UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

My objection is specifically adressed to the fallacy of "Extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence.

If you had followed the logic carefully you would have noted that the first part (extraordinary hypothesis) is a fallacy because

"All hypotheses are a priori equal. (a point which you seem to actually confirm in the above)

...and second, the evidence needed to refute ANY hypothesis is the same old mundane evidence that is required in our day to day existence. Thus making the "extraordinary evidence" bit also fallacious.

It really IS as simple as that. But please, do NOT take my word for it. Consult some peer-reviewed texts, ask someone qualified in the history and philosophy of science or who has been formally trained in logic.

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary on the meaning of the word extraordinary. Oh, and also consult someone qualified in logic, because you have the whole extraordinary evidence thing ass about face.

Let's look at the boy in the room, sweet eating Unicorn example. The boy claims that the Unicorn ate the sweets. You say that to disprove this hypothesis I just need ordinary evidence that Unicorns (which can appear out of nowhere, and change shape, and become invisible) don't exist. But that would be proving a negative, which can't be done (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and even if it could, how do you prove the non-existence of something that can vanish at will? ("Look, there's no Unicorn in the room." "Of course not, he vanished, silly!")

The boy has made a claim which is outside of the ordinary experience of humans, and defies the laws of the world in which we live (i.e. it is an extraordinary claim). In order to back up his claim he would need to provide evidence that Unicorns exist, otherwise his claim can be dismissed as pure fantasy. The evidence to prove that Unicorns exist would be outside of the ordinary experiences of humans, and would thus be extraordinary evidence.

The boy's hypothesis is not a priori equal, because we do not live in a world without a priori knowledge. We know, a priori, that boys eat sweets, and they also lie, and we have absolutely no evidence that Unicorns exist, all of which make the boy's story implausible at the very least.

Thus the boy's extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course, you can entertain as many hypotheses as you think plausible - BUT while you are doing so you cannot claim any single hypothesis as THE explanation and MUST therefore state that you don't know what the object is (ie that it IS a UFO) until such time as you settle on a single hypothesis (that you think might identify the object) that becomes a plausible hypothesis. (shrugs) it really is quite simple. Basic logic 101.

(ie; You cannot "explain" the object as more than one thing... to attempt that is a complete nonsense).

It's a Denebian child slave vessel. Or it's a school bus. Rramjet believes both to be equally plausible. Or it's a UFO. Or it's a TRUE UFO.

I'm with Wollery. Rramjet, can you tell us in one sentence or less what exactly it is that you are arguing for?

 

[wollery]

Of course, you can entertain as many hypotheses as you think plausible - BUT while you are doing so you cannot claim any single hypothesis as THE explanation and MUST therefore state that you don't know what the object is (ie that it IS a UFO) until such time as you settle on a single hypothesis (that you think might identify the object) that becomes a plausible hypothesis. (shrugs) it really is quite simple. Basic logic 101.

(ie; You cannot "explain" the object as more than one thing... to attempt that is a complete nonsense).

Um, yes, exactly.

Everyone has agreed that the object is unidentified. I refer you to my earlier post in which I asked you what point you are trying to make in this thread, because the longer you go on posting the less clear I am on what it is you hope to achieve.

Not one single person in this thread has ever claimed that the Rogue River sighting is definitely a blimp. Not one.

The blimp hypothesis has been offered as the most likely mundane explanation. That does not mean it is the only possible explanation, or that it is certain, just that it is more probable than any other explanation.

I fail to see why you are having trouble with this concept.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Okay then, provide evidence that your hypothesis is a plausible one. For example - WHAT object placed into the air by WHAT method could possibly match what the witnesses describe (and fool the extensive OSI investigation)?

Gee. I don't know. But I do not depend on "the extensive OSI investigation" which did not apparently note that there were blimps operating in the area.

I note also you are now denying the blimp hypothesis. That is, the implication of your "hoax" claim is that you now believe the blimp hypothesis implausible and are thus hypothesizing it as a hoax.

