UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Belz...]

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.

1) Why in the blue hell would you even ASK for evidence that I own a DVD ?
2) A picture of the DVD or Receipt will do, but I suppose a picture of the ghost won't, no ?
3) Ergo, it's not the same standard of evidence at all.

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?

No, because the claim is so mundane that you probably wouldn't even ask for evidence at all. Also, the impetus for faking the DVD photograph is virtually nil, unless we're talking about a movie that isn't out yet.

But what is eyewitness testimony now worth to a skeptic?

Not much, I'm afraid, especially for things of that nature, because of how the human mind operates. Of course, you should know this by now, were you 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!

Actually I could just let you handle the box and disc.

 

[Belz...]

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

Great. Assuming that's true, then we know there was "something" there.

Of course, if we can't tell what that something was, what can we conclude, other than the fact that we don't know what it is ?

 

[Belz...]

This is another lie. It has been established to the satisfaction of every sane intelligent person here that there were indeed blimps in Oregon in May of 1949. Your argument to the contrary is from ignorance and incredulity.

Ramjet ?

 

[Belz...]

These cases (that I present), with Rogue River, form stepping stones on a journey of discovery that we must take before we can draw any firm conclusions at all

But it has been taken. Thousands of cases have been reviewed and NONE of them offer any form of conclusive evidence about alien visitations.

In other words I am trying to show that there are cases that represent things that indicate that there is a LOT more to “reality” than we understand at present. I contend that the evidence points toward an “alien” presence.

And you have failed to support your contention.

Of course if I only presented one case, then you can argue ‘till the cows come home about the veracity of that case. But if I go on presenting cases, I believe there comes a point where any rational person must begin to sit up and begin to take notice.

No. Each case must be studied independently. You can't hope to mystify us with hundreds of cases. If NONE of those cases are convincing then your whole case is unconvincing, which is why you were asked for the most convincing case to start with.

The more you look, the more the evidence mounts, until it can no longer be ignored.

That's where you fail in science. The sheer number of reports doesn't prove anything.

 

[GeeMack]

These cases (that I present), 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 us is just such a journey).

In other words I am trying to show that there are cases that represent things that indicate that there is a LOT more to "reality" than we understand at present. I contend that the evidence points toward an "alien" presence.

But so far your argument from incredulity, ignorance, and lies obviously hasn't proven compelling enough to sway anyone to agree with you. Understand that you've failed, and continue to fail, at trying to support your contention.

Of course if I only presented one case, then you can argue ‘till the cows come home about the veracity of that case. But if I go on presenting cases, I believe there comes a point where any rational person must begin to sit up and begin to take notice. "Hang on a minute..." they will say "Some of this stuff is verified by witnesses and agencies at the highest levels (with radar evidence, photos and videos, and physical trace evidence). There are UFOs that exhibit characteristics that are simply outside our range of conception. So what the...?"

Speak for yourself. Really. Just because something is outside the range of your conception, because your incredulity doesn't allow you to understand it, doesn't mean that it's beyond everyone else's range of conception. Just because you choose to remain ignorant of the aspects of reality that run against the grain of your preconceived notion, doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. Just because you apply different standards to evidence that you believe supports your contention than you do to evidence which clearly refutes it, doesn't mean everyone has that kind of biased thinking or the same wholly unscientific approach to science that you've demonstrated.

And so begins the journey of discovery. The more you look, the more the evidence mounts, until it can no longer be ignored.

And just how much non-evidence, lies, ignorance, and incredulity on your part do you figure it'll take to make it into actual evidence?

I contend the end-point is "aliens" but I have NO clear concept of what "alien" really means except "Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world".

So gods would be as good an answer as a hidden race of advanced Earthlings, or aliens from another planet, or Earthlings from the future/past/another dimension, or ghosts, leprechauns, an advanced breed of octopi, vampires, or any of many other "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world"? Oh, and again I'd remind you that your take on the limits of the natural world is clearly different than that of the rest of the participants in this thread.

That is what I am driving at. I believe the evidence supports this contention and conception. I believe the only way to get people to understand why I hold these ideas is to present cases that I think support my ideas. (and obviously just one case will not do the job...) so ...on with the show!

