UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

Follow my argument carefully then.

Someone tells me that they own a DVD

The claim of owning a DVD is NOT an extraordinary claim... it doesn't require extraordinary evidence... but we'll follow this through, pretending for some reason it is really important to conclusively prove...

I ask for evidence but cannot accept (a la JREF) photos or eyewitness testimony ( ... irrelevance sniped...).
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)?

Proof of purchase/till receipt?
Credit or debit card statement?
CCTV footage from the store where it was purchased?
Witness statement from the store staff member who made the sale?
Sat Nav memory showing the car traveling to the store?
Confirmation of vehicle journey/date and time using traffic CCTV cameras?
If it was a gift from someone and the actual present owner can not provide proof of purchase:
Go to the person who bought them the gift, for the above information.

If all or a combination of the above could corroborate the claim, it would be enough to prove the claim, bearing in mind the pieces of the puzzle would have to fit exactly (time, date, price, store etc).

All mundane evidence, and you still clearly are not comprehending what Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence means.
It doesn't not necessarily mean evidence with an extraordinary origin. It means evidence which OUTWEIGHS that which is already known.

If however the person who made the claim was mistaken or dishonest, the proof of the claim could not be found in the above information. But it would be possible that the person did visit a DVD store at some point and could only partially corroborate his claim, in which case the outcome may well be INCONCLUSIVE

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”.

But it's not difficult, we start from a position of knowing that people own DVDs, they are common place in people's lives. There is no real reason to doubt such a claim.

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.

Exactly what we have been doing... for the past 30 odd pages.
All evidence (reliable and unreliable) is submitted and examined and disregarded when suspected to be unreliable.
You don't agree on exactly what is unreliable (even when clearly demonstrated) and yet expect us to believe in intelligently controlled 'alien' crafts when you have provided nothing that outweighs what we already know about the possibility of there being such a thing.

Conclusion: Object is UNIDENTIFIED

 

[Stray Cat]

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

Because it would be subjective speculation not based upon any objective fact or measurement. As such it would be open to criticism from others who interpreted it subjectively in a different way.

So as interesting as the psychology of motivation is, it doesn't help to prove or disprove hypotheses, the best it can do is add subjective background to a case and that subjectiveness is open to criticism. In cases such as UFO reports, already enough criticism is given and taken by the differing sides without wishing to add even more.

 

[Paul2]

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.

It's not a formula that will spit out a number that will assign weight to a certain type of evidence; it's a general principle.

In practice, that's what scientists have to do, in effect. They decided that the evidence for cold fusion, for instance, wasn't as much as the evidence for its contrary claim (that cold fusion doesn't work). But, in doing so, they didn't assign values to types of evidence, add it all up, and have a number for cold fusion evidence that was less than the number for the non-cold-fusion evidence.

Others have suggested some broad principles: physical evidence, for instance, is *generally* a very strong type of evidence; eyewitness accounts are *sometimes* unreliable; etc.

It may not be as precise as you wish, but it's not nonsense, or gobbledygook.

 

[Marduk]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html

Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now, I know that Budd Hopkins responds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations. And I have two kinds of responses to that.

There is a claim that a brontosaurus is tramping through the jungles today in the republic of Congo. Should a massive expedition be mounted with government funds to find it, or it is so implausible as not to be worth serious sustained systematic attention?

And my second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence. And it's not a hint of that from alien abduction enthusiasts ... I think that the alien abduction enthusiasts understand the need for physical evidence. It's the pathway to some degree of respectability. And for 40 years, they've been telling us that real evidence is just around the corner, it's about to be released, it's being studied at this moment - and nothing ever comes of it.

 

[arthwollipot]

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”.

Ah, but standards of evidence change depending on the claim being made. For a mundane event such as "owning a DVD", a simple verbal report may well be sufficient, since "owning a DVD" is an entirely believable circumstance in the first place. In fact, we'd probably only doubt it if the claimant showed evidence of not owning the DVD in question - for example, misreporting its content.

