UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Belz...]

On the other hand there is no evidence to infer a unicorn to be responsible (apart from its mythical status, but all other things being equal) because there is no evidence that a unicorn was ever in the room.

Chielfly because "unicorns" have NEVER been observed, yes ?

Now, about these alien spacecraft...

 

[Aepervius]

Or, Tapio, if I put it in less word , If you ignore *all* that we know on reality, without any prior knowledge whatsoever, all hypotheses to a problem are equal. But taking reality into account, some hypotheses are more probable than others, and thus all hypotheses are not equal.

Now i expect another round of rramjet refusing to admit this.

 

[Tapio]

Or, Tapio, if I put it in less word , If you ignore *all* that we know on reality, without any prior knowledge whatsoever, all hypotheses to a problem are equal. But taking reality into account, some hypotheses are more probable than others, and thus all hypotheses are not equal.

Now i expect another round of rramjet refusing to admit this.

Thanks! We'll just have to wait and see. As for myself, I'm starting to seriously lose confidence in this threads possibility to provide anything more than another dead end...(I know many of you came to this conclusion 20 pages ago, but hey, I still believe in people! )

 

[Tapio]

Perhaps then the following links might provide you with some better source information:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

and this

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf

What can I say?

Based on only those texts it's a UFO sighting alright. No evidence for an alien cause that I can think of (but I'm not an expert here so it doesn't mean squat). I'll just have to dig deeper for more info. Interesting case, though!

ETA: What is very strange is that there are no images (photos/video) of the objects. Not that they would in themselves count necessarily as evidence, but it would make it seem the case more convincing, especially when the encounter supposedly lasted such a long time...

 

[GeeMack]

ALL HYPOTHESES ARE EQUAL.

Your argument is from ignorance, incredulity, repetition, and all caps. Each provides as much weight to support your position as the other, Rramjet.

There IS plausible evidence by which we can infer that the child might have been responsible - the child was in the room for starters.

Blimps were in Oregon for starters. And with the Rogue River event nobody's even claiming the child ate the sweets. It's been demonstrated, beyond any doubt now, at least to everyone here older than a high school kid, that the blimp explanation is plausible. The exact identity, as with the culprit in the disappearing sweets example, will likely forever remain unknown.

 

[Bikewer]

Just a thought.....Why would so many UFO sightings consist of "lights" in the sky. If these were actually intelligently-guided craft of some sort, and presumably of vastly advanced technology...Why would they bother with lights?

The only reason our aircraft use lights while in flight is collision avoidance; they don't need them to see or whatever. Presumably our alien spacecraft, with their reputed maneuvering capabilities and (assumed) advanced sensors would not need to worry about collisions...
Would our visitors just be contemptuous of humans? "Here we are...Nyaa, Nyaa..."
Let's face it; an advanced technology could learn all it wished to about humanity from orbit or with remotes rather than flying around pointlessly in the atmosphere...

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just a thought.....Why would so many UFO sightings consist of "lights" in the sky. If these were actually intelligently-guided craft of some sort, and presumably of vastly advanced technology...Why would they bother with lights?

The only reason our aircraft use lights while in flight is collision avoidance; they don't need them to see or whatever. Presumably our alien spacecraft, with their reputed maneuvering capabilities and (assumed) advanced sensors would not need to worry about collisions...
Would our visitors just be contemptuous of humans? "Here we are...Nyaa, Nyaa..."
Let's face it; an advanced technology could learn all it wished to about humanity from orbit or with remotes rather than flying around pointlessly in the atmosphere...

Oh yee of little faith. The aliens are doing it so they can announce they are here but not in a way that is obvious. It is another way of "testing" us to see if we are "ready". Apparently, we skeptics, because we choose not to believe these stories, are holding off the coming disclosure/revelation/rapture where the aliens present themselves.

 

[Rramjet]

Thanks for your advice. The only problem is, when following it I only find conclusions which support the view held by all other people but you. That is why I maintain it's a matter of semantics (I'll elaborate on this later on). Because based on your posts here I can not fathom how you would hold such a view.

