UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

I, and everyone else, is with you on this. We ALL believe that UFOs exist.

I can guarantee that you believe that UFOs exist only insofar as they have not been identified by the observer. That is, that UFOs exist only because we have not enough information or have not conducted the research that would enable a mundane explanation to be forthcoming. You believe that all UFO reports have mundane explanations – but we just haven’t found the correct mundane explanations yet. Do you deny that? If so, for what reason?

Like it or not, my definition of UFO is a correct scientific definition of a UFO.
(i.e., a UFO cannot be explained in any mundane fashion that we can think of, given the evidence we have today and all the research that has been conducted). But just because you don’t like the definition, does not make it incorrect.

There is no evidence for creatures. There is no evidence that other intellingence than human was piloting crafts in Iran. I haven't even seen any real evidence showing that there were any crafts to be piloted, intelligently or not.

So you totally ignore the evidence? Why am I not surprised?
…and as for your assertions… I shall only repeat: Just because you say so, does not make it so.

I stated:

Now while these creatures and object characteristics do not in themselves provide "proof" of anything - except that we as humans still have a great deal to learn about "reality" - they do provide indications that something "alien" is amongst us.​

This conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence any more than it can be called evidence.

Which conclusion? That humans still have a great deal to learn about "reality" or that the cases provide provide indications that something "alien" is amongst us?

If you dispute my conclusions, you MUST say why you do so, for your merely stating that my conclusions do not follow from the evidence, does not make it so.

I stated:

These cases, with Rogue River, form stepping stones on a journey of discovery that we must take before we can draw any firm conclusions at all - if indeed ever we can ( and indeed, every scientific exploration of the environment around is is just such a journey). ​

So a number of anecdotal "evidence" form a truth? I've heard that before, comming from homeopaths, faith healers, ghost hunters etc.

What truth? I HAVE heard your pronouncements coming from “homeopaths, faith healers, ghost hunters etc”.

I stated:

So... on with the journey. What do you make of the two cases mentioned? ​

I've told you that already.

Umm… no you haven’t. You have made some unfounded, generalised assertions that you have not supported with evidence. That’s all. I am entitled to dismiss them as irrelevant unless you support those assertions with evidence.

I stated

PS: I note with interest you have been unable to define "Extraordinary Evidence". Unless anyone CAN rationally define this term, then I am afraid the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" will remain a fallacy (even leaving aside the uncertain status of the first term in the statement).​

I say it again then, really loud. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WOULD BE A GOOD START.

STILL can’t define “Extraordinary Evidence" then?

Shouting louder does not make your statements any more intelligible.
I have already pointed to a physical evidence case.
You missed that? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Belz...]

ou stated”
“We all agree that it might not be a blimp.”

But this is not what the evidence warrants. The evidence is clearly pointing to a conclusion that it was not a blimp.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps you should quit this thread for a while, educate yourself in the rules of evidence, and come back when you have a better grasp of them. Just because "blimp" is an unlikely explanation, to which I'd disagree, it still wouldn't show that it isn't a blimp.

 

[King of the Americas]

To "KNOW",

Water is wet, unless it's frozen, this I know.
No scientist need prove it with repeatable evidence for me to know.
My pet is a cat, and has always been this I know.
No veterinarian need examine it in his office for me to know.

MY standards of evidence to decide that I 'know' something, are lower than a scientist. I don't have the luxury of a protected laboratory to wait on repeatable results, before I can conclude "X exists".

I've made note that a General in the field SHOULD listen to his scout's reports, even without testable/repeatable evidence and or PROOF of enemy forces. Waiting for scientific proof of that "X exists", out in the field would be foolish.

And this is the point that a "Great Debate" would make. Most people aren't scientists, and don't live and operate inside a lab. We have to decide things about our environment based on what we merely see and then share tales of. Sometimes people take pictures of people, places, and or events, and this helps for the informer to relay his/her finds. Sometimes, video is offered, and when such evidence of an event is offered up, it would be foolish not accept that the thing in question 'happened'.

We know something, after we hear 2 or more well informed people discuss the evidence. We don't always require that the evidence be independently verified or scientifically approved, but it is helpful.

Rramjet may not have "scientifically proven" anything, but he's clearly winning the "Debate" against the skeptics. Evidence abounds of his claims, even if it isn't laboratorily repeatable, his contentions and links are forming a line of consistency.

And this is why the skeptics scoff at any notion of a "Debate", they know they lose this in a court of public opinion. This is why they keep the exchange and evidence to what can be "proven in a lab". Within those bounds, they can keep the game at a stale-mate, where no one wins...but at least they can't lose.

The echoed remark is always "...we can't conclude anything without proof..."

The fact of the matter is quite the opposite. It is proper to make conclusions without absolute proof, and is indeed foolish to ignore reports from qualified/consistent witnesses.