Some claims are less believable than that, and therefore require higher standards of evidence. The claim that technological non-humans are flying about in unknown aircraft that appear to defy the known laws of physics is such a claim. We would require very good evidence of that claim, which has not, so far, been forthcoming.

 

[Access Denied]

If you have lived on a farm, you know what an owl looks like, sounds like, and when they appear.

Perhaps, assuming they had seen any in the area before and the owls didn’t just “move in”. Then again, one could argue that at least one the two shooters (Billy Ray Taylor) was perhaps spooked by the (one hour) earlier “flying saucer” landing that he thought he saw. That (fear) can be “contagious”. I know I’ve been spooked before by what turned out to be a raccoon in my backyard so who knows? (probably the same “creature” we’ve heard crawling around in the attic on occasion and wondered WTF it was)

One may shoot at them, but repeatedly shooting them, at point blank range…

Point blank and repeatedly?

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.

Well, nor am I but wiki says…

“Young owls move onto nearby branches at 6 weeks and start to fly about a week later. The offspring have still been seen begging for food in late October (5 months after leaving the nest) and most do not separate from their parents until right before they start to reproduce for the next clutch (usually December).”

Also, is having a clutch the only reason they would be aggressive? Wiki continues…

“Birds may not breed for another year or two, and are often vagrants ("floaters") until they mate, establish their own territories, and settle down.”

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.

According to who and note that Nickell’s article says…

“Not all of the eleven were eyewitnesses to the most significant events.”

Also note that not all the descriptions are entirely consistent. (as is to be expected)

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.

I’m not sure that would be the case but what seems more probable to you, impervious unarmed tree and roof perching aliens or a series of near misses in the “heat of the battle” with pissed off owls? (that is assuming one or both of the two didn’t die later out in the woods somewhere)

 

[SnidelyW]

Because it would be subjective speculation not based upon any objective fact or measurement. As such it would be open to criticism from others who interpreted it subjectively in a different way.

So as interesting as the psychology of motivation is, it doesn't help to prove or disprove hypotheses, the best it can do is add subjective background to a case and that subjectiveness is open to criticism. In cases such as UFO reports, already enough criticism is given and taken by the differing sides without wishing to add even more.

Ooh- alarm bells are ringing regarding discounting subjective background.

Here is an example;

A UFO is claimed to have been seen by a Nobel Prize winner in Physics.
A UFO is claimed to have been seen by a homeless person.

Realistically now, would the 'subjective' eyewitness account of the Nobel Prize winner be discounted, in addition to the homeless person?

See my point? Even though you would wish to discount both, wouldn't the fact that a Nobel winner in Physics opinion be factored in, even just a bit?

However you attempt to slice it, there is inherent bias in every conclusion.

 

[SnidelyW]

I’m not sure that would be the case but what seems more probable to you, impervious unarmed tree and roof perching aliens or a series of near misses in the “heat of the battle” with pissed off owls? (that is assuming one or both of the two didn’t die later out in the woods somewhere)

LMAO- Good point- when put like that!

I'll post a link in a few hours to the Kelley/Hopkinsville incident, and you can read the account.

If I am in factual error, please feel free to correct my mistakes! I do recall reading thre were multiple shots fired on more than one occasion.

 

[Rramjet]

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?

Actually I had never watched the video in its entirety (and only vaguely remembered it from many years ago). I was aware of NO analysis undertaken on it until it was raised in this forum.

I was merely responding to some spurious research conducted (and referenced in a post) where the researcher claimed to have developed his own software to test the video. This made replication of his results impossible (as far as I was aware) and by skeptical standards then not particularly good as evidence.

Actually this points out a real difference between me and JREF skeptics.
When faced with evidence that contradicts my opinions I will defer to the evidence and admit my earlier contentions to have been mistaken. I did that in the referenced "Mexican UFO" video. As soon as evidence was presented that showed my conclusion to be in error, I admitted it.

Unfortunately, JREF skeptics are too insecure (IMO), or not brave enough to admit to the same sort of errors when confronted with contrary evidence (witness the "blimp" fiasco).

 

[Access Denied]

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

I think it’s a perfect example of someone who’s suffering from confirmation bias. (thanks for the link to your post)

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.

