UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[SnidelyW]

The problem being that there is no firm data that would lend itself to a database project, other than just collecting the existence of the reports. Without some standard for the data acquisition there isn't a way to make a useful schema that would do any more than allow us to say "wow, we got a bunch of reports".

I fully agree, and one wonders just what could be gleaned from a worldwide, full on data collation project. As I mentioned before, perhaps it's already being done.

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray Cat, I am looking at this another way now because of your comments. Perhaps the difficulty in coming together over the UFO phenomena is the way we see science and scientific knowledge. Let me quote;

"Rationality is an essential instrument in humanity’s quest for knowledge, yet the practical pursuit of knowledge often ignores or violates fundamental principles of rational inquiry or overlooks the inherent limitations in the use of rationality as an instrument of knowledge."

Would you say that people who believe in the existence of aliens are entitled to use rationality as a basis for establishing evidence? Eg. Well that seems logical, so I can use it.

There are many religious beliefs that imply they are rational too. it doesn't make them so.

I think that people are allowed to 'believe' what ever they wish to believe.
Further to that, they can use any means they see fit to support it.
My problem comes when they try to coerce other people into believing it by dressing it up as science. Or by trying to convince people that it is proven when it isn't.
It is neither rational nor logical to believe in God but that doesn't stop a lot of (apparently intelligent and logical) people from engaging in such a thing.
You have to see that it is the theatrical engagement that is the motivation in most. A willingness to enjoy the fantasy, without the evidence. A willingness to let certain details slip in order to maintain a belief.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald.

 

[Stray Cat]

In the Iranian case, the object had lights so bright it could be seen at a range of tens of miles ( I'll have to reference the case for exact figures)

Then if the lights were extremely bright (bright enough for the object to be seen clearly at 70 miles) how come when the pilot flew past it, he gave such a clear description of it instead of being blinded by it's brilliance?

 

[Toke]

Then if the lights were extremely bright (bright enough for the object to be seen clearly at 70 miles) how come when the pilot flew past it, he gave such a clear description of it instead of being blinded by it's brilliance?

Aviator sunglasses.

 

[AWPrime]

In the Iranian case, the object had lights so bright it could be seen at a range of tens of miles ( I'll have to reference the case for exact figures)

All the 'stealth tech' that I know discourages the use of reeeeeeeeeeely bright lights to avoid being observed.

And you dodge the question again, considering that this isn't about a case but about the 'logic' used by UFO enthusiasts.


So again:

For many years stealth technology was completely unknown to the public. If Rramjet lived in that time period he would have concluded that any UFO sightings without radar returns was proof of Alien technology. How about YOU?

 

[Astrophotographer]

For many years stealth technology was completely unknown to the public. If Rramjet lived in that time period he would have concluded that any UFO sightings without radar returns was proof of Alien technology. How about YOU?

Which is always have been a problem IMO with the "radar-visual" ufo reports. Since we can construct aircraft that are invisible or near invisible to our most advanced radar, why is it possible that an advanced species (or alien technology) can easily be tracked by such archaic technology? One would think it would not take any great effort to make their craft invisible to radar as well as visually.

 

[GeeMack]

I fully allow the concept of 'stealth technology'. However, I deem it virtually impossible to have been at that stage of development in the mid-70's. Even if it was, putting a pilot over Iran in unproven, experimental technology would not be likely. Given Francis Powers experience in the U-2 only a decade or so before, one would think that mistake would not be repeated.

A perfect example of an argument from incredulity. You see what you've done here, SnidelyW? You admit you don't know the state of stealth technology in the 70s, yet you can't believe it could have been at a certain stage of development. What makes it a flawed argument, and thereby negating its value as evidence, is that your understanding of the situation is just a guess here. Your uninformed lack of belief that some particular thing might be possible is a speculative opinion. It's a guess. And even if that thing you guess is true, the conclusion that aliens did it still doesn't follow.

To leap from, "I don't know such-n-such...," to the conclusion, "... therefore providing support for the notion that it could have been aliens," isn't logical. If we don't know what it was, it could have been aliens anyway. What you'd need to demonstrate is evidence that it was aliens, not your finding something else unbelievable. The argument from incredulity is an attempt to shoehorn your disbelief about something into support for your preconceived belief about something else. Rramjet depends on it. You seem capable of eventually recognizing when you're falling into that trap and sidestepping it.

 

[Tapio]

Thanks for your response, Tapio, but I think you're still missing some important aspects of this discussion.

Since I am new to this kind of discussion and very willing to learn I thought I'd take a little re-read of the thread (not all posts, but an overview). You know, I think I now know what you mean.

