UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")

How does that make it alien?

Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!

How does that make it alien?

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...

How do you know aliens have such capability?

Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)

How does that make it alien?

Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)

How does that make it alien?

Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)

Human beings exhibit intelligent control.

So, Rramjet, any intention of defending your extraordinary claim at all?

 

[EHocking]

Here's a video that I came across from UK Skeptics just now.

OK, so it's from the people kooky for alien UFOs at the Disclosure Project (ETA: Wrong attribution. They support the DP) and seems to self-parody (try to forget that they are insisting that this is an UFO mimicing an overflying aeroplane and Murrayville is 5 miles from Greensburg Jeannette Regional airport).

But what is pertinent to the discussion we have had here regarding eyewitness accounts are the various comments regarding the "UFO"'s size, shape, sound, speed and distance. As was mentioned on the post in UK Skeptics, it IS worth watching the full 5 mins.

Oh, for added synchronicity, notice that (to me) the "UFO" initially flies towards the camera and appears to be quite slow (20mph is the estimate) and when it gets side on to the camera position accelerates.

I mention it only because I stumbled across it just now and it has many similarities to the types of features noted by the eyewitnesses in the Rogue River "incident".

I do not intend to analyse or discuss the video, nor am I claiming that the apparent (to me) misattributions by the eyewitnesses and the PD commenter are "proof" that the Rogue River statements are a bunch of hooey, I merely put it out here as a demonstration of how differently people will view and interpret a "sighting".

 

[SnidelyW]

It appears that during my absence, the Rogue River incident has taken on epic proportions. I'll refuse to wade into that pond.

Thank you to all for your analysis and critique of the 1997 Mexico City video.

Stray Cat has an excellent point about being forced to rethink his position, and evolving as a critical thinker can never be a bad thing. My ideas certainly have evolved somewhat as a result of my participation in this particular thread.

Perhaps I can indulge the skeptics one last time, to look at a rather famous (infamous) case that occurred in Kentucky on August 21st, 1955.

It's known as the Sutton incident, or Kelley/Hopkinsville encounter, and the NICAP synopsis of the events of that night can be found here.

http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm

Another recap can be found here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread428741/pg1

Basically, eight people witnessed creatures approach a farmhouse, where said creatures were shot at by the resident menfolk, multiple times. The creatures remained until almost dawn.

Of all the UFO, ET, and related cases I have read about, this one seems to be one of the most interesting, because there were many people involved.

I'd like to learn what everyone thinks of this case.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, what do you make of the point that member after member currently posting in this thread, including at least one professional astrophysicist, are consistently describing your critical thinking skills as sloppy, your reading comprehension as limited, and your understanding of scientific precepts and methods (burden of proof, the hierarchy of evidence) as flawed; while your tendency to ascribe imaginary motives to your opponents is pronounced, and your capacity for leaping to unsupported conclusions based on the flimsiest evidence (namely, conflicting anecdotes) is anything but logical?

Is it possible, just possible, that you're the one in error here? That dozens of skeptics, both pro and amateur, are actually on the right track when they repeat Carl Sagan's maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? That you're making mistakes of judgement and rationality based on a purely emotional attachment to the idea of "alien visitation"?

I expect you'll respond that no, we're all somehow in the wrong and you, champion of a marginalized viewpoint, have the right of it after all. But who knows? Maybe you'll surprise us all and admit, finally, that your thinking has been clouded by a pre-desired outcome, namely "alien visitation." Stranger things have happened. Here's hoping.

Whatever, you or anyone else in this forum thinks, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a fallacy (and I note "hypothesis" has now changed to "claim", as if that makes any difference).

That's it. And mere repetition of the fallacy (or an appeal to some sort of Cult hero who said it) does not make it any less of a fallacy.

You also seem to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that JREF is a reflection of majority scientific opinion...

You also seem to be labouring under some sort of misapprehension that I claim my viewpoint is a reflection of a majority scientific perspective.

