UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

I have not been able to find any source for the conflicting sighting statistics at http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm saying that vaughn had just one previous "incident"

.

Still haven't found it but a lot of other, what seems to be, original documentation is available at http://www.project1947.com/shg/sohp/reesintro.html#twinkle

The summary is available at http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~thomasg/gf/gf4.txt but for some reason the actual listing of sightings is not included. If someone finds it it would be nice.

 

[EHocking]

... and this, if you don't mind me saying places a certain doubt in people's minds as to whether you are really trying to genuinely analyse cases to the best of your analytical skills, or are merely trying to "spin" the information to suit your own ends.

It is not easy to cast aside long held beliefs to examine the evidence and confront your own belief systems in the process. It is a decidedly uncomfortable thing for most people to even contemplate, let alone act on.

Take my word for it, you don't need to be indulging in this sort of "spin" - if your analysis is good enough, it will stand up to scrutiny - if not then such statements give merely give your opponents another stick with which to beat you over the head with.

 

[Rramjet]

Thanks for clearing that. I hope we get there soon...

That wasn't my intention at all. I agree with you 100% on the hilighted part, though our definition for evidence clearly differs.

No worries and We will...

No, I don't believe it actually does differ...

...Unless you believe there is any such a thing as "extraordinary evidence"... then we DO have a problem. But I cannot accept you DO believe in such a thing... you seem too intelligent to not understand - that if we cannot define a concept or term, then it is useless to science.

 

[Rramjet]

Ughhh...Sorry, gotta go... will attend to questions and analysis tomorrow.. sometimes there are simply not enough hours in the day!

One thing ... EHocking and others ... Astrophotographer too... and now Jocce on the White sands thing have produced a number of links that add evidence or refute the claims made in my original links. I am trying to keep them all in a document under their case titles (as per my OP). I have approached the moderators about allowing access to my OP to update and add such links - but did not get a response... I guess I'll just have to post the document every so often and update it as we go so people can reference back easily... it would be SO handy to have updated links in the OP...but anyway, out of my hands... anyway, as I said...gotta fly for now (no pun intended).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, what do you find compelling about this case?

 

[GeeMack]

I believe it to be more a case of what I just wrote:

...though our definition for evidence clearly differs.

Almost certainly our definition of evidence differs. Rramjet seems to believe that his argument from ignorance, incredulity, and lies constitutes evidence. Any honest, intelligent person with a legitimate interest in investigating the issue with a genuinely scientific approach understands that ignorance, incredulity, and lies don't support his contention in any valid way.

I'm not the only one wondering if/when Rramjet will provide some legitimate evidence. His continued avoidance of those questions and repetition of the same old same old seems to indicate that he's given all he's got and that there will be no actual substantive argument forthcoming. Can't say we aren't giving him every opportunity though...

So, how about it Rramjet, you going to bring in some evidence that isn't based on ignorance, incredulity, and lies?

 

[Belz...]

Getting bored, now.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yeah. If it's just more cases being thrown against the wall and Rramjet saying, "What do you think of this one?" then there isn't much to see.

It would help if he had an independent thought of his own on the subject and would answer some questions. I'll just poke him with a stick occasionally but otherwise, not much interest left in it.

 

[Jocce]

you seem to be implying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the age of a case somehow matters.

Trying to investigate something that happened 60 years ago, using whatever dubious fragments are available on the internet and hoping that some new revelations will come out of it is pretty much futile imho.

 

[Jocce]

I DO congratulate you and I DO appreciate the work you have put into the case ( I just wish more people had yours and EHockings "rational", investigative approach to the subject)

And why don't you put in the same 45 minutes of checking the facts in whatever links you provide for our consideration? Each and every case you've presented so far has had huge holes in them. Do some homework yourself and spare me.

 

[IXP]

From the linked report, bolding mine.

