UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[SnidelyW]

ha no I saw that show, it was a ufo investigator who apparently bought some KGB files (which consisted of A4 typewritten paper) from an alleged ex KGB officer after perestroika when the russian economy was screwed. It was nothing to do with politics and much more to do with the fistfull of roubles the American had in his pocket. The film which later accompanies it was obtained from the russian black market and has no provenance at all.

Thanks for the info- I appreciate your research.

I wonder who would have gone through the time, trouble, and expense to set that whole thing up?

I'll keep plugging away at the provenanc of that- and thanks for giving me a head start.

 

[TjW]

No, it is not evidence. However, motivation plays a rather significant part in understanding the underlying reasons for reporting sightings of UFO's, or, as in the case of the Sutton/Hopkinsville incident, a complete lack of a publicity driven motivation for reporting. in fact, they opened themselves up for ridicule and the incident turned their farm into a media circus of sorts.

Those eight witnesses reported out of fear, and they have been dismissed here as 'uneducated carnival workers', or some such. So, in that case, motivation was, and remains a key factor in assessing credibility.

As we have seen in the 'boy in the balloon' hoax last week, marketability and money were at the heart of that hoax. Clear financial gain. What I am attempting to establish is that if there is an absence of distinct and immediate GAIN in reporting a sighting, then why wouldn't we treat those more seriously?

You're right, motive is NOT evidence, but in assessing each case with a skeptical eye, isn't it quite presumptive to ignore motivation as a factor?

As a skeptic, does one examine all aspects, or pick and choose those which are most convenient?

No, you examine the aspects which are objective. Motivations are inherently subjective. We can know what people said their motives were. We can possibly identify (or not) with that claimed motivation. But we can't know what their motivations actually were, because those happen inside the person and nowhere else. Sometimes people do things which are not in their best interest. "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

 

[SnidelyW]

In case it hasn't already been mentioned yet, I find following the hypothesis proposed by French UFOlogist Renaud Leclet difficult to ignore…

(google Joe Nickell’s CSI article “Siege of ‘Little Green Men’: The 1955 Kelly, Kentucky, Incident”)

“In summary, allowing for the heightened expectation prompted by the earlier “flying-saucer” sighting, and for the effects of excitement and nighttime viewing, it seems likely that the famous 1955 Kelly incident is easily explained by a meteor and a pair of territorial owls.”

YMMV

I read the Nickell response, and a rebuttal of said response. I don't have the link immediately available, but will find it and post.

If I may be permitted to paraphrase, the rebuttal mentioned that the family and guests were rural people, living on a farm. If you have lived on a farm, you know what an owl looks like, sounds like, and when they appear. One may shoot at them, but repeatedly shooting them, at point blank range, and then driving a considerable distance to the police, convincing the police, escorting them back to the farm, and selling your story to them to a degree where they mounted a search- well those must have been quite a breed of owls. Plus- a lack of owl feathers knocked off the birds when the buckshot or slug contacted them.
Territorrial owls? When are owls territorial? When raising young owls, one would think, right? The incident happened in Kentucky in late August, and I am not an ornithologist, but I don't think owls are territorial in late August.

In my research so far, I have not seen an adequate explanation of the behaviour of those eight witnesses, or anything to dispel belief that they saw what they claim.

I am totally open to having my opinion altered on this incident, if I can read something more.

 

[Marduk]

I read the claim about the owls, and although it seems quite unlikely, I do think that the aliens bear more than a passing resemblance to them

what if someone mistook the owls originally for aliens after the hysteria of the meteors and then when the time came kept up the pretense for a joke or out of fear when the military became interested.

 

[SnidelyW]

No, you examine the aspects which are objective. Motivations are inherently subjective. We can know what people said their motives were. We can possibly identify (or not) with that claimed motivation. But we can't know what their motivations actually were, because those happen inside the person and nowhere else. Sometimes people do things which are not in their best interest. "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

I completely agree regarding the aspect of subjectivity when discussing motivation. My impression is that skeptics look to objective standards when assessing validity. I am suggesting that certain subjective aspects should be considered along with the measurable aspects. To totally discount motivation seems to ignore a major component of credibility assessment. However, that assumes one treats credibility of the person reporting as a factor.