Well we certainly know he believes it. Just his carrying on in this thread, the ignorance, the incredulity, the lies, the confirmation bias, the repetition, the false dichotomies, the circular reasoning, the cherry picking, the logical fallacies, the misunderstanding of the scientific method, the misunderstanding of the burden of proof, the misunderstanding of the inequality of hypotheses, they all speak to the fact that he believes aliens exist. If he's just trying to prove he believes it, he succeeded on Page 1.

Now I understand a whole lot better what you mean by this, and agree to more of it than before. My problem is that I sometimes think people to have unlimited potential of comprehension, if just given enough chances (you wouldn't believe the amount of help I've had before I finally started letting go of my woo-beliefs - which in the end I did, thanks to the patience and goodness of some).

Thanks for helping me see a new way of looking into this debate. I mean, I still see a lot of plain misinterpretation and conceptual differences, but I feel corrected on the view of Rrmajet presenting evidence for his belief in aliens vs. evidence of aliens

But it is also his claim that aliens exist, and that his intent is to support his claim with evidence. And no, he hasn't brought forth a single shred of evidence to support that contention.

I get it. But I've been under the impression of Rramjet thinking of all this as just the beginning of his long journey which he claims will eventually lead to the conclusion of existing aliens. So I'm not so sure if, at this point, he is claiming to prove aliens (might be that a lot has happened in these hours away from the forum, though...).

Great. Go to the religion forum if you want to have a philosophical chat. Rramjet has made a claim that aliens exist and that he would be bringing in evidence to support that position. So far he's proven a 100% failure at that effort. It's not about beliefs, at least not until he admits that his position is simply a belief, like faith, unsupportable by evidence.

Hmm...I feel this comment to be somewhat unwarranted...beliefs form an integral part of our life as human beings, and they do not necessarily have to be religious (well, depends on the definition). I think most of the stuff categorized under 'General Skepticism and The Paranormal' is essentially based on beliefs. So I think it is completely appropriate to discuss the possibility/reality of beliefs here (otherwise most threads are in the wrong category).

There's one claim, one side.

I disagree. While most claims presented here contradict one main claim (Ramjet's), it is still a fact that there are more than one claim presented (how is 'blimp' not a claim in the Rogue River case?).

If Rramjet can't communicate well enough to make his point clearly and effectively, that's nobody's fault but his. He's been reminded several times by several people in this thread that he appears to have a reading comprehension problem.

I don't quite follow your logic here. Are you claiming that the responsibility to make a discussion understandable is solely on the side who initiated it? I think it's a 50/50 situation where all participants can and will misinterpret each other, as well as fail in giving the best possible wording/explanation to their POV. That's only human (especially when all we have are words on the screen)!

I already recommended that he talk to the principal at his high school and check into some remedial reading courses. If he doesn't care to be understood, to follow up on good advice, there's nothing we can do about it.

Now that is plain rude. Or do you have any evidence of his age?

Perhaps you perceive my blunt honesty as hostility. Perhaps you think it's hostile of me to call a spade a spade, or in Rramjet's case, call a liar a liar.

So if Rramjet is not a high school-aged person you feel it to be fair to call you a liar as well? We clearly have a very differing view of 'blunt honesty'. And, you can call a spade a spade without sinking to personal attacks. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's your avatar, but you do seem quite hostile all over the place. Now, I'm not saying you should change a thing. Do go on, I respect most of your opinion to the max. The way you bring them forth is just not something I find 'friendly' or 'lively'.

I assure you I'd like as much as anyone to see him actually cough up the evidence that he claims to have. But when he's arguing from ignorance, you'll likely see me or someone else call him on it, and when he bases his position on his incredulity, someone is bound to catch him at that, too. This is a skeptics' forum, Tapio. You know, if he can't take the heat and all that.

I understand, but do wonder how you can feel so utterly competent to be able to know exactly when a 'spade is a spade'. I envy you in some way...

He claimed to have evidence that aliens exist. He didn't claim to have evidence that he believes aliens exist. (I addressed this above.) It might be helpful for you to keep those two concepts separated.

Agreed and understood. I thank you for helping me realize this.

No authority on science is necessary to realize that arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies are fallacies and don't support Rramjet's claim in any way.

I understand this. I was just wondering what has given you the privilege of becoming such an expert on these subjects...

Maybe you can save your lecture on respect for the fellow who opened this thread claiming to have evidence that aliens exist, then ignored and lied to people over and over again simply because we're a bunch of skeptics who happen to be just demanding enough to expect him to carry through on his claim. Don't try to make anyone else into the bad guy for not coddling him or humoring him. If he can't support his claim, the honest thing for him to do is admit it.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lecture on anything, or make anybody a 'bad guy'. My comment was meant as a kind reminder of what (in my opinion) a good debate can be like, no matter how far the views and methods of the ones engaged in it are. What I would like to understand more about though, is what you perceive as Rramjet's lies...for this is something I personally feel he hasn't done...

In any case, thanks again for helping me clear some things up! Onward...

 

[Belz...]

