UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

the eyewitness testimony of five people, two using binoculars, describe the object as a CIRCULAR object.

And yet, one of the eyewitnesses draws a picture of a blimp.

when you claim “The UFO is a blimp”

In what part of "I know it's not fool proof evidence" and "makes it highly likely that it was in fact a blimp" am I saying that this IS A BLIMP. I'm saying it's likely. Deal with it and stop twisting my posts.

 

[Jocce]

They never viewed it "from the front". For example, from Mrs C.'s record of interview:

<snip>while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section.

Care to comment? Does a blimp apear to be oval?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Hi Patricio -

I am using the following as my basic schema. Hope it helps.

UFO categorisation

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

Then the speculative 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...

Yep, still a train wreck of a thread. You're saying something here that shows me where the big disjoint in your debating is, so let me address that, and we'll see if you can return to honest debate. If not, I'm through with you, because I'm getting tired of being lied to and/or watching as you lie to yourself.

The big problem is right here in your categories. Your basic schema is either broken or deceptive, depending on whether you set it up from ignorance or lying. here's how they would read if you were an honest debator, and if that was the case, you'd understand what we're going on about blimps for.

Categories of UFOs

1)Known
2)No known explanation was revealed by the investigation

Hypotheses to explain the unknown category

1)Mundane explanation that simply wasn't revealed by the investigation.
2)ET
3)Indiginous 'aliens'
4)Jungian consciousness
5)Interdimensional
6)Write in your favorite woo

Do you see the difference? Your hypothesis list requires that once something is on the 'no known explanation' list that the only possible explanations that can be applied to it are ones that deny normal explanations. Our list doesn't. We're willing to accept that the investigation might not be all knowing, the observers might be incorrect (they did draw two very very different pictures and provide two very very different accounts of the same phenomenon, after all), or that there are simply gaps in the investigative technique. Given the high percentage of cases that fall under normal everyday explanations, we're not going to exclude normal everyday explanations from the list, just because we weren't able to distill that out of some conflicting eyewitness accounts, cursorily investigated during a time of military paranoia, weapon, aircraft, and space experimentation, and government censorship. Given that, we're not going to make the cognitive jump from 'investigation didn't figure this one out' to 'it must be one of the non-mundane explanations'. We're not arguing from an omnipotent position. We can't ensure that an investigation 60 years ago was done with due diligence. We can't ensure that it WASN'T done with due diligence. We can't assume that the airforce investigators had knowlege of navy operations. In this case, my best guess for the shoddy airforce report is simply that the airforce investigators used what they had at hand to shut up some troublesome folks. They went through the equipment they had and picked something out that looked vaguely like the drawings, the balloon radar kites, and threw that out there. If the observers had reported to the navy, they would have gotten a different report, assuming that the navy saw fit to talk with them about navy aircraft.

A.

 

[Tapio]

Good stuff, Andrew! Rramjet, plllease read Andrew's latest post with an open mind. That way maybe we can move on...

 

[Jocce]

I repeat, the eyewitness testimony of five people, two using binoculars, describe the object as a CIRCULAR object.

No they don't.

Mrs A: round in shape, silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft

Mr B: round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side. (translation: looked oval)

Mr C: while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section.

Mr & Mrs D: The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar.

Notice that only two of your witnesses describe it as circular. Stop misrepresenting what the witnesses say.

ETA: This is also in reply to your:

Merely stating that it is so, does not MAKE it so... you need to produce evidence to support your contentions. Something like:

"I believe the eyewitness testimony is inconsistent because Mr. stated while Mrs...stated..."

I hearby state that they are inconsistent.

 

[Stray Cat]

Merely stating that it is so, does not MAKE it so... you need to produce evidence to support your contentions. Something like:

"I believe the eyewitness testimony is inconsistent because Mr. stated while Mrs...stated..."

Mrs A says "silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft."
Mr B says "and was about 30 feet in diameter, as nearly as could be judged."

Boeing Say : C 47 Wingspan: 95 feet 6 inches. Length: 63 feet 9 inches

So here we have one witness saying in effect it's 63 feet and another saying it's 30 feet.
Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate.