 

[Stray Cat]

You're right, motive is NOT evidence, but in assessing each case with a skeptical eye, isn't it quite presumptive to ignore motivation as a factor?

Hi again Snidely - Every summer, teams of people sneak into fields in Wiltshire and spend hours anonymously making complex, geometric designs in the wheat. Would knowing their motive help to asses the crop circle case? They all have their own individual motives for spending their time doing what they do. Those reasons are very rarely for publicity (no one wanting publicity would chose anonymous art as a medium to use), ever more rare would be for the money (although a few make a bit of money from it, this is confined to one small group) and it's not to perpetrate a hoax (no claims are made by the makers).

As a skeptic, does one examine all aspects, or pick and choose those which are most convenient?

One has to chose those aspects which can be proven.
Remembering that it's not anyone's job to disprove a claim, essentially, it's down to the claimant to prove it.

 

[SnidelyW]

I read the claim about the owls, and although it seems quite unlikely, I do think that the aliens bear more than a passing resemblance to them
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Kelly1sm.jpg/387px-Kelly1sm.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Bubo_virginianus_nacurutu_-_Otter%2C_Owl%2C_and_Wildlife_Park.jpg/374px-Bubo_virginianus_nacurutu_-_Otter%2C_Owl%2C_and_Wildlife_Park.jpg[/qimg]

what if someone mistook the owls originally for aliens after the hysteria of the meteors and then when the time came kept up the pretense for a joke or out of fear when the military became interested.

I agree there is a resemblance. They indeed could have been owls. I guess I am more swayed by the fact that eight people saw the same thing, and even saw an 'arm' drop down off the eaves and touch one of the mens' heads.

I will also point out there was zero physical evidence at the site, which seems to work against the owl theory. One would think with all the flapping and shooting at least a couple of feathers would have been floating.

If I was shooting and saw feathers,- hey, case closed, right? End of story.

The discussion of this incident has borne out the absolute need for physical evidence, or at least something 'objective'. photos, videos, and eyewitnesses are all now considered 'subjective', and are not acceptable forms of evidence, to meet the burden of 'extraordinary proof'.

Would this be an accurate summation?

 

[SnidelyW]

Hi again Snidely - Every summer, teams of people sneak into fields in Wiltshire and spend hours anonymously making complex, geometric designs in the wheat. Would knowing their motive help to asses the crop circle case? They all have their own individual motives for spending their time doing what they do. Those reasons are very rarely for publicity (no one wanting publicity would chose anonymous art as a medium to use), ever more rare would be for the money (although a few make a bit of money from it, this is confined to one small group) and it's not to perpetrate a hoax (no claims are made by the makers).


One has to chose those aspects which can be proven.
Remembering that it's not anyone's job to disprove a claim, essentially, it's down to the claimant to prove it.

Fair enough. But...LOL...Even though motives may not be easy to deduce, doesn't mean they're not worth taking the time to understand.

I totally get the point, and rather than reduce the thread to an examination of motivational factors, could we agree that the crop circlists? DO have motivation?

Yes, I agree the burden falls on the claimant.

 

[Rramjet]

Trying to reply to as many as i can...

No one is claiming what you say they are!

That is incontrovertibly incorrect!
For example, see Astrophotographer’s post (#1166) where he states: “I prefer an actual scientist's definition…” (as follows)

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.

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.

Yes, I see your point. Perhaps then you have pointed out a looseness in my definition that needs to be tightened (I forgot the bit about “Alien Space Craft” being available as an explanation). So a proper definition of UFO would then look like ( removing the word “mundane”):

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

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

How does that make it alien? I have posted more than once now the following statements that answer your question.

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.

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).

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.

Given Condons a priori “debunking” attitude to the phenomenon I am merely surmising reasons for why Condon might have framed his definition of UFO the way he did. Just an hypothesis based on the evidence.

You are just repeating the UFO mantra when discussing the Condon study.

