UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[StevenCalder]

Can I ask if your going to present any positive confirmatory evidence for any exotic hypothesis you or others may have for the cause of UFO's?

I beg you for a yes/no answer.

 

[AWPrime]

Moreover, I KNOW eyewitness accounts can be erroneous. However I also knoiw they CAn be entirely accurate also. I also know we CAN determine what circumstances lead to misperceptions and we CAN account for that when assessing UFO reports.

Memories aren't videos. Memories are stored in fragments and can easily be altered. Entirely accurate eyewitness accounts are rare. Thus eyewitness are the lowest form of evidence, it offers only clues and no facts.

First, a great deal of research over many years has been put into the fallibility of human perception. We now know pretty accurately, and can describe very precisely, those conditions under which our perceptions can be mislead.

Given that, when we assess the value of the information contained within a UFO report, we CAN use that previous research to inform us if there are conditions present that might lead to perceptual errors.

And in this case they had a pretty bad conditions, its a relatively small object at a large distance in the open sky.


ps. Don't post such stupid blimp pictures please, those are close range pictures taken in near optimum conditions. Its are strawmen to use them.

 

[Rramjet]

See my post, #667 and subsequent observations by others.

You seem to have made a critical logical error here. That is you use the field of view estimates to conclude something about the magnification of the object... and that is just plain wrong. Mistaken in other words.

The FOV describes the area of view covered by the binoculars it says NOTHING about what size an object could be within that field of view. You are simply in error here. That's all.

 

[Marduk]

FLAT underside.

ok so thats very clear, it can't have been a blimp then, so it must have been an airship which doesnt have a gondola and isn't subject to the navy moving blimps in 1947

 

[jer_j]

Can I suggest then you simply apply the standards of evidence and reject my claims to be a scientist and move on?

So that's a no. Somehow, the surprise is underwhelming.

You raise the burden of proof issue.

Tell me: If I say “aliens did it” would you expect me to show proof?
Then if you say “blimps did it”. I expect you to show proof also.
Simple really isn’t it?

I've already quit discussing this with you for good reason. You made a claim about your career that defies credulity, and I wanted to call you on that specific point. But for further correspondence on blimps and aliens, please press http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620 for an automated out-of-office thread reply.

As for the rest of your answer, I refuse to use my precious time arguing over who did and didn't say what in this thread with someone who can't even agree with anyone else on that ridiculously simple point.

Go ahead, chuckle in amusement all you want - but I must say, condescension does not suit you.

 

[Rramjet]

Memories aren't videos. Memories are stored in fragments and can easily be altered. Entirely accurate eyewitness accounts are rare. Thus eyewitness are the lowest form of evidence, it offers only clues and no facts.

Sure, but those "clues" make for some pretty compelling testimony in the case of Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Also there will always remain the possibility that the eyewitness testimony IS accurate. You need to show in the specific case, Rogue River, HOW it is inaccurate. Merely saying it was inaccurate so does not make it so.

And in this case they had a pretty bad conditions, its a relatively small object at a large distance in the open sky.

Umm... sun at their backs, clear day, five witnesses, using binoculars...

ps. Don't post such stupid blimp pictures please, those are close range pictures taken in near optimum conditions. Its are strawmen to use them.

"Stupid"? I merely enter it into the record as evidence of what the 1949 GoodYear blimp looked like. Make of it what you will. I merely contend that the witnesses descriptions simply do not match that of the blimp.

 

[Rramjet]

On the burden of proof issue:

I've already quit discussing this with you for good reason.

Umm.. but YOU raised the issue... I merely replied in rebuttal (quite reasonably I think)...and now you refuse to discuss it (shrugs) that's your choice. I am merely pointing out it was you who raised it in the first place.

Go ahead, chuckle in amusement all you want - but I must say, condescension does not suit you.

No really ...it genuinely amused me to see people trying to "guess" at my "scientific" status - as if it had anything to do with what the thread is actually about.

 

[TjW]

(chuckles in amusement)



Can I suggest then you simply apply the standards of evidence and reject my claims to be a scientist and move on?

Now, let’s see what we actually have here then…

You raise the burden of proof issue.

Tell me: If I say “aliens did it” would you expect me to show proof?
<snippage by TjW>

Sure. But the amount of proof would depend on exactly which aliens you're talking about. If you're talking about Canadian aliens in a blimp, I might ask to see if you've got any documentation that Canada was flying blimps at that time, but it doesn't seem that unlikely.
If you're talking about Mexican aliens in a blimp, well, that seems a little less likely, because they'd be so much further away from their home base, near or beyond the known range of blimps.