Then please providence evidence to support your claim by showing us just one single UFO case that features any one of those “mundane “ forms of evidence precisely as I defined them.

Whether you think it’s extraordinary or not, this is the type of evidence that would sway the opinion of most scientists I would imagine…

 

[SnidelyW]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html

Very interesting transcript of the Sagan interview. I wonder if that was the complete interview or just a select portion of it?

What was the bias of the NOVA producers? Did they have an inherent bias which they wished to exploit on the program?

Although I happen to agree with a lot of what Sagan states, I am wondering if things were left out of the transcript.

 

[Sledge]

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.

You're either lying or have series reading comprehension problems. If you cannot understand what you have read, feel free to ask questions, I'm sure people will be happy to help you out. The approach you have adopted will get you nowhere.

So, what is your point here? We're now at over 30 pages and you've yet to set out the proof for aliens you promised in your OP. Why is that?

 

[Stray Cat]

Ooh- alarm bells are ringing regarding discounting subjective background.
Here is an example;
A UFO is claimed to have been seen by a Nobel Prize winner in Physics.
A UFO is claimed to have been seen by a homeless person.

Realistically now, would the 'subjective' eyewitness account of the Nobel Prize winner be discounted, in addition to the homeless person?

See my point? Even though you would wish to discount both, wouldn't the fact that a Nobel winner in Physics opinion be factored in, even just a bit?

No it wouldn't... eye witnesses are unreliable regardless of if they have won a prize...

... Now if the Nobel Prize Winner was given his prize for being the first Physicist to observe, study examine and test a UFO and identify it as a Zorbian Class 3 Intergalactic Transporter, who then got his prize for providing his physical evidence to the scientific community (including his captured UFO), that may add some weight to his report... but then we would expect it to not be a UFO report but a Zorbian Class 3 Intergalactic Transporter sighting.

However you attempt to slice it, there is inherent bias in every conclusion.

There shouldn't be a bias to the conclusion... If proper investigation is carried out into the evidence.
If the two people above reported a UFO and no further evidence was submitted, it would most likely remain a UFO, there would be no need to add more weight to a Nobel Prize Winner's report than to a homeless guys report... both saw something they couldn't identify.

Which is why I'm steering well clear of painting the Gun toting, alien shooting, carnival working, backwoods, uneducated, drunk folk as uncredible.

Because the case will stand or fall on the physical evidence... which in that case is none. Nothing to support it, nothing to refute it (except there is no physical evidence of anything where you may expect to find some).

 

[Rramjet]

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.

We can infer motivations by examining actions (which is after all merely the human condition as expressed in The theory of Mind).

For example in the Rogue River case, if someone says it was a hoax or they did it for the money, one must see if there was any evidence for such. The fact that the witnesses told NO-ONE about the case (no media for example) other than the OSI and the case was only in the public domain via declassification of the Blue Book files Many years later (and then without names) makes "money" as a motivation extremely unlikely. Moreover, the responsibility of their work positions and the fact that they reported it directly to the security office at their laboratory meant that their jobs and career were placed on the line. Thus the motivation of "having a laugh" at the expense of investigators is also unlikely.

Thus were can infer from behaviour and circumstances what motivations were unlikely and rule them out.

In the Hopkinsville case, hoax is again raised as a possibility. Now according to the police reports, these witnesses were extremely frightened by the encounter. Something hard to fake and to maintain in the face of the police and media scrutiny they subsequently came under (witness the recent "runaway balloon boy" case that has just been all over the media). There were three children involved in Hopkinsville...

Moreover what other possible motivation could there have been? Money? But they made nothing out of it. They DID attempt to charge people admission days later when they found hordes of people attempting to trample all over their property... but THAT is a natural reaction - "to make the best of a bad lot" - but as far as I am aware, they did not attempt to "sell" their story to ANY media outlets - which given the media attention at the time should have been possible if they really wanted.

So again we can rule out certain motivations by examining the behaviour and history of what occurred.

