familiar with that type of aircraft. Her son has pointed out C-47s to her as they flew over the Gold Beach.

During the afternoon of May 24, 1950 (sic), five people, three men and two women, were fishing in a boat near the mouth of Oregon's Rogue Riven At about 5:00 P.M., they were scanning the river with 8x Navy binoculars looking for signs of jumping fish, when they first noticed a strange circular object approaching from the northeast. They watched it for about two-and-a-half minutes as it hovered east of them before it departed at high speed in a southward direction. The sky was clear and the afternoon sun was at their backs. To the naked eye, it appeared shiny and shaped like a coin with the flat surface parallel to the ground. At its closest it seemed to be only a couple of miles away and about a mile high. They heard no noise.

One set of witnesses said it darted off at the speed of a jet, and the other said if flew the same rate as a C-47 and made no maneuvers....hmmm. See what I mean about eyewitness testimony?

 

[jer_j]

Okay, let's explain this burden of proof thing clearly and comprehensively, using what's becoming my favorite tool for this thread - the list:

1) The evidence for the existence of airplanes, balloons, blimps, birds, etc is overwhelming and has been observed by almost everybody in our society multiple times.

2) The evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft, extradimensional creatures, etc is practically nonexistent - okay, strike that... For the sake of argument, we'll say it's negligible next to the evidence for items listed in #1.

3) If an unidentified object is spotted in the sky, it is reasonable to theorize that it is something from point #1. To claim that it is anything from point #2 is to posit the existence of something for which there is no clear evidence; thus the burden of proof is upon the people wishing to claim even the possibility that it is any item from #2. The mere fact that we cannot prove it is an object from #1 does not prove or even strongly indicate the existence of any item from #2.

There - that's as clear as I can make it. I'll have to leave it at that, resigning myself to the fact that it will be unfruitful to debate anyone who cannot comprehend the reasoning behind #3.

 

[Nonpareil]

Okay, let's explain this burden of proof thing clearly and comprehensively, using what's becoming my favorite tool for this thread - the list:

1) The evidence for the existence of airplanes, balloons, blimps, birds, etc is overwhelming and has been observed by almost everybody in our society multiple times.

2) The evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft, extradimensional creatures, etc is practically nonexistent - okay, strike that... For the sake of argument, we'll say it's negligible next to the evidence for items listed in #1.

3) If an unidentified object is spotted in the sky, it is reasonable to theorize that it is something from point #1. To claim that it is anything from point #2 is to posit the existence of something for which there is no clear evidence; thus the burden of proof is upon the people wishing to claim even the possibility that it is any item from #2. The mere fact that we cannot prove it is an object from #1 does not prove or even strongly indicate the existence of any item from #2.

There - that's as clear as I can make it. I'll have to leave it at that, resigning myself to the fact that it will be unfruitful to debate anyone who cannot comprehend the reasoning behind #3.

But of course, King of the Americas will say that you cannot conclude that it was something from point #1 either. No, you can't, not with absolute certainty, and you can't have absolute certainty without absolute proof, and if you had absolute proof you wouldn't have a debate in the first place. So for the purposes of debate, when two options are possible, the most likely of the two is the one assumed to be true until it is proven false. All others are assumed false until proven true.

 

[jer_j]

I do suggest however suggest that “glowing, floating turds of the rare orange panda that hides in the Canadian wilderness” IS unhelpful

GOOD!!!!! Now we're getting somewhere!

Now think back to how you decided that the floating turds theory was unhelpful - apply that same thought process to determining whether the theory of spaceships (or extradimensional visitors, or whatever else you want it to be) is helpful or unhelpful, and you're really cooking!

 

[Rramjet]

FFS! NO!

"It might have been, therefore YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU SAY THAT THERE'S NO POSSIBLE MUNDANE EXPLANATION"

Please to be exercising reading skills now. No-one's making a claim about what it was. All we're saying is that your conclusion that there is no possible mundane explanation is wrong.

Gaah!

..but… I have NEVER contended that…

Perhaps you are confused?

I proposed we look as the Rogue River case …well Tapio was already looking at it… I merely provided it as evidence for a case where we cannot conclude any mundane event.

My argument is that: “

It CANNOT have been (the mundane explanations cited by debunkers), therefore it isn’t (the mundane explanations cited by debunkers)”.

Yours: “It might have been, therefore it IS.”
Fallacy.
Mine: “It cannot have been, therefore it isn’t.
Logically correct.

You see the logical difference in the argument now arthwollipot?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yours: “It might have been, therefore it IS.”
Fallacy.
Mine: “It cannot have been, therefore it isn’t.
Logically correct.

You see the logical difference in the argument now arthwollipot?

Yes. The former statement is something that NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED. That's a pretty big logical difference in my mind.

 

[Rramjet]

I've seen this same behavior, lacking evidence for skeptical assertions, but at the same time demanding it of me...double standards abound...

GREAT thread by the way, TONS of information, well done.