Mrs A says: "It appeared to be travelling at the same rate of speed as a C-47."
Mr B says: "accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane"

Boeing says: C 47 Cruise speed 160 mph

That's a slow jet plane... even the first jet plane ever built (the Heinkel HE178) was restricted to 375 miles per hour.
Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate.

Mr B says: "When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away"
Mr C says: "Object appeared to be about one or two miles away."
Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate.

More time and energy wasted proving the bleeding obvious.

 

[Rramjet]

Good stuff, Andrew! Rramjet, plllease read Andrew's latest post with an open mind. That way maybe we can move on...

Ughhh…

UFO categorisation

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

This list of categories is the accepted scientific categorisation from Blue Book through Condon to Sturrock. EVERY UFO proponent and debunker alike, in ALL the valid, peer-reviewed scientifically conducted research on the topic, accept those categorisations as logically inclusive and scientifically valid. They cover all possibilities of UFO report categorisation…There can be no UFO report that is not covered by these categories. They are simple, straightforward and logical.

So Andrew Wiggin, in his ultimate wisdom, speaking from (what?) authority…decides that is not good enough for him - and (here’s the worst part) you, Tapio, seem to agree with him!

Then I propose to go further.

Given that category 1) UFOs are EXPLAINED in mundane terms (airplane, meteor, blimp, bird, balloon, hoax, delusion, etc, ) and category 2) UFO reports simply do not contain sufficient information to decide anything about them at all - mundane or not - the only category left in which we have freedom to move is the unknown category.

Thus, I contend that those UFO reports that are classified unknown, actually represent something that we CAN hypothesise about. For example:

1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

Now perhaps people do not understand what words like “hypothesise” precisely mean and it is obvious that Andrew has not understood what “insufficient information” means – for he dispenses with this category altogether…. So I guess I must explain.

Now please bear with me please, it is IMPORTANT that I first define hypothesise to enable an understanding of Andrew Wiggins, misapprehensions.

First then - hypothesise: (verb) speculate, theorise, conjecture, suppose.

Now to the categorisations…

Now I take it that KNOWN is self-explanatory as a UFO report categorisation. So I need not dwell on it here.

However “Insufficient information” and Unknown” clearly need defining. From Blue Book Special Report No. 14 then…

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon;

UNKNOWN —. This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon. (p.12)
​

So now let us explicate the logic of Andrew Wiggin. First he posits:

“Categories of UFOs

1)Known
2)No known explanation was revealed by the investigation”​

Immediately we see Mr Wiggins is an obfuscationist. In “his” category 2) he uses 8 words where one would suffice (ie; Unknown). So we know immediately he is going to try and “muddy the waters “ for us - and we should therefore be extra-vigilant about taking his words at face value.

Now, then he posits:

"Hypotheses to explain the unknown category

1)Mundane explanation that simply wasn't revealed by the investigation.
2)ET
3)Indiginous 'aliens'
4)Jungian consciousness
5)Interdimensional
6)Write in your favorite woo"​

Immediately we note two things: First his category 1) actually belongs in the Known category above… simply because once it is known, it is no longer a hypothesis. Simple right?

The second thing we immediately notice is that he has a biased, antiscientific belief system. This is evidence by category 6) “Write in your favourite woo”. In science, NO hypothesis is considered “woo”, just as in rational inquiry, no question is considered stupid. All are equally up for debate and it is up to organisations and individual scientists to pursue whichever they think might be most fruitful. Some turn out to be dead ends (eg; phlogiston), some turn out to be spectacularly successful (eg; theory of evolution), but NONE are turned away as “woo”. To do so is representative of a closed mind and unscientific world view.

After accounting for Mr Wiggin’s fallacious reasoning, I suggest we are again left with:

UFO categorisation

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...

You see, I have no need to delve further into Mr Wiggin’s post because it is all there up front.

I hope you see the reason and logic behind this Tapio – because in your first contact with me you stated you had an open mind and were a keen student willing to learn. Please don’t close your mind now. It once held a spark, don’t let that die under cold irrationality.

 

[Jocce]

The problem with your categories are that they should be mutually exclusive. 1 and 3 are good examples of mutually exclusive categories since an object can't be both known and unknown. However, your category 2 is really only a subcategory of 3. An object can be categorised as unknown because not enough information was avaliable to identify it with certainty ( like the Rouge River sightings). I.e, unknown because of insufficient information.