Again I ask, "Is English your native language?" My suggestion that it might be a hoax created by a third party in no way "implies" it could not have been a blimp.

 

[fromdownunder]

"All hypotheses are a priori equal. (a point which you seem to actually confirm in the above)

...and second, the evidence needed to refute ANY hypothesis is the same old mundane evidence that is required in our day to day existence. Thus making the "extraordinary evidence" bit also fallacious.

OK, let's accept this for the sake of the discussion. So far, what I have got from this thread is:

Rramjet: Rogue River is a UFO

Everybody Else Yes, it is. It could be......, but we will never know

Rramjet: No it can't. It is?????

Nobody is saying it is anything, they are saying ot MIGHT be this, that or 30 other things. Please fill in the ????? or specifically state why you are arguing with people who are agreeing that it IS unquestionably a UFO. Simply saying what it is not is going nowhere fast. As others have said it is getting boring and extremely circular, and it is time to move on - I have followed this thread from Day One and want to see where you are at least trying to head.

Rogue River is a UFO! So what? We know that. What are you trying to actually say about the Rogue River sightings, or aren't you trying to say anything at all?

Norm

 

[Paul2]

The boy's hypothesis is not a priori equal, because we do not live in a world without a priori knowledge.

This bears emphasizing.

 

[TjW]

Especially since every hypothesis is equally as valid as any other. Hell, he has said it himself. Hoax, blimp, even the possibility that we are all playing a very elaborate joke on Rramjet, using him more or less as a cat toy to bat around for our amusement. We hacked his computer and doctored his access to all the links on the 'net. All the UFO stories are faked by folks from this forum. We put all that bogus information there so he would fall for it, every bit of it, hooked like a dumb fish grabbing a worm.

Shhhh....

 

[Jocce]

"All hypotheses are a priori equal. (a point which you seem to actually confirm in the above)

...and second, the evidence needed to refute ANY hypothesis is the same old mundane evidence that is required in our day to day existence. Thus making the "extraordinary evidence" bit also fallacious.

IF NOT "aPrioriKnowledge" THEN "HypothesesEqual"
ELSE...

I would like to see your continuation because in this universe, the ELSE clause will always run.

 

[Marduk]

I have a new proposal which covers every unidentified ufo ever
various governments have been creating these hoaxes (sometimes using stealth blimps) so that when they do test new aircraft the Russians/Public/Enemy dont get to hear about it from a credible source

could someone evaluate my hypothesis against the odds that these same UFOs are all alien spacecraft, I don't think theyre equal

thanks

 

[fromdownunder]

could someone evaluate my hypothesis against the odds that these same UFOs are all alien spacecraft, I don't think theyre equal

thanks

To be as fair as I can under the circumstances, Rramjet has never suggested that any specific UFO IS an alien spacecraft. You need to understand that it's all about cumulative evidence - once Elvis sightings hit the magic figure, voila! - Elvis must be alive, because [the magic visions accumulated count] have reached critical mass. In fact throughout this thread, he has said 5/8ths of .......

That, to me personally is the most annoying part of what he is doing. He is only saying what he believes things are not, and not even attempting to show what he thinks they are. Just some sort of inference that once 1,000,000 people see Princess Di. serving hamburgers at a McDonalds in Iceland, well, she never, ever died.

Norm

 

[Rramjet]

Um, yes, exactly.

Everyone has agreed that the object is unidentified. I refer you to my earlier post in which I asked you what point you are trying to make in this thread, because the longer you go on posting the less clear I am on what it is you hope to achieve.

Not one single person in this thread has ever claimed that the Rogue River sighting is definitely a blimp. Not one.

The blimp hypothesis has been offered as the most likely mundane explanation. That does not mean it is the only possible explanation, or that it is certain, just that it is more probable than any other explanation.

I fail to see why you are having trouble with this concept.

Quite simple really. I have provided enough detailed evidence and explanation to show that a “blimp” was a HIGHLY UNLIKELY explanation for Rogue River - if not downright impossible - as an explanation.