Which brings us full circle to my call for an accepted 'standard' of evidence which seemingly cannot be agreed on, unless it is the aforementioned chunk of 'alien craft toilet seat'.

No, we're not, because it's a strawman. Between "no evidence" and "toilet seat" there's a world of difference.

All we have in the case of UFOs is eyewitness testimony, something we know is quite fallible, and vague pictures, something we know can be faked or misinterpreted.

We don't have solid sightnings, corroborating accounts, pieces of aircraft, military reports identifying the objects, or anything of that sort.

The the biggest problem is: we have alternate explanations that we KNOW exist.

So far in this discusion skeptics have refused to accept photos, video, eyewitness accounts, audio recordings, and the printed page as evidence.

As RELIABLE evidence. If I told you I saw a pink, miniature flying (mostly) invisible elephant under my bed, would you believe me ? What if a thousand people made that claim ? What if a few of them provided you with foggy pictures ? No ? Why should it be different with alien visitors ?

 

[leafman91]

It already is an art though Snidely... think of it as an interactive play, where the witnesses, researchers and UFO followers all have their unique part to play. It is mostly a drama theater played in front of a large audience.

"Where's the alien?"
"It's behind you!"
"Oh no it isn't!"
"Oh yes it is!"
"Oh no it isn't!"
"Oh yes it is!"

And in the rare cases where we get to see behind the curtain, it is not a wizard, but a man pulling levers.

As a result, the skeptic becomes cynical, and the believer gets frustrated. Which is all very annoying for the researcher, who is stuck between the divine and the ridiculous.

Let's just pretend for a minute that an extraterrestrial craft does make it to planet Earth. They make their landing somewhere near an airbase as an attempt of being polite, as that's where they have seen countless flying craft land. So they set the craft down, and all of a sudden they pick up two heat signatures moving at quite a speed towards them. The crew, panicked, take off again and take evasive action. The two heat signatures are a car and a police vehicle. The driver swears having seen a light settle down into the trees far off, and then take off again, but the police officer, having full focus on the pursuit of the driver, has noticed no such thing. The driver gets a fine for dangerous driving, and is advised by the police officer to the nearest inn, as the driver looks extremely fatigued. At the inn, the driver pays for Wi-fi access, eager to tell someone what he had just seen. He pulls out a laptop and goes to ,let's say msn messenger, and talks about what he's seen with the two friends who are online at the time. Initially, both friends were eager for details. At the mention of the location, however, Friend A appears to immediately drop interest, and dismisses it. Here is the description provided by the driver:

'It was like a big red light in the sky, I saw it from a a distance, and it sort of fell down into the bush. I drove as quickly as I could to it, but then this cop got on my case ):. When I got there the light... it just jumped, and then vanished completely.'

Friend A:'So where was this?'
Driver: Down near the old airbase off the highway.
Friend A: 'Probably just a flare '

Friend B remains on the case, unconvinced, citing evidence from an acquaintance he has at the airbase, who tells friend B that they had picked up an anomaly nigh a few hours ago roughly at the location the described.

At the airbase, military police are in a frenzy trying to identify what the hell had just landed a kilometre and a half outside what was a rather large and important airbase. The lights had been observed by the guard, and reported immediately. One guard saw two lights.


Weeks later the case is taken into detail on a popular paranormal show, who labelled it as possible evidence of extraterrestrial life forms (oh the irony). The case takes testaments from the driver and the guards at the airbase, as well as the police officer, noting in particular the account of the colour blind guard who had seen two lights. The show makes it onto the web. This is where the debunkers pick it up.

The debunkers cite evidence from a passenger helicopter roughly within the appropriate airspace, where one of the helicopter passengers had accidentally let off a flare. They also draw attention to the 'extreme fatigue' of the driver as according to the policeman, a detail which had been edited out on the paranormal show. One of the believers, an avid fan of the paranormal show, takes offence of the 'slander' towards the credibility of the show on behalf of the debunkers, and also points out the case of the guard that had seen two lights. Unfortunately, someone had pulled up medical details that had been made public by the local press, in error. The eye examinations that showed the guards eyesight to be poor where actually from a different patient to the doctor by the same name. Remember that the guard is only colour blind. His eyesight is exceptional, and he receives regular check ups as a condition of his employment. This 'irrefutable evidence' is cited by the debunkers. Then the argument really starts up. The believers make correct but unsubstantiated claims about the eyesight report, and say the guard really did see two lights, which the debunkers rubbish. The believers point out a previously forgotten point: the flare and the light as described by the driver were different colours, and this is where confusion sets in. There are now two sets of eyesight reports doing the rounds, one claiming colourblindness, the other claiming poor eyesight. False rumours of the guards detoriating eyesight have grown, and the driver has been almost forgotten, along with his cries that he wasn't fatigued, in order to defend his job.

