UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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."

David if you can show me ANYWHERE in this thread where false claims have been made by me (or any other “opponent” of the JREF accepted belief system) I might take you more seriously.

If you can show me ANYWHERE in this thread where “ONE fault” has been made against a mundane explanation (without foundation) - and then has been used to justify a "supernatural" conclusion - please then point it out - and perhaps I will take you more seriously.

Again, unfortunately, you make the same logical errors as others before you:
Merely stating it is so does not MAKE it so.
To do so is to commit a logical fallacy, so your claim to represent logic and rational thought is nothing but a chimera.

Perhaps you might be interested in the following quote from the Rogue River website referenced for this discussion.

“Sightings are often "explained," usually in an unconvincing way, by rejecting one or more of the elements of reported evidence. (Note: one may not know whether or not an explanation is correct. However, one can decide whether or not a particular explanation is convincing.) The analyst may assign low credibility to one or more of the reported characteristics of the object and then point out that the remaining charactistics are reasonably consistent with the characteristics of a particular known object or phenomenon. For example, in this case the Project Grudge staff personnel "identified" the object reported by "Mrs. A" by ignoring her comment about the shape (round) and instead emphasizing her report of seeing the object high in the sky where, of course, one often finds "aircraft." They then stated (without justification) that there was no reason that it couldn't have been an "aircraft" and so, the final identification was "aircraft" (it seems that any explanation is better than none). A similar sort of reasoning led to the "kites" identification: the Grudge staff evidently assigned low credibility to the detailed verbal description and drawings and then converted a "possible explanation" (that a radar kite from the San Francisco area might have traveled to the sighting location) to a "definite" (it was a radar kite). Although this explanation technique was applied to this sighting, leading to the "final identification" as given in the table of contents of the Blue Book sighting list, it is apparent that these identifications (aircraft, kites) did not convince the Battelle analysts.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Thus when you state:

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.

You don't know how right you are!

 

[Sledge]

False claim:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thanks, David Wong, for restoring my faith in humanity.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

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.

This is very true, and the only reason I keep revisiting these sorts of threads. If my concept of success here was contingent on convincing Ramjet and KoA that they're incorrect, then I could never do that. No level of evidence will convince these goalpost moving, intellectually dishonest, self decieving imitation debators. On the other hand, it's easy to demonstrate that the debate isn't honest. One merely needs to meet the initial standard of proof given, and see the goalposts move. In this case, it was 'provide an alternate explanation'. The alternate explanation was given; the presence of an active blimp base within range, combined with the blimp-like nature of the witnesses drawings make that at least possible, and actually likely. The goalposts were moved: provide the flight plan of the individual blimp and prove that it was in that location, on that exact day. Given the unlikely chance that the pilot's log still survives 60 years later, even if it did say that there was a blimp in the area, that still doesn't entirely disprove the possibility that a blimp shaped alien craft made of wrinkled fabric happened to be in the same area at the same time. It does, however, make it extremely to vanishingly unlikely. Everyone in this thread who understands debating and logic knows how this one is turning out. It's over.

For all the observers out there, this is what woo looks like when it dies.

A.

 

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Rramjet
I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that.

False claim:

I find this incredible...exactly HOW is that statement a false claim?

..and how have you not got it yet...Simply stating that something is true, does not MAKE it true.

Here for example is evidence of an "alien"...

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

 

[Rramjet]

This is very true, and the only reason I keep revisiting these sorts of threads. If my concept of success here was contingent on convincing Ramjet and KoA that they're incorrect, then I could never do that. No level of evidence will convince these goalpost moving, intellectually dishonest, self decieving imitation debators.

Why don’t you say what you really mean…

Andrew, if you can SHOW me ANY evidence where I have either:

Moved the goalposts
Been intellectually dishonest
Been self deceiving
“imitation debators” (I have NO idea what that means…)

Then you might have a point… until then you are simply making unfounded assertions based on NO evidence at all. And THAT is not a true debate, it is merely a shouting match.

On the other hand, it's easy to demonstrate that the debate isn't honest. One merely needs to meet the initial standard of proof given, and see the goalposts move. In this case, it was 'provide an alternate explanation'. The alternate explanation was given; the presence of an active blimp base within range, combined with the blimp-like nature of the witnesses drawings make that at least possible, and actually likely. The goalposts were moved: provide the flight plan of the individual blimp and prove that it was in that location, on that exact day. Given the unlikely chance that the pilot's log still survives 60 years later, even if it did say that there was a blimp in the area, that still doesn't entirely disprove the possibility that a blimp shaped alien craft made of wrinkled fabric happened to be in the same area at the same time. It does, however, make it extremely to vanishingly unlikely. Everyone in this thread who understands debating and logic knows how this one is turning out.