You’re welcome…but then you need to be talking to the right people. I did not mean “fellow teachers” or even “scientists” in general, because most of those will have the same common misconceptions of science and logic as the majority of people. I am talking rather about people who have specifically studied, for example, the history and philosophy of science, or have undertaken postgraduate courses in logic and epistemology. These are the people you need to approach – and you MAY have…just making the point.

In any case, I think this is not mainly a philosophical matter. Or, it can be, but when thought to be such, we step away from the reality in which this discussion is being held.

Everything is a philosophical matter.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Ask any qualified, peer-review published scientist or trained philosopher and they will tell you that ALL hypotheses are equal before science.

Yes, as a philosophical context in some über-objective reality, before any evidence of anything has been acquired, I agree that ALL hypotheses are equal.

Ummm…No, not in an “über-objective reality” (for that is falling into the same fallacy as the “extra-ordinary hypothesis…” fallacy) – in the real world – and yes indeed, before evidence is acquired.

Science, however, AFAIK is not some godlike form or entity to which such cases are brought before in order to be evaluated.

(AFAIK?) I agree, but to make science work the way we NEED it to work, we must have “in principle” agreement on the ground rules. And one ground rule IS “All hypotheses are equal” (while noting your caveat “before the evidence is examined”). There are a number of others; for example, reproducibility of experimental observation ( a topic I feel SURE is bound to be broached by someone …), adherence to the rules of formal logic another, and so on.

We have acquired knowledge of the world we live in (the extent can be argued over), and we must, as critical thinking people, take heed of that knowledge when examining new hypotheses. This is what I feel people here have been trying to convey.

Yes, I agree again. But I differ on what people have been “trying to convey”. I believe people have been actually trying to defend the “Extraordinary hypothesis requires extraordinary evidence” argument in full and “as is”, thus confusing a priori hypotheses with (and here is where I may have made a misstep in my arguing on this point) a priori evidence ( I have been stating post hoc evidence… which while true, I can also see your point about having “prior knowledge” of the world to inform us about postulations).

But there are actually two parts to the Extraordinary hypothesis” argument. The first we have, through you diligence and clear argument, been able to clarify as:

“All hypotheses are a priori equal” (meaning without the benefit of prior knowledge),

…but the second part of the contention states that “extraordinary evidence” is also required.

Let us look at an example raised in the thread already: Unicorns.

To make “Unicorns exist” implausible, all we have to do is show a “reasonable” amount of evidence that would make that hypothesis implausible. That might look like… “No skeletal remains found”. But that would not clinch it entirely. A stronger argument might be “No fossil remains”. Still not overwhelming but moving in the right direction. Perhaps an historian of ancient mythology could point to a source and say “THIS is where and how “unicorn” arose as a myth and we can see that it was based, not on reality, but mere “storytelling” and go on provide literary (or other) evidence to support that contention.

All the evidence thus presented is by NO MEANS “extraordinary”. In fact, it is entirely mundane, the “usual” stuff we need to make a case for or against anything if you like.
The “unicorn” IS an extraordinary object. But that must not be confused with it being either an “extraordinary hypothesis” or requiring “extraordinary evidence” to either confirm or deny the hypothesis. The hypothesis might SEEM extraordinary, to us, but ONLY because we have the benefit of hindsight. In the middle ages for example, “Unicorns exist” might not have seemed such an extraordinary contention.

And so my second point is that the evidence required to dispute the hypothesis is under NO circumstance “extraordinary”.

So when I state “extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence” is a fallacy I hope you now can see what I mean.

And I hope also you can see how your point about how having a priori knowledge affects how we CONCLUDE about hypotheses, but that in no way affects any hypotheses’ “extraordinariness” or the evidence needed to make a conclusion.

I agree the hypotheses of a UFO or a blimp are equal as separate thought-forms in our imaginative über reality, resembling a void of knowledge. But in the 'real world', with all knowledge acquired before the Rogue River case (and now after it), both of the hypotheses fall into certain categories (certainly overlapping in ways) of already understood and studied reality. Therefore, as you would put it, they are not equal when studied back then or today, based on the evidence we have concerning reality before the sighting ever took place!