And so it comes to a stalemate. The debunkers say 'job done'! The believers protest in fury at what seems to them to be the complete ignorance of the debunkers. The debunkers sit in mild annoyance complaining about the complete ignorance of believers. The truth is, it was extra terrestrials, but now this truth has been drowned out by claims of demonic activity, 'quantum interference', and deliberate meddling by a new divine tribe of warriors who seek to wage war on earth. The debunkers sit there and ingore these claims. For good reason too.

And it's almost like the extraterrestrials never turned up.

 

[Stray Cat]

It's good to see you interacting with the fantasy Leafman.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] And it's almost like the extraterrestrials never turned up.

And until there's evidence to show they have, it'll continue to be almost like they never showed up. Almost exactly like it. In fact it's indistinguishable from exactly like it. And when a situation is indistinguishable from the non-existence of that situation, it can fairly be accepted, tentatively, as non-existent. That's skepticism. To accept that a situation exists, when it is indistinguishable from the non-existence of that situation, is indulging in fantasy.

 

[GeeMack]

I disagree. While most claims presented here contradict one main claim (Ramjet's), it is still a fact that there are more than one claim presented (how is 'blimp' not a claim in the Rogue River case?).

Just to address one of your points...

Find anywhere in this thread where anyone has claimed the Rogue River sighting was a blimp. And if you can't, then "blimp" is not a claim in the Rogue River case. That's how.

 

[GeeMack]

I don't quite follow your logic here. Are you claiming that the responsibility to make a discussion understandable is solely on the side who initiated it? I think it's a 50/50 situation where all participants can and will misinterpret each other, as well as fail in giving the best possible wording/explanation to their POV. That's only human (especially when all we have are words on the screen)!

Other than Rramjet, everyone else seems to be understanding each other just fine, thanks.

 

[GeeMack]

What I would like to understand more about though, is what you perceive as Rramjet's lies...for this is something I personally feel he hasn't done...

In every instance where he says someone/anyone hasn't provided the evidence to show that (for one example) the Rogue River sighting could have been a blimp, his argument is a lie. Obviously people have repeatedly provided the evidence.

 

[Tapio]

Just to address one of your points...

Find anywhere in this thread where anyone has claimed the Rogue River sighting was a blimp. And if you can't, then "blimp" is not a claim in the Rogue River case. That's how.

Sorry, I meant 'blimp as a plausible explanation' (which I believe it to be). Isn't that a claim?

 

[Tapio]

Other than Rramjet, everyone else seems to be understanding each other just fine, thanks.

I'm having some problems....

...but maybe it's just because I'm Finnish...

 

[Tapio]

In every instance where he says someone/anyone hasn't provided the evidence to show that (for one example) the Rogue River sighting could have been a blimp, his argument is a lie. Obviously people have repeatedly provided the evidence.

Gotcha, thanks.

ETA: Good night ya'll! (Rramjet, ETA = edited to add)

 

[SnidelyW]

A perfect example of an argument from incredulity. You see what you've done here, SnidelyW? You admit you don't know the state of stealth technology in the 70s, yet you can't believe it could have been at a certain stage of development. What makes it a flawed argument, and thereby negating its value as evidence, is that your understanding of the situation is just a guess here. Your uninformed lack of belief that some particular thing might be possible is a speculative opinion. It's a guess. And even if that thing you guess is true, the conclusion that aliens did it still doesn't follow.

To leap from, "I don't know such-n-such...," to the conclusion, "... therefore providing support for the notion that it could have been aliens," isn't logical. If we don't know what it was, it could have been aliens anyway. What you'd need to demonstrate is evidence that it was aliens, not your finding something else unbelievable. The argument from incredulity is an attempt to shoehorn your disbelief about something into support for your preconceived belief about something else. Rramjet depends on it. You seem capable of eventually recognizing when you're falling into that trap and sidestepping it.

I believe it is you who is suspending rational, logical progression in sticking to your vigourously defended position. The reality is that I do not have a preconceived notion that I am seeking UFO's, but that is the rational, logical step to take when a flying object;

a) exhibits inordinate, exceptional, gravity defying, shape shifting behaviour (as exhibited in the Iranian case)

b) emanates an energy which disables avionic components in both fighter aircraft and a civilian airliner

c) exhibits illuminative abilities far in excess of what could have been created by conventional means in 1976

What you appear to be doing is condemning the very method your physician uses in making daily diagnoses; He/She begins by deciding, based on signs and symptoms, what it is not, which begins to narrow the alternatives. By moving through the diagnosis protocol, He/She eventually closes all the remaining options, leaving us with what it is.

I think a good case can be made that one can use the same process in evaluation of UFO events.

 

[SnidelyW]

Leafman

I think that was a superb piece of writing, and think you have wonderfully captured the essence of the situation.

Thanks for the perspective. I definitely needed it!