Nothing you've presented so far is evidence, unless you consider arguments from your incredulity, your ignorance, and your lies to be evidence. I would hope you'd see by now that these other good folks in this conversation aren't buying it. Perhaps some real evidence, some honesty, and some objectivity would serve your purpose better than your current method which is lacking those.

I hope that (again) answers any questions of what my point is in all of this.

Barely. I, like at least some others here, expect you to change your point from time to time as necessary to support your unsupportable preconceived notion about "aliens".

 

[Marduk]

Thanks! Great post, feel the tingle to re-enter the conversation once again...

This is all your fault you know Tapio, if you hadn't asked me to look into Rogue River in the first place Rramjet would have proved it was an alien blimp by now

 

[Sledge]

So again, we return to the idea that none of the evidence is convincing, but there's so much of it that it becomes convincing. Can you see why this doesn't work, Rramjet?

 

[GeeMack]

So, you've started with a conclusion?

Simple as that.

 

[Marduk]

Great. Assuming that's true, then we know there was "something" there.

Of course, if we can't tell what that something was, what can we conclude, other than the fact that we don't know what it is ?

actually we do know what it was, it was an SR71, but lets wait until Rramjet proves the Rogue River sighting wasn't a blimp before we do another one

 

[Aepervius]

Trans en Provence UFO (8 Jan 1981)
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1981.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=111)
(http://www.nicap.org/lt-810108rep.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/case110.htm)

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_46/

Scroll to : French Ufologist Reveals Serious Flaws In Gepan’s Investigation, especially the controversy on the "sample". It goes on many paragraph.

At best this can be called inconclusive. At worst an hoax.

 

[TjW]

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.

So you hadn't, in fact, investigated the incident. But you used it as an example of evidence you found convincing.

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.

This is an example of your failure to understand what replication means. It's true he didn't give his programs, which could conceivably have been rigged to come up with the result he wanted. He gave his methodology -- what he looked for, and how he went about looking for it. Anyone competent in graphics processing could take the existing data -- the video -- and write their own, independent program to test whether the data showed the correlations he said it showed. The evidence that the video is a hoax is not his program. It's the correlations within the video data, that wouldn't be there if the video were not a hoax.

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.

Why didn't you actually read and comprehend the evidence before presenting it? You didn't research the video, you didn't research your rebuttal to the analysis of the video.

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).

Right. You were backed into a corner. All we're asking is that you back us into a corner.
Short version of the "blimp fiasco":
"It could have been a blimp. Doesn't mean it was, but it could have been"
"The Navy moved their LTA operations to the east coast"
"Yes, but there were still civilian blimps"
"Didn't you hear me? The Navy moved their blimps to the east coast"
"Yes, we know. But the Navy Reserve continued to operate blimps on the west coast. Here's pictures of blimps in the area in the time frame of the sighting."
"You're not listening -- The Navy moved their blimp operations to the east coast!"

You do indeed have evidence that the Navy moved their LTA operations to the east coast, and no one here has disagreed with that. But that simply isn't the same as proof that no blimps could have been in the area.
Agreed, it's a fiasco. But not for the skeptics.

 

[Correa Neto]

UFOlogists are not letting ugly facts slain their beautiful fantasies. Rramjet is not allowing ugly facts about blimps, unknown motivations, unreliability of eyewitnesses reports, etc. slain his beautiful fantasy about multi-dimensional intelligences behind UFO phenomena.

Well, since the first pages of this thread (which seems to be destined to grow to the epic proportions bigfoot threads may grow to) I am convinced that Rramjet is a follower of Jacques Vallée. His claim about Rogue River being a "stepping stone on a journey of discovery" the choice of sightings and order of presentation seems to be part of a debate strategy I've seen before. Actually a strategy I used before back in my woo days. You first present a "standard" case. The alleged UFO is just there, it makes nothing actually extraordinary- the object itself is the only "weird" aspect. From this first step he advances in "weirdness grade" presenting things such as the Iranian UFO chase, and the Kelly-Hopkinsville Gremlims Encounter. His list also adds some pretty weird stuff which actually can be seen as intersections with other fringe subjects, such as the Flatwoods Monster. Not to mention the "I-was-abducted-by-a-platinum-blonde-alien-woman-with-red-pubic-hairs" Villas-Boas encounter. It is not hard to see what he wants us to lead us to (succubus anyone?).