If you're going to tell me it's non-humans in blimps, then I'm going to ask for some proof that such beings exist. I know blimps exist, so I probably wouldn't question that part too much. But I'd like some evidence that non-humans capable of piloting flying machines exist outside of your contention that they must, because not every sighting by humans of something they believed to be flying has been identified to your satisfaction.


Got any?

 

[StevenCalder]

No really ...it genuinely amused me to see people trying to "guess" at my "scientific" status - as if it had anything to do with what the thread is actually about.

Umm.. but YOU raised the issue... I merely replied in rebuttal (quite reasonably I think)...and now you refuse to discuss it (shrugs) that's your choice. I am merely pointing out it was you who raised it in the first place.

Seems you answered yourself

And in the same post too!

Could I ask you to quickly answer my question with a Yes/No?

ETA: In-case you missed it;

Can I ask if your going to present any positive confirmatory evidence for any exotic hypothesis you or others may have for the cause of UFO's?

I beg you for a yes/no answer.

 

[TjW]

You seem to have made a critical logical error here. That is you use the field of view estimates to conclude something about the magnification of the object... and that is just plain wrong. Mistaken in other words.

The FOV describes the area of view covered by the binoculars it says NOTHING about what size an object could be within that field of view. You are simply in error here. That's all.

No. We have two things. We have field of view, and we have witness estimations of range and size.
If the witness estimations are correct, then the relative sizes of field of view and the image are correct.
If the witness estimations are incorrect, then the witness estimations are incorrect, and they are not usable to rule the possibility of a blimp in or out.

 

[Marduk]

No really ...it genuinely amused me to see people trying to "guess" at my "scientific" status - as if it had anything to do with what the thread is actually about.

firstly, if it has nothing to do with the thread why did you bother mentioning it and secondly no one believed you anyway

 

[Rramjet]

Seems you answered yourself

And in the same post too!

Could I ask you to quickly answer my question with a Yes/No?

Just shows what can happen if you don't read the post carefully enough.

First you have quoted me in the wrong order. This is intellectually dishonest.

Second the “second” quote you reference of mine was actually referring to the burden of proof issue. So you also quote me out of context AND on the wrong issue!

Can I suggest before you post in future that you actually read the post in question carefully so that you can save yourself the embarrassment of me being forced to point out your errors of judgement merely to defend myself from such errors?

Um… and in case you missed it - I AM presenting evidence for my hypotheses and in case you missed all that and THOSE in my previous posts – which does seem likely - I will repeat them here for you again:

As you know:
I believe UFOs exist.
I also believe that aliens exist.
I believe that there is enough evidence to suggest (note not "prove") these contentions are true.
I believe that a great many UFO reports can be explained in "mundane" terms.
I also believe that there are more UFO reports than anyone either realises or cares to to admit - that cannot be so explained.
I also believe that UFOs is NOT the beginning or end of the story - there is a whole lot more "weirdness" that seems to be occurring around us that we cannot explain.
I believe we only have a partial (at best) grasp of what "reality" actually IS.
And so My BIG problem comes when I have to say WHAT UFOs and aliens actually are (or more precisely what they represent).
They could be anything... but what they are is something totally outside our current understanding of reality.

So I begin with a pretty firm conviction that UFOs exist.
When it comes to aliens...less positive on the evidence front but then we have cases like:

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

Now if anyone can explain that in mundane terms, then I would like to hear about it. But if they do explain it in such terms and I can shoot holes in the arguments, then I do not consider it so explained.

Enough for you to be going on with I hope.

 

[Rramjet]

firstly, if it has nothing to do with the thread why did you bother mentioning it and secondly no one believed you anyway

If you don't like my answers, why raise the issue again?
And second ... that's merely your opinion.
You are entitled to it, but just because you say so, does not MAKE it so.

 

[GeeMack]

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

Now if anyone can explain that in mundane terms, then I would like to hear about it. But if they do explain it in such terms and I can shoot holes in the arguments, then I do not consider it so explained.

Enough for you to be going on with I hope.

Since you seem anxious to move on to another topic, you are, of course, in agreement that this is an acceptable resolution to the discussion about the Rogue River sighting...

How about we all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations have been shown to be possible, perhaps even likely. What do you say, everyone?

Or do you intend to begin at some point demonstrating that no conceivable mundane explanation could possibly apply?

 

[StevenCalder]

First you have quoted me in the wrong order. This is intellectually dishonest.

Yes, I was intentionally quoting you out of order for a point, the point of which went flying over your head apparently.

Thanks for indignant rant however.

So I begin with a pretty firm conviction that UFOs exist.
When it comes to aliens...less positive on the evidence front but then we have cases like:

Thanks for not answering my question directly and in the most evasive manner possible.
But this is pretty much the answer right here in a round about way.

I was quite clearly asking if your going to present any confirmatory evidence, which if you do not have your not going to present.

