UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

What he actually means is beyond my imagination...

I'm personally inclined to think it's as someone here already speculated...not a scientist as we might imagine...perhaps he's specialized in UFOlogy with published work in the appropriate para-zines (actually his conduct is very similar to that of the 'frontmen of the paranormal research' in Finland). If it's not so, I have no idea whatsoever of why he wouldn't want to give out any clues to his education and area of expertise (which would probably only help his case).

My qualifications are not the issue (although it IS amusing to see the speculation). The issue at hand is the arguments put forward. THEY should stand of fall on their own merits no matter who is making them.

 

[wollery]

So in all that your arguments boil down to – despite admitting to the professionalism of the people involved – is that they COULD have been in error? And you base that judgement on the simple fact that they did not report an error margin? And therefore we must throw the whole thing out?

I never said that. Show me where I say that we should throw the whole thing out.

All I have said is that we cannot assess the accuracy without access to the full report, which we don't have. You want to claim this as a highly accurate report, made by experts, but the accuracy is impossible to verify.

You forget, this was a summary report of their conclusions to their superiors. It was not meant as a peer-reviewed scientific submission. They simply conveyed their conclusions in the most succinct of terms. I have no doubt if you went back to their calculations you would find factors for the margins of error. To state that highly trained military analysts failed to account for error margins… especially at a test facility … beggars belief. Do you understand the accuracy it takes to successfully launch a rocket… let alone get it to go where you want it to? No, these people were steeped in accuracy of measurement. The military relied on their accuracy.

I also never said that the people taking the measurements failed to account for the errors. It is the report from the website that you linked to that fails to take into account any errors, and also fails to do simple maths accurately.

I would absolutely expect the full report to have margins of error, but we don't have access to the full report, do we. In the absence of the full report all we have is the summary note, which gives no estimate of the error, which means we simply don't know what that error is, so we can't just assume that it was highly accurate. That seems to be what you want to do, which is about as unscientific as you can get.

 

[RoboTimbo]

My definition of alien (oft now repeated) might help.

An “alien” is “An intelligent agent acting outside the bounds of what we would commonly take to be the limits of the natural world”.

I have not yet presented evidence as to the likely morphology of “aliens”.

Might help if you present evidence for aliens before you speculate on their hair color.

My qualifications are not the issue (although it IS amusing to see the speculation). The issue at hand is the arguments put forward. THEY should stand of fall on their own merits no matter who is making them.

Actually, it helps people understand why you have such a muddled concept of logic and the burden of proof.

So, how does anything you've posted mean it's aliens?

 

[GeeMack]

...and you still don’t get it do you... the sheer hypocrisy of your position?

If I claim X... you naturally demand to see evidence of X. And If I don’t provide it you shout loudly to the world "See, he cannot provide evidence for his assertions!"

It's not a situation of "if you don't provide it". We say you cannot provide it because you haven't.

But if YOU claim Y ...and I naturally demand to see evidence for Y... you then say, "Oh I don’t have to provide it... it merely IS because I say it is!"

That is "woo" at the HIGHEST level my friend. In short - hypocrisy. And this coming from a self proclaimed spokesperson for this thread. What a hoot!

Your minimal understanding of how science works seems to be preventing you from grasping the reality of the situation. You're the one making a claim that some particular previously unknown thing exists. The burden is on you to support it, Rramjet. Everyone else is just picking apart your (and I use the word very loosely...) evidence, showing how it doesn't actually support your contention. Nobody else is here making a claim that some particular previously unknown thing exists. They're just showing how you haven't proven your claim. And they're obviously doing a fine job of it, too, since you haven't made an iota of headway in all your blathering.

And regarding your refusal to understand the scientific method, your confirmation bias that manifests itself in ignorance, your willingness to cherry pick and lie to support your contention, your continued effort to shift the burden of proof? Well... That is woo at the highest level. In short, hypocrisy. And coming from the original poster of this thread. What a hoot indeed.

 

[Jocce]

What I am pointing out is that Elterman either ignored the evidence or he covered it up. Either way, we can no longer trust his conclusions on the matter. It is as simple as that. Simply, his own words show his assessments to be in error. THEN , if we add that to his debunking history, I simply then leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

Listen Rramjet. I have posted another possible explanation and I know that you don't like it but I don't understand how you can just handwave it away. That explanation is that the leading scientist and project director evaluated the caputered data from april 27 and found possible sources for errors that hadn't been adequately accounted for. I'm not saying that IT IS SO. It's just one more interpretation.

So you contend that capturing the objects on film does not constitute information

Exactly. You filmed something but can't tell with resonable accuracy how high it was, how big it was or how fast it was traveling. Then you have a film of something, but no information about it.

Again, the White sands command would be startled to learn that their filming of their rocket and missile test was all for naught because (according to you) a film does not constitute data!