This nonsense can be dispensed with easily.

For example:
You propose a blimp explanation.
We ask you (reasonable enough) to provide evidence for that explanation.
You cannot do it.
We therefore reject your explanation.

Alternatively:
I propose UFO.
You (quite reasonably) ask me to provide evidence for UFOs.
I provide that evidence (contained in the links I posted).
You reject the evidence… but critically, you do NOT state the grounds on which you base your objection (or when you do you do not provide evidence for those objections).
I therefore maintain UFO.


Thus when you state:

For all the observers out there, this is what woo looks like when it dies.

You don't know how right you are.

 

[jhunter1163]

You propose a blimp explanation.
We ask you (reasonable enough) to provide evidence for that explanation.
You show that blimps are known to have been in the area and show pictures of blimps closely resembling witness sketches.
We ignore this evidence and reject your explanation.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Jocce]

Wow, maybe I shouldn't...can't resist...please...restrain me...

According to all posts on the "skeptical" side, the debunkers are arguing: "It MIGHT have been a blimp; therefore it WAS a blimp"

No, the argument is that "since a blimp is one possible explanation, an alien ship is not the only explanation"

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

Noone is claiming that it WAS a blimp, merely that it could have been. Evidence has been provided for that.

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.

Blimps COULD have been in the area is what is being claimed and proven, not that a blimp WAS. Reading comprehension please?

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.

First of all, I don't think it might have been a blimp. Fact is, I don't know what it was. However, becase there where blimps based within close enough distance it could have been a blimp!! It is ONE possible explanation.

 

[Jocce]

Originally Posted by Rramjet
I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that.

(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

Your standard for "evidence" is lacking, and frankly, I've heard hundreds of similar stories. The webpage you link to also contains the following:

The most telling criticism of the incident, however, is that there is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever that the incident actually occurred. Skeptics point out that no footprints were found (the ground was extremely hard), no marks were on the roof (although the creatures seemed nearly weightless and may not have left marks), there was no blood on then, the bullets did no apparent damage), et cetera. One could thus conclude that the family "faked" the entire incident.

However, investigators who interviewed the Suttons afterward painted a picture of them that is quite different from the sort of people who could fabricate an elaborate hoax: They were uneducated, simple farm folk with no apparent interest in exploiting the rather considerable publicity that they engendered.

Translation: They don't seem to be dishonest but there is no evidence that anything at all happened.

ETA: Is this really evidence to you?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/siege_of_little_green_men/

A slightly different view of the Hopkinsville incident...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/goblins/goblins.htm

 

[StevenCalder]

I therefore maintain UFO.

As we have explained Rramjet, we have no problem with UFO's and propose mundane explanations as a rejection to your hypothesis in the OP, which requires an absence of mundane explanations. This is distinct from a conclusive position. This has already been explained and seemingly ignored by you to make some dogmatic point.

But even stranger at the base of this;

We have no problem with them being unknown.
You say you have no problem with them being unknown.

Time to pack up the show and move on?, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

<snip>

Your own posts are my evidence for this. As I said in mine.

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.

Because there was a ******* blimp base in the area!

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

Yes, we know, Rramjet. As with the burden of proof, this has been explained to you multiple times. We aren't claiming that it was a blimp, only that it could have been, and that, given the evidence, likely was.

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.

Oh, BS. We all know what you're trying to prove it is, Rramjet. If all you were trying to prove is that it was an "unknown", then you would have left a long time ago, point made. You're trying to prove that it was aliens, and you make yourself look like an idiot by not admitting that.

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

The fact that
- witness reports described blimp-like behavior
- pictures of objects that looked like blimps were taken
- there was a blimp base right freaking next to Rogue River

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.

Thanks, David. I feel like I just got the forum equivalent of a mass heal cast on me.

Why don’t you say what you really mean…

Andrew, if you can SHOW me ANY evidence where I have either:

Moved the goalposts
Been intellectually dishonest
Been self deceiving
“imitation debators” (I have NO idea what that means…)

Then you might have a point… until then you are simply making unfounded assertions based on NO evidence at all. And THAT is not a true debate, it is merely a shouting match.

He gave evidence, Rramjet. You just won't admit that that's what you're doing.

Alternatively:
I propose UFO.
You (quite reasonably) ask me to provide evidence for UFOs.
I provide that evidence (contained in the links I posted).
You reject the evidence… but critically, you do NOT state the grounds on which you base your objection (or when you do you do not provide evidence for those objections).

BZZZZT

Stop.