 

[Marduk]

If you don't like my answers, why raise the issue again?
And second ... that's merely your opinion.
You are entitled to it, but just because you say so, does not MAKE it so.

would you like me to go back through this thread and post the comments of everyone who didn't believe your scientist claim or would you rather just evaluate what the word "evidence" actually means

obviously I would prefer you do the latter, it would save me time and you seem in desperate need of the understanding

 

[Rramjet]

No. We have two things. We have field of view, and we have witness estimations of range and size.
If the witness estimations are correct, then the relative sizes of field of view and the image are correct.
If the witness estimations are incorrect, then the witness estimations are incorrect, and they are not usable to rule the possibility of a blimp in or out.

As I am not an expert in such matters, perhaps you could visit (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and explain to me how Dr. Maccabee's analysis of this very issue appears to be at odds with your own. I am interested in your POV but you need to explain the differences between your analysis and Dr. Maccabee's analyisis. Who is right?

As witnessed by the Mexico UFO video, where I began defending it, but then evidence WAS provided against it, I CAN admit a mundane explanation...in that case a likely hoax.

All I ask then is for you to refute Dr. Maccabees research claims on the point in question and I might consider your position more carefully.

 

[Rramjet]

Since you seem anxious to move on to another topic, you are, of course, in agreement that this is an acceptable resolution to the discussion about the Rogue River sighting...

Or do you intend to begin at some point demonstrating that no conceivable mundane explanation could possibly apply?

All I am asking is that you ACTUALLY PRESENT a plausible mundane solution to Rogue River. That's all. Clearly the "blimp" hypothesis, on the evidence available, is IMPLAUSIBLE... so what else you got?

 

[TjW]

Just shows what can happen if you don't read the post carefully enough.

First you have quoted me in the wrong order. This is intellectually dishonest.

Second the “second” quote you reference of mine was actually referring to the burden of proof issue. So you also quote me out of context AND on the wrong issue!

Can I suggest before you post in future that you actually read the post in question carefully so that you can save yourself the embarrassment of me being forced to point out your errors of judgement merely to defend myself from such errors?

Um… and in case you missed it - I AM presenting evidence for my hypotheses and in case you missed all that and THOSE in my previous posts – which does seem likely - I will repeat them here for you again:

As you know:
I believe UFOs exist.
I also believe that aliens exist.
I believe that there is enough evidence to suggest (note not "prove") these contentions are true.
I believe that a great many UFO reports can be explained in "mundane" terms.
I also believe that there are more UFO reports than anyone either realises or cares to to admit - that cannot be so explained.
I also believe that UFOs is NOT the beginning or end of the story - there is a whole lot more "weirdness" that seems to be occurring around us that we cannot explain.
I believe we only have a partial (at best) grasp of what "reality" actually IS.
And so My BIG problem comes when I have to say WHAT UFOs and aliens actually are (or more precisely what they represent).
They could be anything... but what they are is something totally outside our current understanding of reality.

So I begin with a pretty firm conviction that UFOs exist.
When it comes to aliens...less positive on the evidence front but then we have cases like:

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

Now if anyone can explain that in mundane terms, then I would like to hear about it. But if they do explain it in such terms and I can shoot holes in the arguments, then I do not consider it so explained.

Enough for you to be going on with I hope.

Probably the simplest mundane explanation is that it was a hoax.
You agreed that the Las Lomas footage was probably a hoax, so we can agree that people do hoax alien spacecraft.

Asking why someone would do that will not be productive. The fact is, they do.
Could it have been a hoax? Sure. There's no physical evidence. As I recall, you were going to show us evidence of this and that.

They made no money from the story, and did not seek any publicity, on the contrary. Why would they shoot holes in the walls of their home, causing a financial drain on the family to repair the damages? When, days later they attempted to protect themselves against human invaders walking in number across their fields, police was helpless. They thought of asking one dollar by visitor, to get some money to repair all the damages, but almost no trespasser paid.

This seems a bit of a contradiction.

Apart from privately held views on how people ought to act in such situations, is there any evidence?

 

[StevenCalder]

All I am asking is that you ACTUALLY PRESENT a plausible mundane solution to Rogue River. That's all. Clearly the "blimp" hypothesis, on the evidence available, is IMPLAUSIBLE... so what else you got?

Problem is until you present confirmation of anything beyond the mundane we have no reason to suspect anything but the mundane. Exotic is possible, but the most unlikely of the possibilities.

And considering you don't actually have any confirmatory proof of anything beyond the mundane, this thread appears to be an exercise in you attempting to get us to reduce the evidential standard of science. So I'll go get some coffee, you go change some fundamentals in the way science deals with evidence and we will meet back here in 5 minutes?