Thanks King... appreciate your saying so

...and it's certainly got them tearing their hair out in frustration

Perhaps that is because they just simply cannot make a case against even the VERY FIRST UFO report examined...Rogue River...

 

[Rramjet]

Yes. The former statement is something that NO-ONE HAS CLAIMED. That's a pretty big logical difference in my mind.

Then what's all this guff about the Rogue River case possibly being a blimp? According to all posts on the "skeptical" side, the debunkers are arguing: "It MIGHT have been a blimp; therefore it WAS a blimp"

A fallacy.

 

[Nonpareil]

Thanks King... appreciate your saying so

...and it's certainly got them tearing their hair out in frustration

Perhaps that is because they just simply cannot make a case against even the VERY FIRST UFO report examined...Rogue River...

No. It is because you do not understand the concept of burden of proof, and don't want to. You wish to remain willfully ignorant. That is the only plausible explanation that I can come up with for your repeated failure to grasp the arguments, as even a caveman would get it were it repeated enough times. That leaves the options that you are simply not seeing all the posts that say that you do not understand it, you have us all on ignore, or you are willfully ignorant. As you quote us on a regular basis, we can rule out the first two. That leaves "willfully ignorant", which means that there's really no point in continuing this discussion. But we all know I'm going to anyway...

...when I wake up in the morning, that is.

 

[jer_j]

But of course, King of the Americas will say that you cannot conclude that it was something from point #1 either.

But of course nobody here is trying to prove it was from point #1, and demanding proof that it was only serves as a distraction from the point at hand. We're demonstrating ambiguity, which successfully places the burden of proof upon the extraordinary claim.

But of course you understand that.

But of course other people don't - and therein lies the problem.

 

[Nonpareil]

Then what's all this guff about the Rogue River case possibly being a blimp? According to all posts on the "skeptical" side, the debunkers are arguing: "It MIGHT have been a blimp; therefore it WAS a blimp"

A fallacy.

No one has said that. They have said that it is highly likely that it was a blimp. For lack of better explanation, the blimp is assumed to be the correct explanation during a debate. The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise.

ETA: And now you will continue on to fail to understand me once more...

 

[Nonpareil]

But of course nobody here is trying to prove it was from point #1, and demanding proof that it was only serves as a distraction from the point at hand. We're demonstrating ambiguity, which successfully places the burden of proof upon the extraordinary claim.

But of course you understand that.

But of course other people don't - and therein lies the problem.

Exactly. Now that that's out in the open, may I point everyone to the exits on your right? The ride will soon start again from the beginning, and we all know that it's going to end up right back here, so you may as well get off before you throw up...

 

[jer_j]

Exactly. Now that that's out in the open, may I point everyone to the exits on your right? The ride will soon start again from the beginning, and we all know that it's going to end up right back here, so you may as well get off before you throw up...

Yes, I think I'll get off. It's time for me to shut down the ol' computer for tonight.

And yes, I'm sure tomorrow I'll find something on here that I'll be compelled to address, even though I'll know from the start that the intended audience not only won't get it, but will take one or two phrases from my post out of context and ignore/not comprehend the rest - and I'll post a reply anyway.

Is it bad to hate myself right now?

 

[Rramjet]

(…) Since there is evidence blimps, and they do fly in the area, and blimps do exist it is up to you to convince all of us that a UfO was the only object that could have been observed…

SHOW me the EVIDENCE that “blimps” flew in the area.

Merely stating it is so does NOT make it so.

The details of the object are not important, we don’t have a UFO to compare with a known blimp.

But we DO have the sighting descriptions (round - ie; circular, 25-25 feet in diameter, travelling at the seed of a jet plane…) AND the drawings to compare with a blimp. Anyone can make a comparison from that.

We only suggest the possibility that it could have been a blimp …

It might have been, therefore it is? Perchance…? Show me the evidence that it was even possibly a blimp.

We can agree it is impossible to rule out every possible explanation, but any skeptical conclusion is only tentative and is a measure of probability.

So you KNOW the probability of any particular sighting being a genuine unknown (or UFO)? Let me help you… According to Blue Book SR14, it is around 22% on a VERY conservative estimate.

So using a blimp as an example, knowing that blimps could have been in the area and the object may appear similar to a blimp is the alternative explanation.

SHOW me evidence that a blimp was in the area.
Merely stating it was a blimp does NOT make it probable, likely, remotely possible or any other estimate of likelihood that it was a blimp.

The biggest errors in determining the cause of events is failure to consider alternative explanations.

Consider them ALL. Then rule out the ones that are not logically feasible or likely … like a blimp.

We do not need to rule out every single possible explanation, all that is needed for disbelief is that a witness explanation does not elevate itself to a status of being the most probable.

If you can come up with a mundane explanation for Rogue River, then propose it and importantly state WHY you believe it to be so.

Otherwise the case remains a sighting of a UFO. UNIDENTIFIED flying object.

 

[Rramjet]

Ooops missed the head of my last post...