I contend that most scientists have the same fundamental weaknesses, when it comes to thinking about how science and logic work, as many of the general public do... That is that they are naive inductivists and they generally have little understanding of the history and philosophy of science.

I have no idea what most scientists think of UFOs, but I suspect their ideas would reflect broader population opinions -at least there is no substantive reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Stray Cat]

Hi Snidely.

I think that case was given a bit of space about 10 pages back.
No evidence if I remember correctly.
The family involved were not considered reliable and the apparent aliens who were reported to be at the farmhouse left no trace (footprints etc).
It's late here and I'm about to sign off, so I haven't read the link you supplied. Maybe I'll have a look tomorrow.

A good tip to find what's already been said by sceptics over the years is to Google "what ever event"+"debunk" or similar search strings. Although not guaranteed to be accurate (regarding bias etc). If serious work has been done to look critically at a particular case, it can help to get a non UFOlogist POV.

I'm out of here for tonight.

 

[Stray Cat]

Whatever, you or anyone else in this forum thinks, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a fallacy (and I note "hypothesis" has now changed to "claim", as if that makes any difference).

That's it. And mere repetition of the fallacy (or an appeal to some sort of Cult hero who said it) does not make it any less of a fallacy.

The original was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

How many times does it need spelling out:
Claim that you saw a child in an ice cream parlour and you most likely won't be asked for proof because it's well known that children like ice cream and can be seen in ice cream parlours all over the world.

Claim that you saw an alien in an ice cream parlour and you will most likely be asked to prove your claim... If you can provide verifiable physical evidence that your claim is valid, it will indeed be extraordinary evidence.
If you merely make a witness statement and supply that as your total sum evidence, it will not be enough.

See?

 

[GeeMack]

So, Rramjet, any intention of defending your extraordinary claim at all?

I second the question. In this thread of over 1100 posts, nearly 400 of them by Rramjet, we haven't seen him make a single posting with any kind of objective, unambiguous evidence to support the notion that aliens exist. Even much of his argument for the existence of unidentified flying objects is based on ignorance, incredulity, and lies, and everyone already agreed before the thread even started that UFOs exist! Damn.

Come on, Rramjet, quit dragging your feet here, pal. Throw us a bone, will ya?

 

[SnidelyW]

Hi Snidely.

I think that case was given a bit of space about 10 pages back.
No evidence if I remember correctly.
The family involved were not considered reliable and the apparent aliens who were reported to be at the farmhouse left no trace (footprints etc).
It's late here and I'm about to sign off, so I haven't read the link you supplied. Maybe I'll have a look tomorrow.

A good tip to find what's already been said by sceptics over the years is to Google "what ever event"+"debunk" or similar search strings. Although not guaranteed to be accurate (regarding bias etc). If serious work has been done to look critically at a particular case, it can help to get a non UFOlogist POV.

I'm out of here for tonight.

I've been away for a week, and although I have attempted to catch up, I didn't read every word of every post during my absence.

Thanks for the tip, and I shall do that. I have been using the word 'skeptic' on Google, but I shall switch to debunk on your advice.

At the risk of retracing ground already walked, the types of cases that I have a particularly difficult time with are cases where people shun attention after they initially report a sighting, encounter etc.

In this case, the folks who reported it genuinely risked ridicule for what they reported, but drove a considerable distance to report what they saw to the police, pretty much immediately. To me, that says a lot regarding the state of mind these people seemed to be in at the time.

I'll scroll back and reread, but since I am in the Eastern North American time zone, that will have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[SnidelyW]

Ahhhh..I see the subject was discussed in post #810 by Black Kat.

At the risk of evoking the wrath of aforementioned Kat, I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss 'backwoods rubes', as they are perhaps more 'connected' with their farm, and more likely to notice something that doesn't belong.

I'll do some more reading on the subject.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

In this thread of over 1100 posts, nearly 400 of them by Rramjet, we haven't seen him make a single posting with any kind of objective, unambiguous evidence to support the notion that aliens exist.