The films are a means to an end and I'm pretty sure they got the information they needed in the observations they planned and performed on their rockets.

You have not answered my question? WHAT do the objects so accurately recorded by eminently reliable observers using precise technical equipment suggest to you?

It suggests that they filmed something fast that was passing by high up in the sky. Meteorites and rockets do that f ex.

WHAT mundane explanations? Can you provide any plausible mundane explanations? No, I did not think so.

My question was in response to your continous requests that people should prove it couldn't have been a ballon, cloud, rocket, blimp or whatever. If you have done your research you should be able to say "it could not have been X because of Y and z". You don't do that, you scream PROVE IT to anyone who suggests it could have been something mundane. This indicates that you haven't done what you can to rule out more mundane explanations. Sloppy research imo.

So what you are saying is that you don’t trust the trained experts, whose job relies on accuracy at the highest level, to have done the job they were trained to do?

But that is exactly what I do. I trust the expertise of the project director, a trained scientist.

Actually, He covered up the data from the 27th. And never mentioned that good data was obtained from that date. So what ARE we supposed to conclude from that?

This has not been shown.

…actually MORE than one.. up to 8 or more were filmed for starters.

And ONE partial triangulation was being made.

To state that highly trained military analysts failed to account for error margins… especially at a test facility … beggars belief. Do you understand the accuracy it takes to successfully launch a rocket… let alone get it to go where you want it to? No, these people were steeped in accuracy of measurement. The military relied on their accuracy.

This is just ridiculous. We KNOW for a fact that there were must be errors in the initial estimates of height, size and speed. We therefor still have two options:

1. The project director lied and covered up the data from april 27. Noone noticed.
2. The project director examined the data from april 27 and decided that it was not acurate enough to draw any conclusions from.

 

[Jocce]

Forgot this one:

How large was it? (ed: the margin of error)

It was small enough for professional analysts, whose job depended on accuracy, to quote a figure.

But maybe not small enough for a trained scientist who was in charge of the whole project.

 

[Jocce]

Seriously... take a step back and try to look at your "arguments" as an outsider would.

Likewise.

 

[Tapio]

This:

If I claim X… you naturally demand to see evidence of X. And If I don’t provide it you shout loudly to the world “See, he cannot provide evidence for his assertions!”

But if YOU claim Y …and I naturally demand to see evidence for Y… you then say, “Oh I don’t have to provide it… it merely IS because I say it is!”

This:

I am as yet merely trying to establish that there are things observed that simply cannot be rationally or plausibly explained in mundane or “natural” terms.

And this:

An “alien” is “An intelligent agent acting outside the bounds of what we would commonly take to be the limits of the natural world”.

...reminded me to bump up these two questions.

Rramjet, If my memory serves me right, you have been explaining from point one that you believe there might be aspects of 'the natural world' humans have yet no knowledge of. Am I correct?

You have come to the conclusion that amongst many of the kind, the White Sand sightings may point towards some of these aspects. Am I correct?

----------

My qualifications are not the issue (although it IS amusing to see the speculation). The issue at hand is the arguments put forward. THEY should stand of fall on their own merits no matter who is making them.

Of course.

It's hard for me to grasp, not being an educated scientist and all, but I don't see what harm could be done by revealing your qualifications. On the contrary, it might give some space to other qualified scientist here to use possibly beneficial concepts. Just thinking...

 

[GeeMack]

If you were to go back to the post(s) where Rramjet describes what he means by 'alien' and add it up with what he seems to mean by 'evidence', I believe you would not be asking for him to bring out 'little green buggers' (though now I understand you meant it as somewhat of a joke). I believe Rramjet is doing a great job in bringing forth evidence he considers as indicating (evidence for) aliens (for he sees 'alien' as the only option left after taking into account all available evidence). And I think that's enough. It doesn't mean he actually has evidence for aliens. He hasn't claimed that (if you take into account the whole thread instead of one sentence). He has only claimed he has evidence which he concludes to point towards aliens. And so he is trying to convince the rest of us that his conclusion is 'right'.

Actually, Tapio, he's doing a crappy job of bringing forth evidence. All of his "evidence" presented so far relies almost exclusively on an argument from incredulity. He doesn't believe it could have been something else, so he assumes, therefore, that it was likely to have been aliens.

Add to that his wilful rejection of the many valid, thoroughly researched, clearly presented criticisms of what he believes to be evidence. He ignores what he doesn't like, what doesn't suit his preconceived notions. Then he plods onward as if those criticisms don't exist. He doesn't even respond at all to the simple questions that might require him to concede that his evidence is flawed. That constitutes an argument from ignorance.

And rather than simply admit his incredulity, admit that he doesn't understand or wilfully rejects the valid criticisms provided, in many instances he flat out lies and says that others haven't addressed his "evidence".

His arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, mostly arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies. And although he may have you buffaloed into believing he's making a reasonable case, haven't you noticed how he hasn't provided a mote of actual evidence, not a single thing that tangibly, objectively, unambiguously supports his contention that aliens exist? No, Tapio, he's not "doing a great job in bringing forth evidence", not from a legitimately scientific perspective he's not. He's failing miserably at the task.

 

[Belz...]

If I claim X… you naturally demand to see evidence of X. And If I don’t provide it you shout loudly to the world “See, he cannot provide evidence for his assertions!”

But if YOU claim Y …and I naturally demand to see evidence for Y… you then say, “Oh I don’t have to provide it… it merely IS because I say it is!”

That is “woo” at the HIGHEST level my friend.

No, it isn't. It's you NOT understanding the concept of burden of proof. I'm sorry if you don't, but it frankly isn't my problem.

I'll shoot back with my previous example about shadows:

I wake up in the middle of the night and see a man-shaped shadow in the room. I freak out, eventually fall back to sleep, and then come to the JREF forum ranting about CIA people in my bedroom. That's claim X. The skeptics here will reason that there is no evidence for my claim, and rightly so. They say it was probably just a shadow. That's claim Y.

Do you REALLY think that they need to PROVE that it's a shadow ?

In short - hypocrisy. And this coming from a self proclaimed spokesperson for this thread. What a hoot!

Strawman. I have never made such a claim.

 

[Marduk]

I was essential to the military.

what were you, a target ?

 

[Correa Neto]

By 'not benign' I meant that emanations from the object affected avionics of three aircraft, including a commercial airliner.

So, we have a UFO emanating some sort of energy, surmised as electromagnetic or pulsed magnetic, exhibiting speed, aerobatic, and aerodynamic characteristics not recognizable as 'ordinary'.

SO what is left? ANY type of terrestrial explanation?

Well, some posts ago you complained about what you claimed to be my aversion to speculation. Now, if you allow me, I will make some speculations.

First of all, electronic warfare is a reality. A whole plethora of EW gadgets has been available for decades; I can't even pretend to know what all of them are supposed to do, but interfering with radar, targeting, navigation and communication systems is certain. So, the alleged systems malfunction -if it is indeed linked with the UFOs- is not extraordinary by itself. Note that Iranian Air Force F4s most likely were not up-to-date with those used by USA (and Israel) back in the 80's. Anything sent to probe Iranian air defenses in the 80's would be younger and more effective than whatever anti-EW equipment Iranian F4s could have to handle EW threats.

Now, since these EW equipment can create problems to targeting and radar systems, the alleged extraordinary speed and maneuvers can be at least hypothetically explained by data acquisition issues generated by jamming/interference devices. Visual estimates made by the pilots could easily have been misguided by the systems malfunctions, among other options.

We are then left with the alleged out-of-this-world shape of the object(s). How reliable are these descriptions? What are the sources- hopefully not someone linked to National Enquirer...

Now the next step- why inform USA government? Well, I am not a specialist in intelligence, so I can only guess... Maybe the guy's duty was to report anything unusual- anything, ranging from an unknown craft to possible weapons sales. And, since I am guessing, making speculations, maybe he was instructed to between certain dates check and report anything unusual in the sky- not because USA spooks knew about alien ships flying over Iran, but maybe because they received a tip about someone else (say, Israel) probing Iran's air defense using brand new EW and reccon drones... And the (also speculative) outcome- Iranian F4's target acquisition, comm and navigational systems effectively scrambled, drones could fly over Iranian air space unharmed and look how the pilots freaked out when their systems failed!

Yes, its nothing but speculation. More plausible than "aliens from outside the boundaries of our reality" - whatever that means. But still, nothing but speculation. It only shows that "aliens from outside the boundaries of our reality" - whatever that means - are not the only explanation speculation left.

Sidenote 1- Anyone has any info on Iranian AAA and SAM sites' reactions? I would expect some reaction if the events unfolded as claimed.

Sidenote 2- alien blimps are not that far-fetched... -> http://www.universetoday.com/2009/10/27/exploring-with-an-armada-of-autonomous-robots/

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, while taking about fighters chasing UFOs, I wonder why this story
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1986a.htm
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/brazil86.htm
Is not within Rramjet's favorites.

Ten aviation nerd points for the first poster to indicate a given aircraft-related problem on the report.

 

[Marduk]

Oh, while taking about fighters chasing UFOs, I wonder why this story
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1986a.htm
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/brazil86.htm
Is not within Rramjet's favorites.

Ten aviation nerd points for the first poster to indicate a given aircraft-related problem on the report.

Interesting, a Xingu aircraft which has been fitted with jet engines, I thought they only came with turboprops, are we supposed to believe with total credibility the words of a man who can't tell how the aircraft hes flying in stays up ?