Thank You Rramjet, your time, offerings, considerations are all greatly appreciated.

 

[Rramjet]

The blimps and their crews were already operational, they will not sit on their rear ends for years. Established likely points to the paper work of switching the personnel and materials to the new units.

But if that is the case then that is in direct opposition to the official military history. If it IS as you say, then the history is hopelessly conflicted on this point and therefore we must, as skeptics, reject it as providing us an indication of the "truth". We therefore cannot assert with ANY confidence that blimps were operational -so, NO evidence for a blimp is the ONLY conclusion to be reached either way.

 

[Belz...]

Yet you willfully ignore the historical evidence as presented in my post (#1059) confirming that it was highly implausible for a blimp to have been at Rogue River in May 1949.

You mean, aside from operating blimps in the area and similar profiled from the front and side ?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Like it or not, my definition of UFO is a correct scientific definition of a UFO.
(i.e., a UFO cannot be explained in any mundane fashion that we can think of, given the evidence we have today and all the research that has been conducted). But just because you don’t like the definition, does not make it incorrect.

What makes your definition better than others? Why is your correct? Because you say so? I prefer an actual scientist's definition published in a scientific report than some self-appointed scientist, who has no credentials to present. Of course, you will disagree with how Condon defined it:


An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects.

Page 9 of the Bantam paperback edition (just in case yours is different - I don't want to be accused of lying again).

So, now we are going to argue for 200 more pages about what the definition of a UFO is. Go figure......

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry- here is the link..

www.ufocasebook.com/russia1969.html

I understand that yes, this could be an elaborate hoax, and my mind is certainly open to that possibility.

That is why I am here, to expose myself to arguments from skeptical folks, and understand the merits.

The film seems rather an elaborate hoax if it is one, though, and for what purpose, I have no idea.

From the link you supplied:

"The details of a Russian Crash on or about 1969 are sketchy and somewhat suspect. This case comes from the so-called "Secret KGB Files," which were reportedly smuggled out of the former Soviet Union. Reportedly, $10,000 was paid for the information. The details of these secret files were first offered to the general public on 9-13-98 as part of a TNT special titled "The Secret UFO Files of the KGB."

Notice all the immediate red flags? (or in this case yellow highlighted bits) And that's just the opening paragraph.

Also remembering that this was at the height of the cold war when campaigns to portray the Russians as the big enemy were most active, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the whole thing was a deliberate misinformation set up.
Ultimately though the provenance of the information can not be verified and again your link closes with:

"The case of the 1969 retrieval and autopsy are difficult to assess. Until more information is uncovered, it will remain unsubstantiated."

Making anything written about it (supporting or criticising it) speculation.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Your definition of UFO is incorrect. Both versions.
It is simply unidentified. End of story. Not mundane, not magical. Unidentified. There is NOTHING in the definition of UFO that requires a caveat such as "but is mundane" or "but is alien". It is unidentified.
Rational people accept that, without some supporting evidence otherwise, the probability is high that the explanation will unfortunately be mundane. That doesn't mean that we claim it IS mundane, only that we are resigned to that as the most likely result if we don't see any evidence of another explanation.
But we've been over this before and you refuse to read it so you will see something entirely different from what I wrote.

 

[Belz...]

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).

So you'd ask for the same evidence for "I own a movie on DVD" and "Ghosts exist" ?

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.

Ah, we're nearing the Galileo complex, now. So all those stupid scientists don't know what they're talking about but you're going to crack the UFO thing, right ?

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps you have not read my previous posts, so I will forgive you this ignorance.

I have maintained - since I first raised the Rogue River case - that the case demonstrated that UFO reports do exist that constitute compelling evidence that UFOs (as entities) exist

Assuming by "UFO" you mean "alien spacecraft" or something similar, then no, it doesn't, because aside from the witnessess we have no evidence. No pictures, no fell aircraft, and no reason to believe it wasn't a misidentification of a mundane object.

 

[Rramjet]

To "KNOW",

Water is wet, unless it's frozen, this I know.
No scientist need prove it with repeatable evidence for me to know.
My pet is a cat, and has always been this I know.
No veterinarian need examine it in his office for me to know.

MY standards of evidence to decide that I 'know' something, are lower than a scientist. I don't have the luxury of a protected laboratory to wait on repeatable results, before I can conclude "X exists".

I've made note that a General in the field SHOULD listen to his scout's reports, even without testable/repeatable evidence and or PROOF of enemy forces. Waiting for scientific proof of that "X exists", out in the field would be foolish.