WHAT UFO “mantra” is that? You need to define your terms here.

Condon wrote the definition based on what they learned during the study.

…and now we get it…you AGREE with my assessment that Condon’s definition was post hoc!

That National Acadmey of Sciences agreed with his report.

No, they merely believed his conclusions to the report – which are at odds with some of the information contained within the report… so if the NAS wants to believe in contradictions…more fool them.

What have you EVER done other than posting in this forum that makes your defintion more valid than Condon's.

I have merely proposed an alternative to Condon. Stray_Cat has pointed to a potential weakness in my alternative. I have amended it accordingly. I admit it might not be perfect, but that does not make it necessarily incorrect. What do you want. That is the way things work in the scientific world in case you had not noticed.

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.

Again, that is just how things work in science. We MUST define our terms as accurately as we can BEFORE we can rationally debate or test hypotheses about anything at all. If you don’t like how science works, then I am sorry, but I can’t help that.

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

Follow my argument carefully then.

Someone tells me that they own a DVD
I ask for evidence but cannot accept (a la JREF) photos or eyewitness testimony ( I’d hate to be a family member of a JREF member coming back from holidays and trying to explain to that member what they had witnessed or experienced).
As for that person physically handing me the DVD – how do I know that DVD
is ACTUALLY theirs (and not, for example, borrowed or stolen)?

I am using this as an example to show how extraordinarily difficult it is to actually live up to the standards of evidence required by JREF members when someone demands evidence of even a mundane event such as “owning a DVD”.

I contend that we SHOULD be able to admit eyewitness testimony and photos as evidence – as long as we have satisfactorily accounted for the provenance or reliability of that evidence. Of course we can never 100% “prove” anything, but we can make a value judgement about the matter based on the evidence and research available to us.

Another one of your imaginary conflicts, please grow up.

But if you have ANY evidence that refutes my assessment using the historical data that makes blimps and implausible explanation then please present it.

In case it hasn't already been mentioned yet, I find following the hypothesis proposed by French UFOlogist Renaud Leclet difficult to ignore…

(google Joe Nickell’s CSI article “Siege of ‘Little Green Men’: The 1955 Kelly, Kentucky, Incident”)

“In summary, allowing for the heightened expectation prompted by the earlier “flying-saucer” sighting, and for the effects of excitement and nighttime viewing, it seems likely that the famous 1955 Kelly incident is easily explained by a meteor and a pair of territorial owls.”

YMMV

I have previously replied to Joe Nickel’s (non)“assessment” of this case. What did you think of my assessment?

How’s this for a working definition of “extraordinary evidence”…

1) Evidence obtained by (preferably multiple forms of) instrumentation (e.g. radar/optical tracking) of an unknown object entering and/or leaving the Earth’s atmosphere (to/from space) under artificial or intelligent control.

2) Physical (e.g. material) evidence of an artificial object, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

3) Biological (e.g. DNA) evidence of a life form, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

OPTIONAL: Multiple independently obtained and unambiguous (e.g. clear) photographs and/or video of a Zetan spaceship in action and/or on the ground, preferably while landing on the White House lawn or witnessed during a major sporting, or other, event with thousands present and broadcast on live TV.

Radar/optical tracking is entirely ordinary and mundane evidence we use everyday.

Physical evidence (chemical analysis) and Biological evidence (DNA testing) are also ordinary and mundane methodologies we use every day.

Photos, multiple witnesses…ordinary, mundane stuff.

This is all the ordinary stuff we require no matter what out hypothesis is about the world.

You have not even come close to providing a definition of “Extraordinary Evidence” that would save “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence “ from being a nonsense.

This is incorrect. Changing one of your sentences slightly conveys perfectly what I believe:
"UFOs exist only because we have not enough information or have not conducted the research that would enable an explanation to be forthcoming."

Notice that I removed "mundane".

Yes… absolutely, I can see your point. I agree with you (as with Stray Cat) that my definition should be amended to account for “aliens”.

But I think your reworking is still too loose. I propose taking mundane out so that:

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

What do you think?
I stated:
Like it or not, my definition of UFO is a correct scientific definition of a UFO.