That would be okay if we had any knowledge that “fit the observations” in the case of Rogue River. The blimp hypothesis fails on a number of levels. First it is by NO means certain that any blimps COULD have been at Rogue River at the specific time of the observation and second, the characteristics of the object as described by the witnesses DO NOT, when taken together, describe the characteristics of a blimp.
For the blimp hypothesis to work, you must first accept that a blimp could have been in the area (no conclusive evidence for that) and second, you must discount the eyewitness testimony altogether (and that is not a certain bet either). All we CAN say then, given the uncertainties, is that it is UNLIKELY that a blimp was responsible for the sighting and therefore we MUST conclude “Unidentified” – and as it was flying and it was an object – so UFO.

Do you see where I'm aiming at?

I do, you have argued well, and logically.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
They stand of fall on the evidence. It REALLY is as simple as that.

Yes, agreed. But the evidence used to decide this matter must include the evidence we have of this reality as a whole. Rogue River is not (as far as I know) an isolated fragment of reality with it's own laws of nature. What happens there must apply to everywhere else in the world, and vice versa. Thus it would be utter nonsense to exclude all other evidence we've acquired before the Rogue River sighting from the evaluation of different hypotheses aimed in finding out the origin of the UFO there.

Yes, but critically, “blimp” has been the ONLY alternative proposed that has even the remotest chance of being plausible…(that is, there are NOT “many” competing hypotheses, only “Blimp” v. UFO)

And this is why the UFO and blimp hypothese are not equal, not the moment the sighting occured, not after it, not now, not ever. We have too much evidence wheighing on the possibility of the UFO being of mundane origin, and too little evidence for it being of alien origin already before the case to call these hypotheses equal (although without this evidence they could be called equal).

And this is where your logic (which up until this point has been exemplary), I believe, fails you.

First, I have pointed out that the evidence for a blimp is at BEST uncertain and in NO way matches the eyewitness testimony. I have also pointed out that “blimp” is the ONLY competing hypothesis. So your “We have too much evidence” is reaching beyond the actual evidence as presented. It is “a step too far”.

Second, UFO does NOT mean “alien”. It seems there is too much invested in UFO = alien for my arguments to strike home. UFO is literally “Unknown”. This is why the British “Condign” study preferred the term UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) over UFO, because of the “alien” connotations that no-one seems to be able to get past in any discussion on the topic. There is NO evidence that the Rogue River object represents anything “alien” at all. That is another “step too far” that is not warranted by the evidence as presented.

I contend, as I have always contended, that the Rogue River case supports my contention that “UFOs exist”. Note: I am NOT saying the case PROVES my contention, rather, it merely lends support to that contention.

To move beyond that I propose that we must explore other cases, that would then add MORE weight to that contention, but also show us that something MORE is going on also.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Somewhere, somehow, the people in this forum have been brainwashed into the fallacy "extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence" and I am afraid THAT contention, my friend, is complete and utter nonsense. It is "woo" at its most evil. It strikes at the very heart of rational thought and the scientific method.

Actually, before passing judgement to what members here think of the concept you might want to read this thread.

Yes, and it is the same old argument over again, with the “usual suspects” contributing the same old arguments (and of course the thread has now been derailed), that we have been walking ourselves through – but I do hope we do not need a whole thread to reach a rational conclusion about it!

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Moreover, other common fallacies propagated by members of this forum do so similarly. The "All the cats I have seen are black, therefore all cats are black" is another common one.

You mentioned this one before (only with black crows). I'm very familiar with the fallacy. All I can say is that I suggest you read more carefully what people here post. If what someone writes resembles the fallacy by your interpretation, it doesn't mean it is so .

Ha! Very clever. But by the same standard…

(Snip about fallacies I contend expressed but we agree to leave behind as HOPEFULLY irrelevant)

Thanks again for the advice. I'm well aware of human 'blind spots', so a nudge to learn more is always appreciated. (…)

I hope, and I believe, you took it in the spirit intended. I meant to be helpful and not condescending…

Sorry for the delay, but it I feel that perhaps now I can actually get on to it. There's just so much philosophical debris clouding the way...I'll get back to you on the case!