And this is the point that a "Great Debate" would make. Most people aren't scientists, and don't live and operate inside a lab. We have to decide things about our environment based on what we merely see and then share tales of. Sometimes people take pictures of people, places, and or events, and this helps for the informer to relay his/her finds. Sometimes, video is offered, and when such evidence of an event is offered up, it would be foolish not accept that the thing in question 'happened'.

We know something, after we hear 2 or more well informed people discuss the evidence. We don't always require that the evidence be independently verified or scientifically approved, but it is helpful.

Rramjet may not have "scientifically proven" anything, but he's clearly winning the "Debate" against the skeptics. Evidence abounds of his claims, even if it isn't laboratorily repeatable, his contentions and links are forming a line of consistency.

And this is why the skeptics scoff at any notion of a "Debate", they know they lose this in a court of public opinion. This is why they keep the exchange and evidence to what can be "proven in a lab". Within those bounds, they can keep the game at a stale-mate, where no one wins...but at least they can't lose.

They echoed remark is always "...we can't conclude anything without proof..."

The fact of the matter is quite the opposite. It is proper to make conclusions without absolute proof, and is indeed foolish to ignore reports from qualified/consistent witnesses.

Thank You Rramjet, your time, offerings, considerations are all greatly appreciated.

Thank you KotA.
I appreciate you input.
You make your points clearly and concisely.
You are right of course. The "skeptics" cannot enter into a proper debate - because they know that they will lose it. Simply because the precepts of science and the tenets of logic are not on their side.
For them it is all about "winning at all costs" and, unfortunately, not about journeys of discovery or intellectual curiosity at all.

 

[Rramjet]

What makes your definition better than others? Why is your correct? Because you say so? I prefer an actual scientist's definition published in a scientific report than some self-appointed scientist, who has no credentials to present. Of course, you will disagree with how Condon defined it:


An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects.

Page 9 of the Bantam paperback edition (just in case yours is different - I don't want to be accused of lying again).

So, now we are going to argue for 200 more pages about what the definition of a UFO is. Go figure......

Thank you for a correct citation - it makes life easier for all of us

But Condon's definition of UFO I do recognise and believe have explained above with the statement: "I can guarantee that you believe that UFOs exist only insofar as they have not been identified by the observer. That is, that UFOs exist only because we have not enough information or have not conducted the research that would enable a mundane explanation to be forthcoming. You believe that all UFO reports have mundane explanations – but we just haven’t found the correct mundane explanations yet.

THAT is Condon's opinion and he defined it so, NOT because it had scientific merit, but merely because he NEEDED such a definition to support his own contentions.

My definition of UFO* has scientific merit; Condon's is a post hoc construct.

*A UFO cannot be explained in any mundane fashion that we can think of, given the evidence we have today and all the research that has been conducted.

 

[Rramjet]

Your definition of UFO is incorrect. Both versions.
It is simply unidentified. End of story. Not mundane, not magical. Unidentified. There is NOTHING in the definition of UFO that requires a caveat such as "but is mundane" or "but is alien". It is unidentified.
Rational people accept that, without some supporting evidence otherwise, the probability is high that the explanation will unfortunately be mundane. That doesn't mean that we claim it IS mundane, only that we are resigned to that as the most likely result if we don't see any evidence of another explanation.
But we've been over this before and you refuse to read it so you will see something entirely different from what I wrote.

Yet you state that "the probability is high that the explanation will unfortunately be mundane." which indicates you actually support Condon's definition!

And the Battelle Study ((http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) found conservatively that 22% of all UFO reports they studied (over 3000 of them) were categorised as UNKNOWN. THAT makes the probability of a UFO report having no mundane explanation at all about 1 in 5 - on a conservative estimate - and the actually odds -in the real world - are probably higher.

 

[Stray Cat]

Rramjet may not have "scientifically proven" anything, but he's clearly winning the "Debate" against the skeptics. Evidence abounds of his claims, even if it isn't laboratorily repeatable, his contentions and links are forming a line of consistency.

Well I can't deny that... a line of consistently unreliable anecdotal 'evidence' that at the very best concludes UNIDENTIFIED

And this is why the skeptics scoff at any notion of a "Debate", they know they lose this in a court of public opinion. This is why they keep the exchange and evidence to what can be "proven in a lab". Within those bounds, they can keep the game at a stale-mate, where no one wins...but at least they can't lose.

What is a "court of public opinion", if you get out a bit more you will find that to the vast majority of the general public UFO's don't have any relevance to their lives (except for a few entertaining movies). And further to that, it's not about being "proven in a lab", it's about it being proven where ever it is claimed to be... ei: It's the proof that's important not the location.

The echoed remark is always "...we can't conclude anything without proof..."

Well some people obviously can... those people are classed as Ufologists.

The fact of the matter is quite the opposite. It is proper to make conclusions without absolute proof,

If you're a UFOlogist!

and is indeed foolish to ignore reports from qualified/consistent witnesses.