No person has yet provided any evidence to substantively counter that contention by me. If you have the evidence - or logical arguments - then I suggest you present them, arguing precisely against the points I have raised. Until you do that, YOUR claim that a blimp is most likely to have been responsible is simply refuted by all the evidence pointing toward the fact that "blimp" is a HIGHLY UNLIKELY explanation.

For example you MUST directly refute the following points that I have made which demonstrate the wholly UNLIKELY nature of a blimp being responsible.

Even accepting the GOODYEAR (or even a Navy reserve) blimp WAS active we must also account for the witness' sworn testimony, CONSISTENT between themselves, describing the object as (observation made by five witnesses under perfect viewing conditions with the sun at their backs, two with the aid of binoculars):

UFO: CIRCULAR, pancake shaped (blimp: CIGAR shaped)
UFO: 25-35 feet in diameter (blimp: HUGE in comparison)
UFO: Speed of a jet plane (how fast does the Goodyear blimp go again?)
UFO: No sound (how does the blimp propel itself again?)
UFO: "rotation about the vertical axis" (blimp: I’d like to see that…)
UFO: FLAT, smooth underside (blimp curved, lots of protuberances)

The witness descriptions also lack the features a blimp DOES have:

BLIMP: Bottom and horizontal fins (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Gondola (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Engines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Trailing tether lines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: BIG sign on side stating “Good Year” - some with flashing neon lights too! (UFO: No markings whatsoever)

Let me now add some additional comments to the above points.

A blimp or airship is typically 3 or 4 (or more) times long than it is wide. If the witnesses had seen it coming directly toward or directly away from them they would have seen something not quite circular but like a fat ellipse with its major axis vertical. However, they said it crossed in front of them (heading almost southward while they looked eastward). In this case they should have viewed it broadside and seen an overall shape somewhat like a cigar with its major axis horizontal. They might mistake this for an oblique view of a disc - but when it turned, at least the guy with binoculars would have seen its length appear to shorten or, if it weren't perfectly transverse to the line of sight, the width of the image would change. Yet the witnesses describe no such change – maintaining it appeared circular throughout.

Then the witnesses describe (and indeed represent in a drawing) an object with a fin on the top (and this is where the “blimp hypothesis” people want to claim “resemblance” to a blimp). First the “fin” in the drawing begins “amidship” while a fin on a blimp is very much restricted the end of the object. Furthermore, it is obvious that if the witnesses (two using binoculars) could see the “top fin”, they would also have noticed if there were lower and horizontal fins (and a gondola!).

One skeptic has complained that Mrs. A described the object as travelling at the speed of a C-47, which is not a jet aircraft. Right, not a jet aircraft, but still faster than you're likely to see a blimp travel! (Note also that Mrs A was referring specifically to the speed of the object, not its’ size or shape)

The “skeptics” make their arguments by selectively rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis. But if you do that, you can explain ANYTHING.

Finally, the “skeptics” seem to want to define a UFO a la Condon as “an object unidentified by the observer”. But this denies the OSI investigation by experts who should have been able to identify known, mundane phenomena/objects yet failed to identify the object despite sufficient detailed, credible information that identification should be possible based on what is known "today."

The evidence MUST be viewed in toto. All together. First, the direct evidence that a blimp could possibly have been in the area seems conflicted (at BEST), but even accepting it was possible for a blimp to have been in the area (and given also the location that seems highly unlikely), then we have the eyewitness testimony that describes an object quite unlike a blimp in most, if not all, characteristics AND the OSI investigation to account for.

Together the evidence points toward UFO as the only conclusion that can be reached. All other explanations "wind blown trash", "kite", "balloon of some kind", "parachute", etc. just do NOT fit the evidence. It's as simple as that.