And I'm just supposed to take your word for it?

No, you debated the point and forced an amendment from me…THAT is how things are SUPPOSED to work – and I thank you for putting you case rationally.

I don't ignore the evidence. I question the validity of the evidence you present. That's different.

But you need to state the reasons why you question the validity of the evidence – otherwise it is an unfounded generalisation that can be dismissed as such.

That they provide indications of something alien among us. That conlusion is what I'm talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear but I thought that was obvious.

Hmm.. it would seem NOTHING is obvious in such a place as this (laughs).

Okay, but if they do not provide indications of an alien presence…why do they not then - in your opinion?

There could be many more explanations for the reported phenomena. I thought I said so.

Yes, but WHAT plausible explanations? You need to state those that fit the evidence, otherwise again, mere unfounded assertion.

Listen up now, real carefully. There is no formal definition for extraordinary evidence. When I say it, it means that hearsay is not enough but physical evidence would be a fantastic start. Deal with it.

Oh… but if you cannot define the terms in your contention then the contention is nonsense because no-one can understand what is it that is being asked of them. WHAT should I produce as “extraordinary evidence”?

The evidence gathered by EHocking suggests that it is possible that it was a blimp. It doesn't help to paste the same text multiple times Rramjet. We read it the first time and it starts to look silly. Also, even if you claim "unlikely", there's still a possibility within that assesment. And, if the reports are correct, one of the witnesses made a drawing of what he saw. It looks very much like a blimp.

All EHocking’s analysis (and you “it looks like a blimp”) is moot if the evidence first shows that a blimp is an implausible explanation. Do you dispute that evidence and if so HOW? See THIS post.

So in all of that bluster, NO-ONE can come up with a definition of "Extraordinary Evidence"?
(...)
I hope that will be the end of it… but why do I doubt it?

Scientific merit? This is an extraordinary claim imo. Proof please?

Of course you are correct. I should have stated “I believe it has scientific merit”. Such a thing cannot be “proven” except to test UFO cases against it and see if there are inconsistencies or holes in the definition that would make it unworkable or generally impossible to use in scientific exploration.

I believe Condon’s definition is unworkable because he stipulates “from the perspective of the observer” which makes “UFO” as a conclusion practically impossible to achieve in practice. Which makes his definition useless in practice.

My definition tightens things up by stipulating the present knowledge and state of research and evidence. It is a subtle but critical point. I hope you can see the crucial differences.

Rramjet, in case you missed it. You never responded to these two posts from me earlier. I'm interested in seeing your comments:

I'm curious about how you interpret "circular" in this context Rramjet. Do you interpret it as if the witnesses saw it standing vertically "face on" so to speak, displaying a circular outline against the sky or do you interpret it as they saw it soaring horisontally "edge on" and infered that it was circular although the outline against the sky was oval? Was it a standing pancake or was it laying down so to speak if you understand me

and this one in response to your question why blimps would be flying in such a remote area.:

Most of the reservists' weekend flying was dedicated to maintaining basic flying skills
Source: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lighter-than-air+reservists-a095954316.
When I took my pilots license and also once I had it and wanted to maintain my flying skills. I just went, somewhere...

Actually I DID respond… just not directly enough I guess

We must separate out interpretation from objective reality. The witnesses clearly saw the object edge on from slightly below (the object was horizontal – “fin” on top). The fact that it was moving and changing direction would have given them time to interpret what they saw as “circular” when in fact the object on their retina would have been “oval” – bat as I say the changing perspectives as it moved and turned would have indicated a circular object. Why do you ask?

But what does that link show? Certainly no mention of blimps in 1949 can be deduced… unless you point to a specific passage where it says so… a passage that would be at odds with my comprehensive assessment of the historical evidence… then WHAT is your point here?

You'll have to excuse me, I just had to take a break to scream out loud.

Let me get this straight: Rramjet's response to being provided with an explanation of the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is to say that no one can explain it? I feel like I've slipped into some insane parallel universe. We're now up to 30 pages of Rramjet insisting UFOs exist and everyone else agreeing.