 

[Correa Neto]

10 aviation nerd points to the Sumerian/Babylonia/whatever deity.

The "Xingu jet" blunder seems to have been commited by whoever compilled the material. Well, since the guy is also supposed to be a pilot...

ETA- Crap. The F103 trap caught nobody...

 

[Marduk]

10 aviation nerd points to the Sumerian/Babylonia/whatever deity.

we've been over this, I am not a God

The "Xingu jet" blunder seems to have been commited by whoever compilled the material. Well, since the guy is also supposed to be a pilot...

more likely a translation error, still if I was going to post this on a website that I controlled I would at least check the details

ETA- Crap. The F103 trap caught nobody...

You didn't get up early enough and considering that I have chronic insomnia its doubtful you ever will

 

[Correa Neto]

we've been over this, I am not a God

Aw crap again...

Seems the flu is starting to hit me... Fever is already installed, brain cells are not working OK (as if the ever were)...

Should have been

"10 aviation nerd points to the Sumerian/Babylonia/whatever deity/demigod/whatever."

Now, if you excuse me, gotta crash- not in Roswell...

 

[Marduk]

Aw crap again...

Seems the flu is starting to hit me... Fever is already installed, brain cells are not working OK (as if the ever were)...

Should have been

"10 aviation nerd points to the Sumerian/Babylonia/whatever deity/demigod/whatever."

Now, if you excuse me, gotta crash- not in Roswell...

wait, you haven't told me where I can spend my 10 aviation nerd points. is there a shop ?

 

[Jocce]

…and you still don’t get it do you… the sheer hypocrisy of your position?

If I claim X… you naturally demand to see evidence of X. And If I don’t provide it you shout loudly to the world “See, he cannot provide evidence for his assertions!”

But if YOU claim Y …and I naturally demand to see evidence for Y… you then say, “Oh I don’t have to provide it… it merely IS because I say it is!”

You seem to not understand what people are talking about. The conversation goes like this:

Rramjet: I think it's alien
Someone: But couldn't it have been something else?
Rramjet: Like what?
Someone: I dunno, a cloud?
Rramjet: Prove that it was a cloud then!!
Someone: Eh, I'm just saying it's a possibility. Since you claim that it's alien, you're the one who has to provide conclusive proof that it can't be anything else.
Rramjet: But you claim it's a cloud!! Prove it or admit it's alien!

and round and round we go...

 

[Tapio]

Actually, Tapio, he's doing a crappy job of bringing forth evidence. All of his "evidence" presented so far relies almost exclusively on an argument from incredulity. He doesn't believe it could have been something else, so he assumes, therefore, that it was likely to have been aliens.

Thanks for addressing this. Maybe I was too vague, or maybe you have no intention at even trying to see this from another perspective than yours. In any case, hoping for the former option I will try to elaborate on what I meant.

I think he is doing an excellent job in bringing forth evidence that supports his belief. I am not congratulating him for bringing forth evidence that supports aliens. See the difference?

I feel that regardless how we feel about someone's beliefs, it's always respectable if they succeed in providing evidence which they base their beliefs on. Then, if we think the provided evidence doesn't in some way justify their beliefs, we can comment on it and present our own evidence on which we base our beliefs.

Add to that his wilful rejection of the many valid, thoroughly researched, clearly presented criticisms of what he believes to be evidence. He ignores what he doesn't like, what doesn't suit his preconceived notions. Then he plods onward as if those criticisms don't exist. He doesn't even respond at all to the simple questions that might require him to concede that his evidence is flawed. That constitutes an argument from ignorance.

And rather than simply admit his incredulity, admit that he doesn't understand or wilfully rejects the valid criticisms provided, in many instances he flat out lies and says that others haven't addressed his "evidence".

I agree, partly. I also believe there's a whole lot of misinterpretation and confusing concepts and terminology going on on both 'sides'.

His arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, mostly arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies. And although he may have you buffaloed into believing he's making a reasonable case, haven't you noticed how he hasn't provided a mote of actual evidence, not a single thing that tangibly, objectively, unambiguously supports his contention that aliens exist?

If you've followed my discussion with him, you know he's not 'buffaloed' me into believing anything. I hope I'm making myself clear, because I feel your attitude coming across as quite hostile. In my opinion he's made a reasonable case to back up his belief, not a case to back up aliens. Am I making myself clear?

No, Tapio, he's not "doing a great job in bringing forth evidence", not from a legitimately scientific perspective he's not. He's failing miserably at the task.

I'm not sure how you hold authority to give judgement on this one from the scientific perspective, but I hope my post has cleared what I mean when I say he's doing a great job.

You know, it doesn't hurt giving some respect to people even if they don't believe, act or work the way you see as the best way.