My assessment above (and in previous posts) has not "dismissed with the wave of a hand" anything at all. In fact I have provided much detailed evidence and explanation to support my position. Rather it is the "skeptics" who "dismiss at the wave of a hand". They simply refuse to directly address most, if any, of the substantive, detailed points that have been made by me. It is as simple as that.

 

[Jocce]

I have provided enough detailed evidence and explanation to show that a “blimp” was a HIGHLY UNLIKELY explanation for Rogue River - if not downright impossible - as an explanation.

No person has yet provided any evidence to substantively counter that contention by me.

You are entitled to your OPINION. However, that opinion is not shared by anyone else.

Now, could we ge back to the issues at hand.

We all agree that the Rouge River and Iranian cases represents UFOs. I ask again, now what?

ETA: I also would like to direct your attention to my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5232150&postcount=961 in case you missed it.

 

[jer_j]

jer_j, the corollary of you last post is this: there is actually an infinite number of "equally" likely hypotheses to explain *any* data set, so we're in for a *long* haul if we treat all hypothesis the same.

That's a good, succinct way to sum it up. Unfortunately, I had briefly fallen back into the trap of thinking that, if I spelled it out in enough detail, Rramjet would take at least something from what I said.

Please forgive my lapse in judgment, as it added to the unnecessary continuation of this unnecessary thread.

 

[wollery]

Quite simple really. I have provided enough detailed evidence and explanation to show that a “blimp” was a HIGHLY UNLIKELY explanation for Rogue River - if not downright impossible - as an explanation.

No person has yet provided any evidence to substantively counter that contention by me. If you have the evidence - or logical arguments - then I suggest you present them, arguing precisely against the points I have raised. Until you do that, YOUR claim that a blimp is most likely to have been responsible is simply refuted by all the evidence pointing toward the fact that "blimp" is a HIGHLY UNLIKELY explanation.

For example you MUST directly refute the following points that I have made which demonstrate the wholly UNLIKELY nature of a blimp being responsible.

So what?

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

 

[fromdownunder]

So what?

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

I would also like to know this.

Norm

 

[Rramjet]

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary on the meaning of the word extraordinary. Oh, and also consult someone qualified in logic, because you have the whole extraordinary evidence thing ass about face.

Let's look at the boy in the room, sweet eating Unicorn example. The boy claims that the Unicorn ate the sweets. You say that to disprove this hypothesis I just need ordinary evidence that Unicorns (which can appear out of nowhere, and change shape, and become invisible) don't exist. But that would be proving a negative, which can't be done (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and even if it could, how do you prove the non-existence of something that can vanish at will? ("Look, there's no Unicorn in the room." "Of course not, he vanished, silly!")

I am perplexed by your misunderstanding of the situation here.

If I say that to refute the boy’s claim that “A Unicorn did it” all we need to show is that there are no such things as Unicorns AND that we can do this simply by referring to the biological and geological records and also demonstrate the oral and literary traditions that went into the “creation” of Unicorns – I would suggest that is an exemplary method of refuting the boy’s claim by reference to mundane, everyday evidence that we use all the time to support or refute other ordinary hypotheses.

Now, you have NOT explained HOW you would refute the boy’s claims in any other fashion. I ask you then : HOW would you refute the boys’ claim that “A Unicorn did it”? Tell me please…

The boy has made a claim which is outside of the ordinary experience of humans,…

Ummm no…actually Unicorns ( or the concept of them) are very much WITHIN ordinary human experience - otherwise the boy would not have even thought of appealing to a “unicorn” as an explanation.

…and defies the laws of the world in which we live (i.e. it is an extraordinary claim).

No, again… The unicorn’s capabilities are “extraordinary, certainly, but the boy’s claim (hypothesis) only SEEMS extraordinary to those who have a priori evidence that unicorns do not exist BECAUSE we have mundane, ordinary evidence that points to the conclusion that “Unocorns don’t exist”.. The claim, to the boy (and to those that believe in unicorns) is an ENTIRELY ordinary claim. I have stated before “One person’s extraordinary hypothesis is another’s “banal idea”.