Here is the choice. It was a UFO; or it’s simply a mundane explanation for misidentification, nothing happened at all, some relation to Mass hysteria. Or the witnesses are all telling the truth.

Actually…HERE are the choices…

1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

 

[arthwollipot]

Then what's all this guff about the Rogue River case possibly being a blimp? According to all posts on the "skeptical" side, the debunkers are arguing: "It MIGHT have been a blimp; therefore it WAS a blimp"

A fallacy.

You know what? I'm done. I give up. I gave you a second chance and you blew it. Completely. You're not worth my time.

 

[Rramjet]

No. It is because you do not understand the concept of burden of proof, and don't want to.

Merely stating that it is so does NOT make it so. Please supply the evidence to support you contentions.

No really, if you make a claim then you should be able to show me how or why your claim is correct.

You wish to remain willfully ignorant.

Merely stating that it is so does NOT make it so. Please supply the evidence to support you contentions.

That is the only plausible explanation that I can come up with for your repeated failure to grasp the arguments, as even a caveman would get it were it repeated enough times.

Find a caveman and let’s test him then.

That leaves the options that you are simply not seeing all the posts that say that you do not understand it, you have us all on ignore, or you are willfully ignorant.

Merely stating that it is so does NOT make it so. Please supply the evidence to support you contentions.

As you quote us on a regular basis, we can rule out the first two. That leaves "willfully ignorant", which means that there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

Merely stating that it is so does NOT make it so. Please supply the evidence to support you contentions.

And you’re dead right about the last point if you cannot come up with support for your contentions.

 

[Rramjet]

But of course nobody here is trying to prove it was from point #1, and demanding proof that it was only serves as a distraction from the point at hand. We're demonstrating ambiguity, which successfully places the burden of proof upon the extraordinary claim.

But of course you understand that.

But of course other people don't - and therein lies the problem.

But I could have sworn that people here were trying to explain Rogue River as a “blimp”. I merely asked them to SHOW me the evidence.

Let’s put that in less technical terms. Please explain to me, in plain, simple English (because obviously I am not good at understanding) WHY you (or anyone else) thinks it might have been a blimp.

But remember, merely stating that it COULD have been a blimp, does NOT make it a blimp.

Two things about that last sentence:
1) it is a logical fallacy to make such a claim as: "It could have been a blimp, therfore it is likely to have been a blimp."
2) ” Even if it were not, you STILL have to supply evidence that it COULD have been a blimp.

Moreover, I have NEVER made an extraordinary claim about Rogue River...I have consistently and repeatedly contended it is simply an "unknown", in other words, a UFO.

No one has said that. They have said that it is highly likely that it was a blimp. For lack of better explanation, the blimp is assumed to be the correct explanation during a debate. The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise.

ETA: And now you will continue on to fail to understand me once more...

SHOW me the evidence for “highly likely” then… on what EVIDENCE do you base that value judgement?

 

[Rramjet]

I did some Investigoogling on the Rogue River case. Two sets of eyewitnesses reported the craft and their estimates of size, speed and behavior vary.

One set of witnesses said it darted off at the speed of a jet, and the other said if flew the same rate as a C-47 and made no maneuvers....hmmm. See what I mean about eyewitness testimony?

But apathoid...THESE are NOT the eyewitness testimonies you cite. Your post is a mere summary written as second hand information. Thus they are potentially full of inaccuracy or outright error.

You can therefore conclude NOTHING about what the witnesses did or did not see in detail from such summaries ...merely the generality of something that was seen. To get the accurate details and the ACTUAL witness testimony (of all five people) I suggest you visit ((http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Otherwise you conclusions are based on (at least potentially) inaccurate or error prone information. And as a skeptic, I suggest that is not good enough to base sound conclusions on.

 

[David Wong]

I do want to thank the patient people who have continually tried to restore logic to this thread; remember that your job isn't to convince the fanatic, but to demonstrate how logic works for the hundreds of strangers who will read this thread, some of whom are on the fence about the whole UFO thing. Watching ramjet contort and twist to try to avoid the obvious is both informative and sad.

This thread is a fantastic demonstration of two logical fallacies we see across all woo beliefs:

1. "A large enough pile of false claims equals one true claim."

2. "If I can find ONE fault in your mundane explanation, you MUST accept my supernatural explanation."


Over and over. I'm starting to think it's a fundamental flaw in the human brain. Just yesterday I was reading an Obama "birther" thread elsewhere, and saw #1 turn up repeatedly (a confirmed faked Kenyan birth certificate, plus a witness who later recanted, plus speculation by a political enemy equals "there must be something to it")

Of course, #2 you hear in the 9/11 Truther threads ("the NIST report is incorrect in its estimates of collapse times, therefore you must accept my theory of a space-based laser destroying the towers") and in the global warming denial threads ("Al Gore misquoted one statistic from one report, therefore the entire AGW phenomenon is a massive worldwide socialist conspiracy).

There IS value in knocking down these fallacies, WHEREVER they turn up. It's not a waste of time, and it's a job that will never be finished.