3. The Holloman AF Base Data Reduction Unit analyzed the 27 April pictures and made a report, a copy of which I am enclosing with the film for your information. It was believed that triangulation could be effected from pictures taken on 24 May because pictures were taken from two stations. The films were rapidly processed and examined by Data Reduction. However, it was determined that sightings were made on two different objects and triangulation could not be effected. A report from Data Reduction and the films from the sighting are enclosed.
...
1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed

This is contradictory. First it is stated that the observations from different stations were of different objects so triangulation could not be done. Then it goes on to give information about altitude and size from the triangulation done from observations at two different stations. Most likely explanation: The triangulation was done, but later it was determined that the observations used were of different objects and the triangulation was invalid. Which supports the conclusion that no information was gained.

IXP

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
Moreover, you seem to be implying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the age of a case somehow matters. That somehow the evidence loses its veracity as it ages. That is a novel way of looking at evidence. I am sure that all the great discoveries down through the ages have not lost their veracity because of mere age. Perhaps police forces should no longer consider investigating murders after ...what would you suggest...20 years... or that Darwin's observations on the Galapagos Islands should now be totally discounted and discredited because they were made over a century ago... (and especially since they were only "eyewitness accounts"), or Copernicus' observations maybe should be totally wiped from the history books given hardly anyone even remembers who he was..? No, evidence is evidence, no matter when the observation was made.

Nope. There are different levels of evidence reliability - and they are linked to how the evidence was acquired. Time of acquisition may indeed be an important factor. All data points collected in the XVII and XIX centuries through telescopes are as reliable as those collected in the XX and XXI centuries? Technology is not an issue? Isn't its availability related to time? Can't newer, more precise equipments produce new datapoints which may either confirm or inflict a crippling blow at a given theory? This put, lets go back to UFO evidence.

Its obvious that an UFO sighting report from the 50's probably will be less reliable than a similar record say, from the late 90's. When investigating the older one, the odds are that you will no longer be able to cross-check testimonies, original sources may no longer be available, changes at the sighting site may render in-situ observations useless, etc. Quite often all that's left are second- or third-hand account at biased sources such as UFOlogy sites.

It must be said that Rramjet is making a very basic mistake by lumping together data collected by Darwin and Copernicus centuries ago with the data about UFOs (regardless the age of the UFO evidence). It is quite surprising, given his alleged scientific training- evidence of a soft underbelly when it comes down to belief?

Remember, data collected by Darwin and Copernicus are much better when it comes down to quality than the material presented so far to back UFOs as some phenomena whose origin lies "outside our reality" - whatever that means. Their data was carefully recorded at notebooks, the methods used in data collection were recorded, the reasonings through which their conclusions were reached were recorded and above all- the data can be reproducted if one follows the same methods. Not to mention that no well-informed people suspect of hoax when it comes down to the data presented by Darwin and Copernicus. And the UFO evidence presented so far? How does it perfoms when compared against such standards?

 

[Jocce]

I find it amazing that Rramjet now presents a case where an actual investigation was done, lead by a real scientist, that concludes that nothing strange is going on here. As evidence, Rramjet presents an article by another sloppy thinker who, failing to find any flaws in the investigation, resorts to building a conspiracy theory. The scientist is "in on it!" and has set up the experiment to fail.

Wow, just wow. From the available documentation I find no reason to come to any other conclusion than the final report:

The gist of the findings is essentially negative. The period of observations covers a little over a year. Some unusual phenomena were observed during that period, most of them can be attributed to such man-made objects as airplanes, balloons, rockets, etc. Others can be attributed to natural phenomena such as flying birds, small clouds, and meteorites. There has been no indication that even the somewhat strange observations often called "Green Fireballs" are anything but natural phenomena.

Our recommendations are in essence that there is no use in sinking any more funds into this at the present time and that we will keep in connection with one of our meteor studies a sharp eye on anything unusual along this line.
Source: http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm

Translation: Stop wasting taxpayer money and my time on this please.

 

[Jocce]

This is contradictory. First it is stated that the observations from different stations were of different objects so triangulation could not be done. Then it goes on to give information about altitude and size from the triangulation done from observations at two different stations. Most likely explanation: The triangulation was done, but later it was determined that the observations used were of different objects and the triangulation was invalid. Which supports the conclusion that no information was gained.

Pretty much an acurate interpretation imo.

 

[SnidelyW]

How does that make it alien?