Maybe he has his own "Theory of Everything" to explain the "source of all weirdness" (I had my own ideas back then and they seemed pretty logic and bullet-proof back then), maybe he does not. It doesn't mean it actually is. But I digress, right now he wants to convince skeptics there's something else among UFO lore; something real and extraordinary, beyond the usual run-off-the-mill experiences. OK, an interesting goal, I'm game, lets check the evidence and the reasonings built over them.
But here comes the catch- despite his alleged scientific training, he's doing it all wrong. He is falling in the very same traps most UFObuffs fall in to: First, in’stead of building a robust case with reliable evidence, he comes here trying to sell the same decades-old debatable or inconclusive at best material. Note also that its not wrong to say that the evidence presented seems to have been cherry-picked among the available UFO lore based on a previously conceived idea of what an UFO must actually be. This completely ignores the sound practices of science regarding bad data sets. The evidence, the data used to back UFOs are not good enough, usually not reaching the minimum standards for quality level.

How to solve this? Well, if Rramjet -or any other UFObuff- wants to gain some credibility when it comes down to applying scientific methods, then he must go back to square one and present a good reliable set of criteria to labell UFO evidence as usefull or not. A set of criteria which will provide similar results if applied by UFO proponents or skeptics. To date, no such thing was made. He only presented links to sightings he considers as good. What were the criteria? First, define how we can define a reliable UFO sighting. This is step one. Step two is to attempt to find out what it may have been. Rramjet wants to skip both steps, jumping towards the application of the "unlikely to belong to our reality" label. And this can only be done if, after steps one and two were correctly carried out. So do it in the correct way. Go back to square one. Formulate your hypothesis- please try to produce something with a bit more specific than "UFOs are alien to our reality". Now imagine what sort of evidence this hypothesis -if true- would produce. At last, create a set of rules, a methodology to collect evidence and build a database- an unbiased methodology which would present the same results despite the individual who is using it. Then come back to us and present your evidence.

This was just the first trap he felt in to. The second is that it is essential for Rramjet script for the "good" UFO sightings to have little if any odds of being produced by some mundane way. And Rramjet does not seem to be able to perform an unbiased evaluation of what's been presented. He fails to acknowledge there are indeed mundane explanations (and mundane explanations which work well) and fails to acknowledge his data collection is flawed for some of the reasons above described. For say, sighting A to be considered as of a craft not likely to have been built by a humans or of a creature which is not from this reality (whatever that means), the anecdotal, quite often second- or third-hand accounts dated of decades ago (with all the unavoidable loss of information caused by this distance in time) must be faithful, it must be reliable. And he can not guarantee this. And in science, a dataset which you can not vouch for, can not, must not be used. And you are supposed to know it.

The third trap- blame it on those close-minded skeptics, blame them for poor research. The evidence is good! Skeptics, for whatever reason, fail to see this. Many an obvious example of this flawed reasoning can be seen along Rramjet's posts, including examples where Rramjet him/herself shows flawed research and data cherry-picking. This is usually followed by an appeal for a special pledge for the evidence presented, coupled or not with some sort of emotional appeal "open your mind", "pioneers such as Columbus (or Galileo) dared to challenge the status quo and were proven to be right"...

Make no mistake- its common, even in the academic and industry fields to see people whom became blinded by their passion. Its that soft underbelly created by belief. In certain people, critical thinking and research skills are shut down or decreased down to maintenance levels when it comes down to belief. Mind you, I am not willing to convince Rramjet this is happening to him. I'm just telling what I think is happening. He will most likely deny.

Now, Rramjet has all the right to say something like “I believe” or “I personally find the evidence compelling”. But as soon as he/she or anyone else says “there’s evidence good enough from the scientific point of view to…” then the situation changes. The evidence must be good enough to science’s standards. Got some?