I posted this already but just so you can pick it up easily:

Perhaps the following links might provide you with some better source information:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...p_ufo_iran.pdf

and this

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...ow_you_see.pdf

ETA: wollery, brilliant! Simply brilliant!

Oooo…but now you show your misreading of the strength of the evidence for “blimp”…but THAT has been done to death. I was going to move on… but since you raised it in such manner, I feel I must defend my position.

Perhaps you have not had time to read my posts with quotes from the Navy’s historical arm, and various other “official” sources which show NO blimps on the West Coast in 1949 EXCEPT possibly the GOODYEAR blimp…

The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field. (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)

More, we have from the book: “Oakland Aviation” By Ronald T. Reuther, William T. Larkins “Navy Reserve Squadron ZP-871 (Lighter than air) flew one after the war at Oakland from 1952 to 1958 (Note: this is a reference to the GoodYear type blimp). (This photograph shows…) It was used as a slow, low-flying billboard, with the words “JOIN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, BE A NAVAL AVIATION CADET” on the side.

So there was ONLY ONE blimp at Oakland - and it was used solely as an advertising blimp over the city, between 1952 – 1958!

Add that to my original source: "Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended."
(http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)

ALL the evidence posted about blimps subsequent to my post show possible (but by no means conclusive) evidence of (just ONE) Navy blimp on the WEST Coast in the 1950s…but critically NOT in 1949. But even if the evidence directly pointed to 1949, the evidence is then at BEST seriously conflicted.

So unless we want to argue this forever, I suggest we move on.

The Iranian UFO…

 

[Stray Cat]

The only reason our aircraft use lights while in flight is collision avoidance; they don't need them to see or whatever. Presumably our alien spacecraft, with their reputed maneuvering capabilities and (assumed) advanced sensors would not need to worry about collisions

The aliens tried running without lights over Roswell in 1947... It ended in tragedy.

 

[Belz...]

Or, Tapio, if I put it in less word , If you ignore *all* that we know on reality, without any prior knowledge whatsoever, all hypotheses to a problem are equal. But taking reality into account, some hypotheses are more probable than others, and thus all hypotheses are not equal.

Now i expect another round of rramjet refusing to admit this.

And, really, why would anyone ignore reality when determining the a priori value of a hypothesis ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but critically, “blimp” has been the ONLY alternative proposed that has even the remotest chance of being plausible

Let's try clouds, then

 

[Rramjet]

What can I say?

Based on only those texts it's a UFO sighting alright. No evidence for an alien cause that I can think of (but I'm not an expert here so it doesn't mean squat). I'll just have to dig deeper for more info. Interesting case, though!

ETA: What is very strange is that there are no images (photos/video) of the objects. Not that they would in themselves count necessarily as evidence, but it would make it seem the case more convincing, especially when the encounter supposedly lasted such a long time...

Yes, as you say, "Interesting". There was radar confirmation if not a photo.

I have posted this before but just do we are clear on what I find compelling about the case:

What I find compelling is:
First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")
Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "weird" (unlike ANYTHING that could be labelled a "blimp" and it exhibited aspects that could NOT be explained as anything like a possible secret US weapons system or program etc...
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)

And of course the original link I posted:

http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

To which there has been an objection raised based on the "nature" of one of the correspondents in the case... which I believe is as relevant as me stating "Oh, no, not Randi... we ALL know what he thinks is complete nonsense!" And of COURSE that is a complete non-argument!

Anyway, I look forward perhaps to some comments based on the contentions I posted above?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Please give a link to the post that states UFOs don't exist. Thanks in advance.

I must have missed where you gave a link to the post that states UFOs don't exist. You aren't just scattering strawmen about wherever you post, are you? Thanks in advance.

I contend, as I have always contended, that the Rogue River case supports my contention that “UFOs exist”. Note: I am NOT saying the case PROVES my contention, rather, it merely lends support to that contention.