I'd like to point out that in the NSA document, in the remarks column, it is stated in point f;

f) An inordinate amount of maneuver-ability was displayed by the UFO'S.

And in d of the same document;

d) Similar elecrtomagnetic effects were reported by three separate aircraft.

So what we have is an assessment of this information by a USAF officer, trained to know when an aircraft posesses inordinate maneuvreability, seemingly emanating electromagnetic interference to affect avionic electronics in three aircraft, notifying everyone from the White house on down the chain of command. Hmm.

I think it is safe to think that he thought he posessed enough solid evidence to alert the White House, given if he was wrong, or couldn't substantiate his claim, his career would have taken a serious hit.

He didn't use the term 'aircraft'- he used the term UFO. He didn't say 'Russian aircraft'.

So, these doors are closed.

Not an aircraft.
Not Russian.

So, what is left?

UFO
Not benign.

 

[SnidelyW]

Nope. There are different levels of evidence reliability - and they are linked to how the evidence was acquired. Time of acquisition may indeed be an important factor. All data points collected in the XVII and XIX centuries through telescopes are as reliable as those collected in the XX and XXI centuries? Technology is not an issue? Isn't its availability related to time? Can't newer, more precise equipments produce new datapoints which may either confirm or inflict a crippling blow at a given theory? This put, lets go back to UFO evidence.

Its obvious that an UFO sighting report from the 50's probably will be less reliable than a similar record say, from the late 90's. When investigating the older one, the odds are that you will no longer be able to cross-check testimonies, original sources may no longer be available, changes at the sighting site may render in-situ observations useless, etc. Quite often all that's left are second- or third-hand account at biased sources such as UFOlogy sites.

snip...

I am just a bit confused. Your skeptical colleagues have repeatedly asserted eyewitness testimony is of no value whatsoever because of its unreliability, but you're arguing that age related eyewitness testimony is of little value over recent eyewitness testimony.

This then, is a prime example of the inherent problem of standards, of which I posted very early in this thread.

Either the skeptics agree that eyewitness testimony is acceptable as a component of the standard, or its not.

What will it be? When you agree, let us know please. At least then we'll know what rules we're using.

 

[IXP]

He didn't use the term 'aircraft'- he used the term UFO. He didn't say 'Russian aircraft'.

So, these doors are closed.

Not an aircraft.
Not Russian.

How does the fact that an object could not be identified rule out the possibility that is it an aircraft or is Russian? I guess you must believe that all Russian objects and all aircraft can be identified by all viewers under all viewing conditions.

IXP

 

[GeeMack]

He didn't use the term 'aircraft'- he used the term UFO. He didn't say 'Russian aircraft'.

So, these doors are closed.

Not an aircraft.
Not Russian.

Aha! Looks like you graduated from the Rramjet school of logic.

 

[AWPrime]

He didn't use the term 'aircraft'- he used the term UFO. He didn't say 'Russian aircraft'.

I don't think they are allowed to describe anything as a Russian aircraft unless they are 100% sure.

 

[SnidelyW]

Experiencing some time dilation?

Speaking of, have you ever you looked at the actual Project Blue Book file on this case? (you can find it on Footnote) There’s a couple of things I found in there you might find interesting. In my experience it’s usually best to start from primary sources, preferably recorded as close to the time of the incident as possible. UFO websites and books often leave out important information and are rarely, if ever, updated to include new information and findings that have become available over time. (especially if it runs contrary to the “status quo” of Saucer Logic)


You are correct, there were allegedly multiple shots fired (in all “about four boxes of .22 pistol shells” is what they told a Deputy Sheriff at the time but “only about four shots” were heard according to a neighbor who “mistook them for fire-crackers” which is one of the interesting things you’ll find in the Blue Book file) at different times over a period of three or four hours (not exactly the firefight I pictured?) but the way you worded it, it sounded like you meant there were multiple shots fired at “point blank” range. My understanding is it was claimed (in addition to at least one in the tree, on the roof, and in the window) at some point one shot was fired at “nearly point blank” range… whatever that means. (couldn’t possibly have missed?)

Anyway, I’ll have to catch up with the rest of this thread later…

I'll look up the PBB file and get back to you - it may take some time, though.