Remind me which university or college do I apply to join to get a 'witness qualification'? and how long is the course?

 

[Rramjet]

So you'd ask for the same evidence for "I own a movie on DVD" and "Ghosts exist" ?

Ah, we're nearing the Galileo complex, now. So all those stupid scientists don't know what they're talking about but you're going to crack the UFO thing, right ?

Hmm... I would ask for evidence that is mundane and ordinary in both cases. perhaps a photo of you holding the purchase receipt and the DVD.

But notice something critical to the debate we are having here.

The skeptic would claim such a photo is NOT sufficient evidence. It could after all be a Photoshop mockup! So what WOULD constitute "evidence" that you own the DVD?

Eyewitness testimony that you purchased it? That they had seen it in your possession?

But what is eyewitness testimony now worth to a skeptic?

You see what I am getting at here? By the skeptical (JREF Forum) standard of evidence, you could NOT prove to me you owned the DVD at all!

RE: scientists and their misunderstanding of science (ie; that most are naive inductivists) I refer you to A.F Chalmers' excellent book "What is this thing called Science" (1976, University of Queensland Press). Amazon sells them...

 

[Stray Cat]

But Condon's definition of UFO I do recognise and believe have explained above with the statement: "I can guarantee that you believe that UFOs exist only insofar as they have not been identified by the observer. That is, that UFOs exist only because we have not enough information or have not conducted the research that would enable a mundane explanation to be forthcoming. You believe that all UFO reports have mundane explanations – but we just haven’t found the correct mundane explanations yet.

No one is claiming what you say they are!

Something classed as UNIDENTIFIED could turn out to be anything from Invisible Pink Unicorns to Alien Space Craft to a plate of sandwiches to a Blimp.
There is a whole universe of difference between 'probabilities' and 'conclusions'.

So in reality the part that says "UFOs exist only because we have not enough information" is obviously accurate... If we had enough information to identify it (as a IPU, Alien Space Craft, PoS or Blimp) it would no longer be classed as UNIDENTIFIED... the rest, of your interpretation is in fact misinterpretation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How does that make it alien?

How does that make it alien?

How does that make it alien?

How does that make it alien?

How does that make it alien?

How does that make it alien?

It doesn't preclude witness fallability so how does that make it alien?


Would the NSA be interested if they thought it was of Russian origin, do you think?

Rramjet, why can you not answer pertinent questions? Is it because you don't like the answers?

 

[Astrophotographer]

THAT is Condon's opinion and he defined it so, NOT because it had scientific merit, but merely because he NEEDED such a definition to support his own contentions.

I am so glad that you were present when Condon was doing his study. That we all know what he was thinking when he wrote his report. You are just repeating the UFO mantra when discussing the Condon study. Condon wrote the definition based on what they learned during the study. That National Acadmey of Sciences agreed with his report. What have you EVER done other than posting in this forum that makes your defintion more valid than Condon's. You are doing the same thing you accuse Condon of doing. You are defining it to suit your own purposes. Now we can argue endlessly about the definition of a UFO.

 

[Stray Cat]

Hmm... I would ask for evidence that is mundane and ordinary in both cases. perhaps a photo of you holding the purchase receipt and the DVD.

Wow... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this level of incomprehension!

The skeptic would claim such a photo is NOT sufficient evidence. It could after all be a Photoshop mockup! So what WOULD constitute "evidence" that you own the DVD?

Errrrr... "show me the DVD you claim you own"
"OK, here it is" [puts DVD in person's hand]
"Oh yes... so you do, thanks for clearing that up so easily"

You see what I am getting at here? By the skeptical (JREF Forum) standard of evidence, you could NOT prove to me you owned the DVD at all!

The only way that it could not be proven that someone claiming to be the owner of a DVD was actually the owner, would be if that person didn't own the DVD. If they are telling the truth, it can be backed up by physical evidence.
"Show me the DVD"
"Yes sure, here it is"
"Oh yeah, thanks for clearing that up so easily"

As opposed to
"Show me the ghost"
"Errr.... I can't but here's a blurry photo of errr. something I can't explain"
"That looks like lens flair to me"
"Well I've never seen lens flare look exactly like that"
"But its eminating from that really bright light source"
"The spirits always shine out of the light sources"
"How do you know"
"Because every time there is a bright light source on a photo, ghosts appear"

 

[AWPrime]

But if that is the case then that is in direct opposition to the official military history. If it IS as you say, then the history is hopelessly conflicted on this point and therefore we must, as skeptics, reject it as providing us an indication of the "truth". We therefore cannot assert with ANY confidence that blimps were operational -so, NO evidence for a blimp is the ONLY conclusion to be reached either way.

Another one of your imaginary conflicts, please grow up.