Everyone has contended that UFOs exist. Just not using your definition of TRUE UFO.

To move beyond that I propose that we must explore other cases, that would then add MORE weight to that contention, but also show us that something MORE is going on also.

Why do you need to add more weight to a contention that is prima facie true already?

 

[AWPrime]

Yes, but critically, “blimp” has been the ONLY alternative proposed that has even the remotest chance of being plausible…(that is, there are NOT “many” competing hypotheses, only “Blimp” v. UFO)

You forgot fable/prank.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh yee of little faith. The aliens are doing it so they can announce they are here but not in a way that is obvious. It is another way of "testing" us to see if we are "ready". Apparently, we skeptics, because we choose not to believe these stories, are holding off the coming disclosure/revelation/rapture where the aliens present themselves.

..and of course your cynicism points to the obvious question:

"How CAN we rationally assign motivation to an "alien"?

Of course we cannot.

Therefore we cannot use "The aliens would do this..." or "The aliens would not do that..." as the basis for ANY conclusion about why or why not they might "choose" any course of action at all.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The aliens tried running without lights over Roswell in 1947... It ended in tragedy.

Yup. They ran into that damn MOGUL balloon.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes, as you say, "Interesting". There was radar confirmation if not a photo.

No there wasn't... there was anecdotal confirmation of radar. Nothing more, nothing less.

All of the first hand information comes from a single DIA report. All the other information is third hand at best and taken (again) quite a long time after the incident.

There is nothing (no Physical Evidence) to support any of the story being accurate and plenty of inconsistencies throughout.

What really happened is Unidentified... OK let's move on, eventually you will show something that actually validates the title of this thread perhaps?

 

[Rramjet]

You forgot fable/prank.

So I did!

Perhaps this will help then.

COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?

It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax. When the two men decided to report the UFO, they did not turn to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men, who worked in responsible positions within the Ames Research Laboratory, reported it to the security office at their own laboratory. If it was a hoax, by reporting it directly to their workplace security, they were (at the very least) endangering their jobs if exposed.

One might suggest that the time between the sighting and the report lends an air of “hoax” to the situation. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. To me however, this suggests an element of caution on their part, in keeping with their reported character assessments. Did they really dare to report such a thing? Certainly they would not have wanted to look foolish. And what about their positions within the Ames laboratory? Yet they probably would also have felt - as confirmed by several of the early witnesses who reported “flying saucers” - that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so that the government would know about them.

Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" (a phrase used by Phil Klass to describe himself during my first phone conversation with him in 1974) or “debunker” might argue that they played for high stakes. If they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it for the fun of it) or use the OSI investigation as evidence it was a genuine sighting and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both.

However, this scenario is unlikely. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they certainly didn't "do it for the money". Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it would seem to be a highly risky undertaking for men in responsible positions to put their jobs on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators. (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

 

[Rramjet]

No there wasn't... there was anecdotal confirmation of radar. Nothing more, nothing less.

All of the first hand information comes from a single DIA report. All the other information is third hand at best and taken (again) quite a long time after the incident.

There is nothing (no Physical Evidence) to support any of the story being accurate and plenty of inconsistencies throughout.

What really happened is Unidentified... OK let's move on, eventually you will show something that actually validates the title of this thread perhaps?

Basically you are stating that ONLY physical evidence will satisfy you and you discount everything else. I'd like to listen in on a conversation with you and a friend concerning them telling you about what they did that day.

 

[Stray Cat]

Basically you are stating that ONLY physical evidence will satisfy you and you discount everything else. I'd like to listen in on a conversation with you and a friend concerning them telling you about what they did that day.

I'd certainly want physical evidence if they were telling me they'd seen what was possibly an alien space craft flying by.
On the other hand, if they were telling me they'd seen the Goodyear Blimp, as interesting as a picture may be, I'd have no reason to doubt their story.

That's what "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is all about.

So the Tehran UFO was reported in the sky for an hour before jets were scrambled. It was seen by military personnel hovering... Not a one of them had the presence of mind to photograph this threat or record it in any way what-so-ever?