In order to back up his claim he would need to provide evidence that Unicorns exist, otherwise his claim can be dismissed as pure fantasy.

The boy does not have to do anything. He is a little kid, and if you expect him to understand the rules of evidence and to be able to argue cogently in favour of a Unicorn, then you misconstrue the Adult/Child relationship. WE have to show the boy the error of his claim by providing evidence to him that Unicorns do not exist. We have a duty as adults to teach him how evidence is needed to support any claim, and we can only do this by example. You keep swapping the burden of proof to suit your own position(s).

The evidence to prove that Unicorns exist would be outside of the ordinary experiences of humans, and would thus be extraordinary evidence.

But I thought you wanted to provide that evidence… at least you claimed that you could NOT provide counter-evidence to “Unicorns exist”. So again…exactly HOW WOULD you refute the boy’s claim?

But the evidence FOR unicorns is just as mundane as the evidence against them. Biological and/or geological remains, literary/oral traditions etc… nothing “extraordinary” here either.

The boy's hypothesis is not a priori equal, because we do not live in a world without a priori knowledge. We know, a priori, that boys eat sweets, and they also lie, and we have absolutely no evidence that Unicorns exist, all of which make the boy's story implausible at the very least.

So now you say that we CAN show evidence that unicorns do not exist. Yet above you claimed: “But that would be proving a negative, which can't be done (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)… so you see how an illogical (irrational) argument such as your own leads you into contradictory claims? You cannot have it both ways. You really need to sort your logic out because it obviously leads you into error (as just described).

PS: For future reference, I’ll also ask you to remember that you have categorically argued that ”absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

 

[wollery]

I am perplexed by your misunderstanding of the situation here.

If I say that to refute the boy’s claim that “A Unicorn did it” all we need to show is that there are no such things as Unicorns AND that we can do this simply by referring to the biological and geological records and also demonstrate the oral and literary traditions that went into the “creation” of Unicorns – I would suggest that is an exemplary method of refuting the boy’s claim by reference to mundane, everyday evidence that we use all the time to support or refute other ordinary hypotheses.

Now, you have NOT explained HOW you would refute the boy’s claims in any other fashion. I ask you then : HOW would you refute the boys’ claim that “A Unicorn did it”? Tell me please…



Ummm no…actually Unicorns ( or the concept of them) are very much WITHIN ordinary human experience - otherwise the boy would not have even thought of appealing to a “unicorn” as an explanation.



No, again… The unicorn’s capabilities are “extraordinary, certainly, but the boy’s claim (hypothesis) only SEEMS extraordinary to those who have a priori evidence that unicorns do not exist BECAUSE we have mundane, ordinary evidence that points to the conclusion that “Unocorns don’t exist”.. The claim, to the boy (and to those that believe in unicorns) is an ENTIRELY ordinary claim. I have stated before “One person’s extraordinary hypothesis is another’s “banal idea”.



The boy does not have to do anything. He is a little kid, and if you expect him to understand the rules of evidence and to be able to argue cogently in favour of a Unicorn, then you misconstrue the Adult/Child relationship. WE have to show the boy the error of his claim by providing evidence to him that Unicorns do not exist. We have a duty as adults to teach him how evidence is needed to support any claim, and we can only do this by example. You keep swapping the burden of proof to suit your own position(s).



But I thought you wanted to provide that evidence… at least you claimed that you could NOT provide counter-evidence to “Unicorns exist”. So again…exactly HOW WOULD you refute the boy’s claim?

But the evidence FOR unicorns is just as mundane as the evidence against them. Biological and/or geological remains, literary/oral traditions etc… nothing “extraordinary” here either.



So now you say that we CAN show evidence that unicorns do not exist. Yet above you claimed: “But that would be proving a negative, which can't be done (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)… so you see how an illogical (irrational) argument such as your own leads you into contradictory claims? You cannot have it both ways. You really need to sort your logic out because it obviously leads you into error (as just described).