ETA: It would be nice of you to also comment on the posts from me and Stray Cat where we point out inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes...getting to them Jocce (only one of me...lots of you... - and I am doing this "in between" other stuff...

But also, you really need to carefully read the Battelle Institute's definition of "Insufficient Information" (in my last post above) to work out why your contention is incorrect. The information is there. I can't both explain that and get to other posts right now...

Tapio...you disappoint me... I thought you of anyone might be reading my posts... anyway, not to worry, we're all busy, here's the link.

I have listed the arguments and replies so far. Astrophotographers arguments are in italics. His arguments are written first, mine follow, and so on...

 

[Tapio]

I hope you see the reason and logic behind this Tapio – because in your first contact with me you stated you had an open mind and were a keen student willing to learn. Please don’t close your mind now. It once held a spark, don’t let that die under cold irrationality.

Tapio...you disappoint me... I thought you of anyone might be reading my posts... anyway, not to worry, we're all busy, here's the link.

Problem with linkin the whole post. Try again? I told you I have read your posts. Do you expect me to file them each under it's own title? You're starting to irritate me with your arrogant remarks.

Rramjet, I ask you not to make this personal. That way you'll only alienate me from the interest I still hold. I do have an open mind. This means I'm willing to constantly reform whatever opinions I have, based on where reliable evidence holds most wheight. I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is becoming clear that (at least regarding the Rogue River case - which is where I'm still at) you have a problem with doing this. That is not openness.

For example. Your given explanation of the term 'unknown':

UNKNOWN —. This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.

I think the eyewitness description of any phemomena should not be given wheight as to be evidence for anything conclusive. I think it's a good idea to listen and find out what people saw, but that the stories should never be the reason to conclude a case 'unknown' (in the sense of your description). Human perception is just too fallible.

Bearing that in mind I feel it totally unnescessary to keep the option of 'unknown' in the list. That, or combine it with 'insufficient information'.

As to why you completely exclude from your second list the possibility of an 'unknown' (if accepting the definition) to later on be found out to have a mundane explanation, I haven't the faintest idea. But it does seem like intellectual dishonesty and a lack of the same critical thinking you're asking for (I'm not calling it that, only that it seesm like it. Please do elaborate on that).

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have answered all your contentions as best I can - but you have failed to address a number of my substantive points. Would you care to address them now?

I invite the readers to assess each of our arguments and whether or not you think Astrophotographer has successfully argued that my conclusion of UFO in the case of Rogue River is in any way misguided.

I chose not to respond to several of your posts simply because they are worthless to the discussion. I am snipping everything at this point because we are going over the same ground now and your points are the same ones you have repeated to everybody else, which really has not gotten you anywhere so far. You continue to claim it was a UFO, which means it is an unknown. I agree with this. However, you have continuously dismissed any possible explanations (including the blimp hypothesis) with a simple wave of the hand saying the witnesses were reliable in what they reported and because they don't match exactly it can't be. You then conclude it must be something alien/exotic/unnatural. This type of reasoning dismisses before hand and ignores case histories associated with UFO reports.

 

[Astrophotographer]

No, the witnesses, on the evidence presented, could NOT have misidentified a blimp. That is clear from their sworn testimony and it is also clear from the research analysis conducted on this issue by Dr. Maccabee in his research report.

Examining reports after fifty years is not going to get you anywhere and it is hard to ascertain the true facts unless you have a time machine. I find it amazing that you just made the claim that the witnesses could not misidentify a blimp! How do you know that? What makes you so sure? Are you now saying the witnesses are 100% reliable?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Are you now saying the witnesses are 100% reliable?

That's easy to answer. They're 100 percent reliable when they agree with him, and completely off their nut when they don't. I think it's abundantly obvious that we're dealing with someone who's debating dishonestly. He's just not worth engaging. I've noticed in threads like this that this is about when the kittens start to appear.

A

 

[GeeMack]

Mrs A says "silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft."
Mr B says "and was about 30 feet in diameter, as nearly as could be judged."

Boeing Say : C 47 Wingspan: 95 feet 6 inches. Length: 63 feet 9 inches

So here we have one witness saying in effect it's 63 feet and another saying it's 30 feet.
Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate.