We must however bear in mind that we, as humans, are in the position where we can NEVER be 100% sure of ANYONE'S motivation for anything. It does not stop us interacting. And this is where the aphorism "actions speak louder than words" comes in. Someone might SAY that X was their motivation, but if their actions imply that actually Y was the motivation, we tend to go with Y, despite what was claimed.

Therefore, in any scientific investigation, we must always be wary of self-proclaimed motivations and must assess and interpret motivation through behaviour (and circumstances like opportunity or potential negative affects) instead.

 

[Rramjet]

Perhaps, assuming they had seen any in the area before and the owls didn’t just “move in”. Then again, one could argue that at least one the two shooters (Billy Ray Taylor) was perhaps spooked by the (one hour) earlier “flying saucer” landing that he thought he saw. That (fear) can be “contagious”. I know I’ve been spooked before by what turned out to be a raccoon in my backyard so who knows? (probably the same “creature” we’ve heard crawling around in the attic on occasion and wondered WTF it was)

One wonders what owls were doing peering in the widows? Also why they persisted in doing this in the face of shotgun blasts? Why did the "run" when they could fly? Why were no owl nests mentioned at the time? How is it that these country people could NOT recognise owls (which were supposedly nesting in a tree near to the house)? How is it that there were no feathers, blood, etc even after being hit (in some instances at "point blank range") by repeated .22 and shotgun blasts? How is it that "While they did not appear to have an aura of luminescence, their "skin" glowed in the dark with the glow becoming brighter when they were shot at or shouted at."

According to police "A thorough search was made of the house, the yard, and the outbuildings. Nothing was found, and the tension ran high:"

No, I contend owl is implausible in the face of this and other evidence.

According to who and note that Nickell’s article says…

“Not all of the eleven were eyewitnesses to the most significant events.”

But why would he contend this when all the evidence suggests that all the witnesses were present for all events? But what is a significant event... the men shooting through a window at the creatures I would claim as significant... and so on... no this is a well known debunker tactic, to cast doubt when there is no real evidence to suggest that it even matters if all witnesses did not witness all events.

 

[Jocce]

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...

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?

Then I have to conclude that you have serious reading comprehension problems. The whole article is about the reserve squadrons established in 1949. Your browser has a search feature. Use it to search for 1949 (hint: It's in the 3d line). I thought you would be familiar with this article since you have quoted it yourself before. Selective perception?

 

[Rramjet]

I think it’s a perfect example of someone who’s suffering from confirmation bias. (thanks for the link to your post)

Do you really hold up Joe Nickel's assertions as exemplary and properly conducted research that meets commonly accepted scientific standards?

Then please providence evidence to support your claim by showing us just one single UFO case that features any one of those “mundane “ forms of evidence precisely as I defined them.

Exactly what I have been doing. The Iran UFO case has radar confirmation for example.

 

[Rramjet]

Then I have to conclude that you have serious reading comprehension problems. The whole article is about the reserve squadrons established in 1949. Your browser has a search feature. Use it to search for 1949 (hint: It's in the 3d line). I thought you would be familiar with this article since you have quoted it yourself before. Selective perception?

Yes, I have used it and have explained that the statement seems to be at odds with the official histories - and that this needs to be reconciled. I have suggested a way it could be reconciled with those official histories... but if you can think of another way to reconcile both while keeping both as true statements... then please suggest it.

Otherwise if it remains unreconciled then the evidence is conflicting and no blimp is the only conclusion.

I also note that you do not argue against my posted assessment. Do I take it you agree with it? If not, why not (noting the above).

 

[Jocce]

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.

I think the part "given the evidence we have today and all the research that has been conducted" is unnecessary. It's pretty obvious that we can only use evidence we have today and that the only thing we can base identification on is the research that has been conducted. Isn't it easier to say it couldn't be identified?

 

[Jocce]

I also note that you do not argue against my posted assessment.

Been there, done that. I've provided you with plenty of reasons on all the points I disagree on. Since you have just ignored it so far and it's very early in the morning, I can't muster the energy right now to gather all my comments in one easy to read package. Will do later. However, I don't have much hope you will even care to read it.