OK, that was my wall o' text...

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think he's been reading him some Branton.

 

[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.

If your position is (and I hope I am paraphrasing it correctly), that motivation and witness credibility are spurious to 'proof', the why does the noted skeptic, Stanton Friedman, go to enormous efforts to challenge the credibility of Colonel Philip J. Corso, regarding his claims about seeing physical evidence of the Roswell incident, including a body ready for shipment to Wright Patterson AFB?

Here we have a Reserve Army officer on extended active service being privy to some seemingly extraordinary stuff, and writing about it (albeit years later) and Friedman, instead of just outright dismissing this guy as a guy without physical evidence, makes an enormous effort to dissect credibility.

Why make that effort when making your point above would be sufficient?

Here is the link to the text of Corso's book, The Day After Roswell;

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/dayafterroswell/dayafter.htm

Here is a discussion on the criticism of the book, but I am a bit wary of the way this discussion is structured;

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_ZZO.htm

I bring up the persona of Corso for illustrative purposes only, as I will admit I know very little of the book other than what I have read in the above links.

It seems I have some more reading to do!

 

[SnidelyW]

Regarding Corso, here is a letter written denouncing Corso as a fraud;

James W. Moseley
P. 0. Box 1709
Key West, FL 33041
August 4, 1997


Dear Jim:

This is my belated response to your request about retired Lt. Col. Corso's book that allegedly was based on his experiences associated with the "Roswell Incident". I have not read the book but have two comments that are based on the advanced information that you sent me.

First. It is highly unlikely that any shipment of recovered debris being transferred to Wright Field from New Mexico would have passed through Fort Riley, Kansas; it is far more likely that the debris, if it had any value, would have transported by air. The transport planes available to the USAAF in 1947 included the C-54 which could carry 10 ton or heavier loads. Further, Fort Riley is several hundred miles north of the direct highway route from Roswell or from Fort Worth to Dayton. For ground transportation, old US 66 would have been the highway of choice with stopovers at Tinker Army Air Field in OK City and Scott Army Air Field near St. Louis. There is no way that the Army Air Forces would have used the Army Ground Forces for the transport of such allegedly interesting debris and it is equally improbable that Fort Riley would have been on the route used.

Second. I understand Corso claimed that much of our modern technology is based on knowledge derived from analysis of the "alien" debris. As a physicist, I have not seen any acknowledgments to such sources in the original papers describing the discovery of transistors or in the development of fiber optic technology or in any of the scientific and technological advances that have been made in my life time. However, acknowledgment of the sources of ideas is an essential in science; it is highly unethical to report on a discovery without crediting the earlier work on which the advance was based or from which it derived. I can count on one hand the few breaches of this ethic that I have encountered in my career. There is no way that the major advances that been made since World War II could have been initiated by leaked alien information without some credit being given to the source yet, there have been no such acknowledgments. This translates into the realization that there were no alien sources for these human achievements.

Since Corso's story is not consistent with the accounts of what probably happened around Roswell in 1947, and, since I have not purchased nor read this obvious fraud, I have no other comments worth making. My apologies for the time it has taken for you to extract my opinion.

With best regards,
Sincerely,

Charles B. Moore
Professor Emeritus
Atmospheric Physics
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

I took the letter from here;

http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v44/ss970901.htm

I am aware of the issues surrounding Corso's claims, which is why I pasted the letter here.

What I am attempting to do here is make the case that exclusion of the motivation and credibility of witnesses regarding UFO's is not advisable, whether they support objective criticism or support witness testimony.

 

[Jocce]

Trans en Provence UFO (8 Jan 1981)
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1981.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=111)
(http://www.nicap.org/lt-810108rep.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/case110.htm)

I notice that you often tend to provide multiple links to the same information like you do here. Many repetitions of the same thing doesn't make it more valid. In this case there is mention of physical samples being analyzed but I fail to find anything about the procedures for collecting the samples, the protocols used in the research or the results. If you have that I would be happy to take a look. Can't say much else without that.