Mrs A says: "It appeared to be travelling at the same rate of speed as a C-47."
Mr B says: "accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane"

Boeing says: C 47 Cruise speed 160 mph

That's a slow jet plane... even the first jet plane ever built (the Heinkel HE178) was restricted to 375 miles per hour.
Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate.

Mr B says: "When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away"
Mr C says: "Object appeared to be about one or two miles away."

Inconsistency proven. Witnesses not accurate.

 

[Rramjet]

Jocce

Notice that only two of your witnesses describe it as circular. Stop misrepresenting what the witnesses say.

(…)

I hearby state that they are inconsistent.

But you seem to miss the following:

Mrs A. “…sighted an object described as being round in shape…”

Mr B. stated “I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it…”

Mr C. stated “I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape…”

Mr D. stated “The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar…”

Mrs D. stated “…my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape…”

DEFINITION:
Circular: Shaped like or nearly like a circle; round. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/circular)

Another from a perhaps more reputed source:
The Oxford English Dictionary: Circular: Round…

So, ALL FIVE witnesses stated it was either “round” or “circular”. Thus it seems actually to be YOU, Jocce, who is simply misrepresenting the facts!

StrayCat

(…) Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate.

Mrs A. was recorded as saying in her record of interview “…that she was not familiar with aircraft…”

So we need to, indeed must, discount her estimates of size, speed, etc. as accurate. As I am sure YOU would too if this were “merely” any other investigation and you were not “trying” to “prove” something else. YOU I am SURE would contend that we could NOT rely on Mrs A. as a “reliable” witness for such estimates.

So you cannot then legitimately use Mrs A.’s record of interview (note: not her own words either) as a comparator for other’s accuracy in reporting.

Then you compare Mr B.’s estimate of distance in his record of interview (Note: NOT his own words…“When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away laterally…”) but miss his contention in his sworn testimony (in his own words) that “As nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away.” ….

…with that of Mr. C record of interview (Note: NOT his own words …“Object appeared to be about one or two miles away.”) but miss his sworn testimony where he states “The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude.”.

So if these are the only inconsistencies, then I suggest you are clearly mistaken to conclude “(…) Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate”. That is simply, as I have just shown, nonsense.

Come on...surely you have something else...anything at all to show inaccuracy or inconsistency in the sworn eyewitness testimony...surely something?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Nobody is saying that. Your argument is a lie.

 

[Rramjet]

Problem with linkin the whole post. Try again? I told you I have read your posts. Do you expect me to file them each under it's own title? You're starting to irritate me with your arrogant remarks.

Rramjet, I ask you not to make this personal. That way you'll only alienate me from the interest I still hold. I do have an open mind. This means I'm willing to constantly reform whatever opinions I have, based on where reliable evidence holds most wheight. I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is becoming clear that (at least regarding the Rogue River case - which is where I'm still at) you have a problem with doing this. That is not openness.

Ughh Tapio… I apologise to you then if my remarks seemed “arrogant”…They were not meant to be… I guess I am just a little frustrated that no-one seems to address the issues that I raise in my posts – merely rattle on repeating the same old arguments as if stating them over and over will make them any more logical or rational – to which I MUST keep pointing to the logical fallacy and irrationality every time…what else can I do…then I expected of YOU to at least (given how we began conversing) to at least have a go at addressing the issues I raise in my posts – but instead you seemed to address and agree with the issues raised ONLY in other’s posts… then perhaps you can understand my frustration … I thought (hoped) you of anyone here was at least following my arguments… Anyway…I do apologise and I hope we can move through it.

If you have a truly open mind and we do have at least a working relationship, then I humbly ask you to read my debate with Astrophotographer and to comment on it because it is VERY instructive and contains just about everything we (all of us) have discussed in one neat package. I did not link the WHOLE discussion because it was on the same page as THIS post and it was rather lengthy... (just scroll up…)

I think the eyewitness description of any phemomena should not be given wheight as to be evidence for anything conclusive. I think it's a good idea to listen and find out what people saw, but that the stories should never be the reason to conclude a case 'unknown' (in the sense of your description). Human perception is just too fallible.