And he won't be able to make it. The alien notion of UFOs is 60+ years old, with probably millions of enthusiasts and thousands of investigators around the world involved in that time period. Not a single one of them have been able to show an unambiguous physical evidence of UFOs being something more than a mundane occurrance. In 60 years!!

So, all this UFO nonsense is condemned to fade away and die, in my opinion, as was the case with dragons, witches, elfs and fairies in the past.

But, with billions of suns in our galaxy alone, it's not a farfetched idea that intellient life must have evolved in millions of other worlds. So what if an intelligent race make contact with us just tomorrow?. I've heard UFO enthusiasts say that they will laugh at and make fun of skeptics to no end.

Well, most likely it will be the other way around: aliens resembling humans? hahaha; aliens travelling in craft that expel smoke? hahahaha; aliens that need runways to land? hahahaha.

 

[Stray Cat]

So, all this UFO nonsense is condemned to fade away and die, in my opinion, as was the case with dragons, witches, elfs and fairies in the past.

But, with billions of suns in our galaxy alone, it's not a farfetched idea that intellient life must have evolved in millions of other worlds. So what if an intelligent race make contact with us just tomorrow?. I've heard UFO enthusiasts say that they will laugh and make fun of skeptics to no end.

Well, most likely it will be the other way around: aliens resembling humans? hahaha; aliens travelling in craft that expel smoke? hahahaha; aliens that need runways to land? hahahaha.

But wouldn't it just be ironic if the aliens landed in their blimplike space craft and when they got out, they all looked like Dragons, Witches, Elves and Fairies?

BTW: Witches did exist... it's just the stories that were made up about them flying and suchlike that were nonsense.

 

[Rramjet]

Moving on then...

If we can handle it - and I am sure we are intelligent enough to do so - there are two cases current. First, SnidelyW has suggested we take a closer look at the:

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

(he also posted some links, including (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread428741/pg1)

And I have already been discussing the Iranian UFO case:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

and I need to clarify my position on that case in light of the few posts that have been submitted about it.

The following summarise then the reported facts in the case.

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"
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)
Seventh: I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed.” Is just ONE example showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible.

My contention is that such a case represents MORE than a mere UFO – especially in respect of seeming intelligent control.

Now intelligent control suggests an intelligence at work. And THIS I contend adds evidence to support my “Aliens Exist” hypothesis.

I am certainly NOT claiming all UFOs are aliens. That is a fallacious conclusion that is nowhere supported in any of my posts.

I do contend that “aliens” are alien to our conception of reality.

I also state clearly and in no uncertain terms that this case, on its’ own does not prove “aliens exist”, it merely adds weight to a number of other observations (data points) that support that contention.

Some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value. However, from the first link above (noting that the pilot involved was a primary source for this information):

On page 2 of the “Routing Slip” we find under:
“B. RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION” that

“1. Confirmed by other sources” is checked
[and it is checked in preference over 2. Substantially true, 3. Cannot be judged, 4 Doubtful and 5. False]

...and in the very next panel :

VALUE OF INFORMATION, we find that
“1 High (unique, Timely, and of Major Significance)” is checked
[in preference over “ 2. Contributory and Useful, 3. Low (marginal), 4. None (of no use) and 5. Cannot be judged (analyst has no basis for value judgement)].

Now if the NSA considered the information reliable at the highest level - and of value at the highest level - don’t you think that warrants slightly greater respect that “allegedly” or does anyone rationally dispute the NSA’s competence in gathering information?

Does anyone have a rational comment or observation to make on this case?
What about the Hopkinsville case?

Do “Aliens exist”?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

But wouldn't it just be ironic if the aliens landed in their blimplike space craft and when they got out, they all looked like Dragons, Witches, Elves and Fairies?

Well, in that case I would be forced to conclude that our ancestors who claimed the reality of those things were right. Oh wait!, somebody smells a logical fallacy here?!?!