Rramjet, what is your point? Make a stand, man! Hoist your flag high and defend it, don't sit around making nonsensical snipes at people trying to understand you. Tell us, clearly and concisely, what it is you believe and why.

I have seen NO rational explanation of the term “Extraordinary Evidence”… YOU have provided none either… so until SOMEONE (anyone) CAN provide such, the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" will REMAIN a nonsense.

For anyone who hasn't already read this interesting and informative article about Burden of Proof: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/burdens.html

But Stray_Cat…this talks about people who make “alien” claims being required to provide evidence for such…and I entirely AGREE. BUT, if you claim ANYTHING (such as blimp) I AM entitled to similarly require you produce evidence. A simple enough concept surely?

I answered this way back earlier. Extraordinary evidence is that evidence that is greater than the weight of evidence already assembled for the contrary but currently widely accepted claim.

Edited: Sorry I've been away for a day or so, I see the problems earlier about this issue.

This is gobbledeygook! You will have to explain what this means – especially what “evidence that is greater than the weight of evidence already assembled” is. You NEED to define what this means. If you cannot, then "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" will REMAIN a nonsense. It’s as simple as that really.

News Flash: Rramjet Contradicts Himself
I still refuse to engage Rramjet, but I had to make one observation for everyone that suddenly occurred to me. He seems to argue that all hypotheses are the same, that to automatically filter the likely ones from the pointless ones before examining their evidence in depth is a logical fallacy.

Yet earlier in this thread, when I suggested the lights in the sky might be glowing, floating panda poo, he responded that the proposition was "not helpful." Why not? It is a hypothesis that explains the lights. Should it not be equal to all other hypotheses? Does it not deserve to be researched and tested? Or did Rramjet's a priori knowledge help him decide that it was too unlikely to deserve his consideration? Obviously, he must consider it an "extraordinary claim," and he feels I did not provide the "extraordinary evidence" to back it up.

It appears he's plainly contradicted himself. Not that that's anything new. It just goes to show that even he's not playing by the rules he expects us to follow (because such an approach would be unwieldy and nearly impossible) and provides a clear, straightforward example of why this thread is nothing more than a circus.

Actually, I think you will find that you have missed the critical distinction between “All hypothesis being a priori equal” and post hoc evidence we can submit that makes them either plausible or implausible. Simple really. Nothing to alarm yourself over.

(…)
Third, Rramjet isn't even close to "winning" the debate. His argument for Rogue River is that it couldn't possibly have been a blimp, despite stating quite clearly himself that it was possible, and demonstrating (with evidence that he himself introduced) that there were at least three Naval Reserve stations, that each had more than one blimp, within flying distance of the Rogue River sighting. How that can possibly translate to "winning" the debate is beyond me.

Now you REALLY must read my post on this carefully. You have totally missed what I have stated therein and the conclusions drawn from it. You will see that your statement “) that there were at least three Naval Reserve stations, that each had more than one blimp, within flying distance of the Rogue River sighting.” Is a complete nonsense that is NOWHER supported by the historical evidence.

I just LOVE this “debunker” tactic. Just repeat fallacious assertions over and over and hope that no-one bothers to check the evidence. Well I HAVE checked the evidence… and it aint on your side Here is that assessment – check it out. If you have ANY evidence that refutes my assertions, then PLEASE present it, otherwise you are wasting your own and others time.

So in all of that bluster, NO-ONE can come up with a definition of "Extraordinary Evidence"?
(...)
I hope that will be the end of it… but why do I doubt it?

 

[GeeMack]

Trying to reply to as many as i can...

... except those to which you choose to remain ignorant.

 

[Rramjet]

... except those to which you choose to remain ignorant.

Umm... sorry Geemack. I thought your questions were rhetorical. For I seem to remember posting a number of cases for people to comment on (as have, now others)

In particular the Iranian UFO and the Hopkinsville case... perhaps you'd like to comment on those cases?

 

[RoboTimbo]

How does that make it alien? I have posted more than once now the following statements that answer your question.

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.