PS: For future reference, I’ll also ask you to remember that you have categorically argued that ”absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

So what?

 

[Rramjet]

You are entitled to your OPINION. However, that opinion is not shared by anyone else.

I have an opinion supported by (what I consider to be overwhelming) evidence. Evidence that you either cannot or will not refute. So my position stands until you can do that. Simple really.

Now, could we ge back to the issues at hand.

We all agree that the Rouge River and Iranian cases represents UFOs. I ask again, now what?

But it is plainly obvious that MOST people here support the hypothesis that a “blimp” is the likely explanation. You cannot have it both ways. Either you agree it was a UFO or you think a blimp “most likely”. Which is it? UFO or blimp? Please choose one. You cannot have both.

ETA: I also would like to direct your attention to my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=961 in case you missed it.

Sure:

I stated (in part): 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”.

You then stated:
I think I found a semantic problem. The bolded part above is incorrect Rramjet. The U in UFO stands for Unidentified, not Unknown. A small but, I believe, vital distinction in our discussion.

Why is that “distinction” vital? An unidentified object IS BY DEFINITION and unknown object. So what exactly is your point?

And you ask about all this “So what?” and others have asked “What is your point in all this?” as if they had never read a single post of mine where I have explained this MANY times.

But for those who have not read, or have not understood, I will repeat.

I contend:
UFOs exist and that Rogue River is a case that supports that contention”.

Second, I argue that we can go further to contend that “Aliens exist” (while noting carefully that “aliens” DOES NOT necessarily mean ET).

I presented the Iranian UFO case as partial evidence on the route to explaining why I believe my second contention is supported by the evidence

Perhaps then 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

I have also provided a list of reasons WHY I think this case is compelling

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/

Note also the “intelligent control” point.

NOW can we discuss the case and WHY others might not think the case lends support to either “UFOs exist” or “Aliens exist”.

 

[jer_j]

I am perplexed by your misunderstanding of the situation here.

If I say that to refute the boy’s claim that “A Unicorn did it” all we need to show is that there are no such things as Unicorns AND that we can do this simply by referring to the biological and geological records and also demonstrate the oral and literary traditions that went into the “creation” of Unicorns – I would suggest that is an exemplary method of refuting the boy’s claim by reference to mundane, everyday evidence that we use all the time to support or refute other ordinary hypotheses.

That's basically what I said we do with all claims that fall ridiculously far outside the realm of the plausible/likely - except most people can do it quickly and almost unconsciously when sorting through worthwhile hypotheses. To actually spend the time and energy researching stupid things like unicorns, flying saucers, and reptilian shape-shifters (unless a strong piece of evidence suddenly manifests itself) is just plain wasteful.

Ummm no…actually Unicorns ( or the concept of them) are very much WITHIN ordinary human experience - otherwise the boy would not have even thought of appealing to a “unicorn” as an explanation.

Are... you... serious??? Because if you aren't you're just yanking our chain, and that I can understand. If you are, that's just sad. I refuse to split hairs with you over "common experience" in fiction vs nonfiction.

I have stated before “One person’s extraordinary hypothesis is another’s “banal idea”.

And that depends entirely upon the caliber of person you're dealing with.

The boy does not have to do anything. He is a little kid, and if you expect him to understand the rules of evidence and to be able to argue cogently in favour of a Unicorn, then you misconstrue the Adult/Child relationship. WE have to show the boy the error of his claim by providing evidence to him that Unicorns do not exist. We have a duty as adults to teach him how evidence is needed to support any claim, and we can only do this by example. You keep swapping the burden of proof to suit your own position(s).

Oh, wow - this is a veritable gold mine. Soooooo, sooooooo tempting... But I leave it for someone else...

I guess I'll drop it at that. I should have stayed out of this thread, but I guess I was just feeling cantankerous today.

 

[Rramjet]

So what?

"So what?"

Is that it? You concede my points so easily? But I suppose I must be grateful that at least you DO so I guess.

So please see the post of mine immediatley above this one.