BTW: Witches did exist... it's just the stories that were made up about them flying and suchlike that were nonsense.

Then they exist to this day .

 

[MattusMaximus]

Do “Aliens exist”?

Apparently they do... in your mind, at least. Good luck convincing anyone else here of that. You've certainly lost me because I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what it is that you're claiming.

And, based upon all these posts, trying to figure out exactly what the hell you're claiming at all seems to be an exercise in futility, so I shall now simply

 

[Jocce]

Does anyone have a rational comment or observation to make on this case?

It has been commented upon by several posters already. We agree there was a UFO seen in iran.

Do “Aliens exist”?

Seeing how big the universe is I consider it very likely that life forms exist on other planets.

 

[Jocce]

Some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value. However, from the first link above (noting that the pilot involved was a primary source for this information)

Huh? How do you know?

On page 2 of the “Routing Slip” we find under:
“B. RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION” that

“1. Confirmed by other sources” is checked
[and it is checked in preference over 2. Substantially true, 3. Cannot be judged, 4 Doubtful and 5. False]

...and in the very next panel :

VALUE OF INFORMATION, we find that
“1 High (unique, Timely, and of Major Significance)” is checked
[in preference over “ 2. Contributory and Useful, 3. Low (marginal), 4. None (of no use) and 5. Cannot be judged (analyst has no basis for value judgement)].

Now if the NSA considered the information reliable at the highest level - and of value at the highest level - don’t you think that warrants slightly greater respect that “allegedly”.

or does anyone rationally dispute the NSA’s competence in gathering information?

The NSA can't consider anything because it's not a person. It's he person writing the report that says he believes it to be important etc. and I don't know anything about his qualifications that are relevant in evaluating accounts of possible alien visitations.

The claim that this is an alien ship is quite extraordinary. I would require quite a bit more proof to accept it as factual.

 

[Jocce]

Whatever, you or anyone else in this forum thinks, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a fallacy (and I note "hypothesis" has now changed to "claim", as if that makes any difference).

That's it. And mere repetition of the fallacy (or an appeal to some sort of Cult hero who said it) does not make it any less of a fallacy.

What do you mean with a fallacy? It's not like it's a formal logic expression or something. You make an extraordinary claim, I want extraordinary evidence. If the claim wasn't extraordinary, I wouldn't care if it's true or not and I would likely just take your word for it. It's really very simple.

ETA: I also don't understand why you say:

My contention is that such a case represents MORE than a mere UFO

What do you mean? That it's a little bit identified? Come on...

 

[Rramjet]

What do you mean with a fallacy? It's not like it's a formal logic expression or something. You make an extraordinary claim, I want extraordinary evidence. If the claim wasn't extraordinary, I wouldn't care if it's true or not and I would likely just take your word for it. It's really very simple.

ETA: I also don't understand why you say:

What do you mean? That it's a little bit identified? Come on...

Please define "Extraordinary Evidence" then.

Rogue River was a "mere" UFO in this context because we could not say that it actually DID anything out of the ordinary. We just could not explain its' existence in any mundane way.

The Iranian UFO certainly maneuvered in a way that was completely "extraordinary"! Thus more than a "mere" UFO.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, what point are you trying to make? Have you finally got around to your proof that aliens exist? Or are you still trying to argue UFOs exist in the face of the overwhelming opposition of people agreeing that they do?

 

[Jocce]

Rogue River was a "mere" UFO in this context because we could not say that it actually DID anything out of the ordinary. We just could not explain its' existence in any mundane way.

The Iranian UFO certainly maneuvered in a way that was completely "extraordinary"! Thus more than a "mere" UFO.

I don't care what it did or how it looks, the claim that it was ALIEN is extraordinary regardless of what it was doing at the time. Also, either it's a UFO or an IFO, can't have a little identified.

ETA:

Please define "Extraordinary Evidence" then.

Physical evidence would be a nice start.