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).

Then you've not answered it at all. How did you make the gigantic leap from "not being proof" to being proof of aliens in your mind?

 

[GeeMack]

Umm... sorry Geemack. I thought your questions were rhetorical. For I seem to remember posting a number of cases for people to comment on (as have, now others)

In particular the Iranian UFO and the Hopkinsville case... perhaps you'd like to comment on those cases?

Certainly. Several possible explanations, mundane and plausible, have been provided for each right here in this thread. Nothing about either of them supports your inane notion that there were aliens involved. Your arguments are from ignorance, incredulity, and lies.

Now, since you did claim that you would eventually offer evidence to support your crackpot notion that aliens exist, aside from any based on ignorance, incredulity, and lies, have you got some?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Nah...it's a blimp wreak...

Cannot... resist! Linky

 

[GeeMack]

Then you've not answered it at all. How did you make the gigantic leap from "not being proof" to being proof of aliens in your mind?

Well, RoboTimbo, you might be onto something, right there in your question!

 

[Rramjet]

Hopkinsville

I found my post on Hopkinsville concerning a refutation of Joe Nickel's "research".

Let's then look at this a little more closely shall we...

Just to show what sort of researcher Joe Nickel let’s do a quick comparison:

(...)

Nickells has conducted NO serious investigation here. “What a hoot!

Perhaps people might like to view that post then?

 

[fromdownunder]

Rramjet, misread much, or is your reading disability more recent?

No one is claiming what you say they are!

That is incontrovertibly incorrect!
For example, see Astrophotographer’s post (#1166) where he states: “I prefer an actual scientist's definition…” (as follows)

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.[/quote

Stray Cat was referring to what you say they are not what they are, not what observers say they are.

Were you an observer of these two events? Unless you are suddenly now claiming to be an observer at both the Rogue River and Iran UFO sightings, your reading skills really need a lot of help. Or you are simply hitting the reply button and posting without any comprehension as to what you are replying to. Reading Comprehension 101 applies here, I think.

Norm

 

[TjW]

I just LOVE this “debunker” tactic. Just repeat fallacious assertions over and over and hope that no-one bothers to check the evidence. Well I HAVE checked the evidence… and it aint on your side Here is that assessment – check it out. If you have ANY evidence that refutes my assertions, then PLEASE present it, otherwise you are wasting your own and others time.

Really? How well did you look at both sides? Consider your performance on the Las Lomas video. You squirmed when the video analysis was brought forward, showing it must have been a hoax. You came up with another site, which you said refuted the video analysis. It didn't. It confirmed it. You eventually admitted this.

If you've checked the evidence so closely, why is it you didn't know about the video analysis? It's not like anyone here has claimed great expertise on this particular episode. We simply searched on the Internet for a bit, and there it was.

I see two possibilities: you didn't know about the video analysis, in which case you have been less than honest about the depth of your research, or you did know, and dishonestly failed to present all the evidence regarding Las Lomas.

Which is it?

 

[Stray Cat]

Fair enough. But...LOL...Even though motives may not be easy to deduce, doesn't mean they're not worth taking the time to understand.

Indeed... but not to further any scientific investigation into claims or events. More on a psychological/sociological level

I totally get the point, and rather than reduce the thread to an examination of motivational factors, could we agree that the crop circlists? DO have motivation?

Yes of course they do... but bolting those motivations down is like trying to get a straight answer out of a Psychic.
And in the vast majority of cases, the motivation is not at all obvious, even to those who know the characters involved.

 

[SnidelyW]

Indeed... but not to further any scientific investigation into claims or events. More on a psychological/sociological level


Yes of course they do... but bolting those motivations down is like trying to get a straight answer out of a Psychic.
And in the vast majority of cases, the motivation is not at all obvious, even to those who know the characters involved.

On a scientific investigation Why can't we include motivation as a bona fide factor and call it a complete investigation?



Yes, you're right. I am not a motivational psychologist, and motivation can be incredibly complex. if there are any motivational experts reading the thread, I would welcome some education, especially as to how it might relate to reportage of UFO phenomena.