ETA: The only other reference to the samples I found was from Eric Maillot who seems to be very critical about the protocol/procedure used in examining the samples. I haven't found his complete analysis either so can't say much about that either.

 

[calebprime]

...
What I am attempting to do here is make the case that exclusion of the motivation and credibility of witnesses regarding UFO's is not advisable, whether they support objective criticism or support witness testimony.

I had to read this bad sentence several times before I realized you meant, simply: Witness credibility is important.

Four words instead of thirty-some.

 

[Jocce]

Of course if I only presented one case, then you can argue ‘till the cows come home about the veracity of that case. But if I go on presenting cases, I believe there comes a point where any rational person must begin to sit up and begin to take notice. “Hang on a minute…” they will say “Some of this stuff is verified by witnesses and agencies at the highest levels (with radar evidence, photos and videos, and physical trace evidence). There are UFOs that exhibit characteristics that are simply outside our range of conception. So what the…?”

Hmm, so you're saying that sheer numbers make it true(er)? In that case I think people are seeing angels rather than aliens. I searched google and UFO generates 61 800 000 hits and angel generates 234 000 000. Glad we could clear that up.

 

[Stray Cat]

If your position is (and I hope I am paraphrasing it correctly), that motivation and witness credibility are spurious to 'proof', the why does the noted skeptic, Stanton Friedman, go to enormous efforts to challenge the credibility of Colonel Philip J. Corso

There is a possibility that 'my position' and Stanton Friedman's position may not be the same perhaps?

But also when an appeal to authority is made (as in the Roswell case) where many UFOlogists endlessly point out that these people were all 'responsible military employees'... some counter arguments to those assertions are going to come up... These are side issues at best when the UFOlogists appeal to them in the first place, so a response from a sceptic doesn't give them any more or any less weight in the complete picture.

Ultimately, Roswell (like all other UFO cases) stands or falls on the physical evidence. It wouldn't matter if the person reporting it was a certified nut job... as long as the physical evidence that he saw an alien space craft was conclusive... would it?

I can imagine that conversation:
Nut Job: "Here's that UFO I found crashed on my farm, it's in the back of my truck
Sceptic: "I don't believe you, you are a nut job.
Nut Job: "But it's here, you can examine it"
Sceptic: "Yes, I can see, but as you are a nut job I can easily dismiss your physical evidence."

It doesn't work.

 

[SnidelyW]

Correa Neto appears to make the point (apologies if I misunderstand) that the only way for UFO 'lore' to be explained is exclusively through his version of the scientific method. Speculation appears forbidden in the Correa Neto world.

However, I think he simplifies the point- dangerously so.

Not only is speculation a part of the scientific method, it is an essential part, and to claim otherwise would most likely negate a great deal of science.

To attempt to illustrate my point- quite often one area of study theoretically rests on another area of study but, we have no need to have the original area well worked out to be able to study the derived area.

Take chemistry for example. The properties of chemical reactions depend on the chemical bond, which is based on quantum mechanics. Do we need to understand quantum mechanics in order to study chemistry? No. People were studying chemistry long before quantum mechanics was understood.

Let's move to cosmology. Seventy years ago, the origins of the universe were speculation and were not considered to be solid science. We didn't know enough to make well informed statements. It took a combination of better theory, working out implications of existing theory, and better data to make "the big bang theory" respectable - something that people could actually work with. But even though the question of the origins of the universe was in the area of speculation, scientists could still work on stellar dynamics and on the origins of stars. They didn't need large scale cosmology. They certainly didn't throw their hands in the air and suspend their work because speculation was an integral component of their science.

Lets move to the study of the origin of life. Lots of solid science, but plenty of speculation. Not raw speculation, mind you, but speculation nonetheless.

So, my position is that speculation is an absolute neccessity to science, and to separate the two, like you appear to have insisted on, is short-changing us all.

I think Rramjet is engaging that speculative side of science. I think science needs the Rramjets of the world to keep stretching the way we use science to understand concepts, theories and methodology.

Just because the subject matter seems beyond comprehension does not mean the way we conduct science, and have conducted science, should be abandoned.