We gave you the reasons why we rejected your evidence. The main reason is that they're eyewitness accounts, which are notoriously faulty.

I therefore maintain UFO.

And you are, therefore, wrong. Not in maintaining that it was unidentified, but in maintaining (as we all know you are) that it was aliens.

 

[King of the Americas]

Somehow, I don't think those records would still be available some 60 years later! But, it's as good a time as any to ask: Would that evidence satisfy you?

So, you think the investigators 'at the time', didn't think to LOOK for such evidence?

I mean if there WAS a blimp in the area, do you think the operators hid this fact?

---

"Hello, this is the blimp hanger, how may I direct your call."

"This is Airforce investigator 'Bob', and I am investigating a report of a U.F.O. in the area last week. Did you guys have any blimps airborne, and in area XYZ, performing maneuvers?"

"Let me transfer you to the tower, they keep the launch and flights logs, please hold..."

"..."

"This is the tower flight log, we are unable to answer the phone right now, because we are busy destroying ALL of our blimp flight information. If you are the Airforce attempting to investigate the U.F.O. sighting, we've been informed that you should just say it was a 'blimp', it is the default position, so you guys don't need our records to confirm anything. If you are anyone else leave your name, number, a brief message, and no one will get back to you."

 

[StevenCalder]

Now that KotA has joined us here, I think I shall vacate this thread...

 

[Tapio]

This just shows that you lack any understanding of the burden of proof.

Since this accusation is coming up quite frequently I'd like to address it before moving on to the next case Rramjet put up:

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

So, this 'burden of proof' assertion, as useful (and logically true) as it is, seems to raise it's head in truly bizarre situations. Like the case at hand. The way I see it is:

1. Rramjet has a claim (he believes something)
2. He has to give back up to his claim (his belief) in order for others to discuss and evaluate it
3. After he's given this back up (which he now has done) it is up to anyone disgreeing with his claim (and support for that claim) to offer equal/overriding support of their case against his claim
4. Only then we can evaluate both claims for and against, comparing their support indipendently and as rival claims

So yes, the burden of proof is initially on the one making a claim. But I think after that person has provided his proof (no matter what the quality of proof may be), if someone is to dismiss that person's claim, they will also have to put up equal or 'better' proof for their argument to be taken seriously.

Judging solely by proof, in my eyes the blimp-theory has not yet been shown to be the most likely explanation (though I'm still inclined to believe it is, there's just not enough evidence YET to back up full confirmation).

 

[King of the Americas]

...If my concept of success here was contingent on convincing Ramjet and KoA that they're incorrect, then I could never do that. No level of evidence will convince these goalpost moving, intellectually dishonest, self decieving imitation debators...
A.

Moo-poo!

ALL that we have continuously asked for IS evidence for "blimp", or your 'default contentions', to which NOTHING has been provided.

"...goal post moving, intellectually dishonest, self decieving imitation debators..."...?

It's a good thing name-calling IS an acceptable tactic in a debate...

 

[Jocce]

Moo-poo!

ALL that we have continuously asked for IS evidence for "blimp", or your 'default contentions', to which NOTHING has been provided.

There is no evidence that it WAS a blimp but there is evidence that it COULD BE a blimp and that has been explained over and over again. If you want to claim that it COULD NOT have been a blimp. Please provide evidence for that.

And, what's wrong with a default contention that the oberved phenomena is something quite ordinary that has been misinterpreted by the eyewitnesses? Why should the default be that it's something very alien?

 

[King of the Americas]

There is no evidence that it WAS a blimp but there is evidence that it COULD BE a blimp and that has been explained over and over again. If you want to claim that it COULD NOT have been a blimp. Please provide evidence for that.

And, what's wrong with a default contention that the oberved phenomena is something quite ordinary that has been misinterpreted by the eyewitnesses? Why should the default be that it's something very alien?

If there is NO EVIDENCE- i.e. pilot testimony, flight plan, tower log, ground crew, ect.

Then it WASN'T a blimp.

If it WAS a blimp, the investigators COULD have 'easily' proved it with one or more of the above examples.

There's nothing 'wrong' with a default position that is reached with ACTUAL evidence. It IS wrong however, to make conclusions sans evidence.

In my opinion, the default position SHOULD be "unknown", until you actually have evidence to point you in a direction.

 

[RoboTimbo]

..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 expanations cited by debunkers), therefore it isn’t (the mundane explanations cited by debunkers)”.

Now we're getting somewhere. You've finally made a positive claim that you'll have to prove.

Please provide proof that it CANNOT have been anything mundane. I think you might be starting to understand burden of proof since so many have explained it to you so many times.