Sure, but you are willing to categorise as KNOWN based on such testimony…so you can’t have it both ways…you cannot say the testimony is reliable ONLY when we can categorise things as KNOWN, it is either reliable enough to categorise as KNOWN or UNKNOWN and anything that is NOT so is “Insufficient information”… Actually if you read the SR14 study they initially threw out about a thousand cases where they thought it was not even worth them investigating in the study further… BEFORE they categorised the remaining. Now I call THAT conservative.

Then you discuss including “unknown later found to be mundane” as a separate category. BUT you miss the logical consequence of that “finding” …such a report then is IMMEDIATELY (re)categorised under the KNOWNs. Simple, straightforward. No need to add categories. All that are needed are there. I DO hope you see that?

 

[Stray Cat]

Mrs A. was recorded as saying in her record of interview “…that she was not familiar with aircraft…”

More dishonesty?

The report you place so much faith in then goes on to say: "Mrs. A 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 as they flew over Gold Beach."
emphasis added

So we need to, indeed must, discount her estimates of size, speed, etc. as accurate. As I am sure YOU would too if this were “merely” any other investigation and you were not “trying” to “prove” something else. YOU I am SURE would contend that we could NOT rely on Mrs A. as a “reliable” witness for such estimates.

I tend to discount most people's estimates of speed and size as inaccurate as it's clearly and provably very difficult to estimate the size and speed of an object by eye with no frame of reference (except apparently a rock 'Elephant Rock'.

So you cannot then legitimately use Mrs A.’s record of interview (note: not her own words either) as a comparator for other’s accuracy in reporting.

So now we are also saying that the reporter isn't accurate... that would be Maccabee and or the OSI? Yes agreed.

Then you compare Mr B.’s estimate of distance in his record of interview (Note: NOT his own words…“When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away laterally…”) but miss his contention in his sworn testimony (in his own words) that “As nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away.” ….

…with that of Mr. C record of interview (Note: NOT his own words …“Object appeared to be about one or two miles away.”) but miss his sworn testimony where he states “The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude.”.

Which highlights even more how inaccurate and unreliable these statements are. If one person can be reported on two occasions to give contrary information about the same event.
Notwithstanding the chance for Mr B and Mr C to get together and discuss the event after the initial interview and get their stories to a more compatible state before the sworn testimony stage.
Wow, you're making my case for me here.

So if these are the only inconsistencies, then I suggest you are clearly mistaken to conclude “(…) Inconsistency proven, witnesses not accurate”. That is simply, as I have just shown, nonsense.

No not at all... the inconsistency is there as I stated... you have highlighted even more inconsistencies and shown even more inaccuracy in two witness accounts given by the same witness.

Come on...surely you have something else...anything at all to show inaccuracy or inconsistency in the sworn eyewitness testimony...surely something?

All that is needed to show inaccuracy is some inaccuracy... which I have done... "something else" is not necessary. It would only further waste my time and energy proving the bleeding obvious.

 

[Rramjet]

I chose not to respond to several of your posts simply because they are worthless to the discussion. I am snipping everything at this point because we are going over the same ground now and your points are the same ones you have repeated to everybody else, which really has not gotten you anywhere so far. You continue to claim it was a UFO, which means it is an unknown. I agree with this. However, you have continuously dismissed any possible explanations (including the blimp hypothesis) with a simple wave of the hand saying the witnesses were reliable in what they reported and because they don't match exactly it can't be. You then conclude it must be something alien/exotic/unnatural. This type of reasoning dismisses before hand and ignores case histories associated with UFO reports.

Okay, so you have left the debate then. It was going so well! No problem. I am a little disappointed of course - because the arguments being presented and discussed were going to the very heart of the matter. I can only suppose, given the nature of you answers, you had run out of rational replies to my points (otherwise you would have made them). So I am sorry you have abandoned debate - I am not at all surprised though

But wait...you seem to reassert (repeat) some contentions that were already answered in the debate... oh well, merely repeating things does not make them any more true than they were when you stated them originally. You have my answers (above), if you want to rejoin the debate then please reply specifically to the answers I have already provided (above), otherwise I contend it is not worth your time simply repeating things that I have already answered in the above "Debate" post (above).

No disrespect intended Astrophotographer, merely stating the facts. We had a useful, structured debate going, you chose to abandon it.

 

[Rramjet]

StrayCat... do you consider Mrs A.'s testimony reliable or not?