UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Andrew Wiggin]

From a website I was reading earlier today, actually linked from one of the bigfoot threads...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bfat50.htm

Relevant part below

The claim also has several inherent assumptions, including the notion that the unsolved claims (or sightings) are qualitatively different from the solved ones. But paranormal research and cryptozoology are littered with cases that were deemed irrefutable evidence of the paranormal, only to fall apart upon further investigation or hoaxer confessions. There will always be cases in which there simply is not enough evidence to prove something one way or the other. To use an analogy borrowed from investigator Joe Nickell, just because a small percentage of homicides remain unsolved doesn't mean that we invoke a "homicide gremlin" — appearing out of thin air to take victims' lives — to explain the unsolved crimes. It is not that such cases are unexplainable using known science, just that not enough (naturalistic) information is available to make a final determination.

Ramjet is proposing the equivalent of a 'homicide gremlin' to conflate unknown objects in the sky with aliens.

A

 

[Akhenaten]

ohnoes!


Gremlins in Zeplins!

Chimps in Blimps!

Baboons in Balloons!

Other Rhyming Stuff!

 

[RoboTimbo]

I claim UFO.

Everyone already agreed with that.

I claim UFO because there have been no plausible mundane explanations that fit

Oh, you mean you're claiming "alien" then. You're simply redefining the term UFO with your bait and switch tactics.

So, Rramjet, how does your argument from incredulity make it alien?

 

[Rramjet]

The claim also has several inherent assumptions, including the notion that the unsolved claims (or sightings) are qualitatively different from the solved ones.

Actually you make an assumption here that is entirely unfounded. The unsolved and the solved sightings are not qualitatively different from each other at all.

The solved cases merely have evidence – usually but not always based on the eyewitness testimony – that allow a mundane explanation to be hypothetically fit to the eyewitness descriptions in such a way that the hypothesis covers all the characteristics of the descriptions – and where it doesn’t fit, a “misperception” or “hoax” is then declared. The case is then declared “solved”.

A critical point to note here is that it is usually the eyewitness descriptions that allow this to occur. In other words, the debunkers rely on the descriptions to get them over the line. Critically also, in a great many cases, the “solution” is remains a hypothetical. That is, it merely COULD be the hypothetical mundane explanation. Of course that does not mean that it IS the hypothetical mundane explanation, but the debunkers turn that “could” into an “is”. That is, they turn a mere possibility into a categorical.

The unsolved cases merely have evidence – usually but not always based on the eyewitness testimony – that describe things that do not fit with any mundane explanation – and thus when we have run out of mundane explanations – the descriptions, almost by definition, point toward “alien”. A critical point to note here is that the term “alien” has been almost irretrievably connected with ET. But this is not necessarily the case. “Outside our conception of reality” might be a better term. “Supernatural” is apt if used in its literal form, but of course that term too has been so “tainted” to be of much practical use.

So the cases are really not qualitatively different at all. In one, the “solved” cases, the eyewitness testimony lends itself to (in many cases merely) hypothetical mundane explanations. In the other, the “unsolved” cases, the eyewitness testimony points toward “alien”. Simply then, the evidence in the first points toward mundane solutions, in the second, the evidence points away from mundane solutions.

But paranormal research and cryptozoology are littered with cases that were deemed irrefutable evidence of the paranormal, only to fall apart upon further investigation or hoaxer confessions.

Sure, but by the same token, there are many cases where the evidence also holds up under further investigation.

There will always be cases in which there simply is not enough evidence to prove something one way or the other.

True, as is the case with any scientific discipline.

To use an analogy borrowed from investigator Joe Nickell, just because a small percentage of homicides remain unsolved doesn't mean that we invoke a "homicide gremlin" — appearing out of thin air to take victims' lives — to explain the unsolved crimes.

This of course is a classic straw-man argument. No “gremlins” are invoked in serious UFO research. All that is done, as it is with ANY scientific discipline, is to explore the evidence to see where that might lead us. If the evidence points away from the mundane, then we must be clear-headed and rational-minded enough to accept that is where the evidence points. As scientist we cannot then say “Oh no…it is impossible! It just cannot be so!” No, we MUST go where the evidence leads us. If it is to “aliens” then so be it.

I know this is a frightening concept for many. It also threatens many faith based belief systems, built up so painstakingly over time (so that they are no longer recognised as faith based). And of course, as history tells us, faith based beliefs are the hardest to shake. Misperceived “scientific” beliefs are the next most difficult! Nevertheless, if we are to count ourselves as true skeptics, then we simply cannot afford to ignore the evidence.

It is not that such cases are unexplainable using known science, just that not enough (naturalistic) information is available to make a final determination.

And here is an unfounded assertion. It assumes that ALL UFO cases do have mundane explanations. THAT is totally unscientific! It is illogical. For if the history of science has taught us anything, it should have taught us to realise that when we try to conceptualise the world purely in terms of what we accept and know today, tomorrow something invariably turns up to throw all our precious theories out the window. The contention is in effect proclaiming “Science is dead! There is nothing new to discover! We know all there is to know!” …and that I suggest is the height of arrogance and the depth of folly.

 

[Marduk]

Actually you make an assumption here that is entirely unfounded. The unsolved and the solved sightings are not qualitatively different from each other at all.

The solved cases merely have evidence – usually but not always based on the eyewitness testimony – that allow a mundane explanation to be hypothetically fit SNIP blah blah blah more of the same bs.

Homicide gremlin, call in the exterminators

 

[Paul2]

How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat? How do you know that the boat wasn't perfectly stable with no rocking at all? In other words, you must show evidence that simply being in a boat precludes accurate observation - in THIS particular instance.

If you make a claim that it's aliens, you must show the evidence. If someone says that you haven't shown enough evidence for your claim, the burden of proof is not somehow lifted from you, and it doesn't move over to that person who then has to provide evidence that it's not aliens.

 

[Vortigern99]

Rramjet, your inability to grasp simple concepts such as burden of proof and the standards of evidence, along with your absurdly weak reading comprehension skills, I find so frustrating that I am compelled to remove myself from this time-consuming exercise in futility. Further, your persistent ad hominem attacks render debate with you a most unpleasant experience. Have fun deluding yourself with fantastical explanations for entirely mundane phenomena for the rest of your life. I will not be posting here again, at least not in response to your idiotic ravings.

 

[Marcus]

Rramjet has actually claimed success in arguing against the skeptics here? Wow, that's a new one to me... has he/she convinced one single skeptic here of his/her claims? The answer to that question would seem a reasonable gauge of "success", it seems.

I'm guessing the answer starts with "N"

Not a single one, not even lurkers or fence sitters.

Skeptics -1 Rramjet- 0

 

[kittynh]

Well, you must prove aliens (ET) exsist.

I buy UFO as in "we don't know".

But, the leap from "We don't know" to "Advanced alien technology" is quite a leap.

It's saying that every government in the world is in a conspiracy to keep the truth from us. That every observatory and every person that runs a radar and every really good amatuer astronomy group and every member of the military is also involved. Sure they probably haven't all SEEN a UFO and aliens, but they might. Just the fact that a radar might pick up on a UFO and they don't report it (or rarely? for the most part modern radar doesn't suffer from the innacuracies of the old style ones) means they have pre agreed if they SEE a UFO (aliens) they will keep silent.

I mean, people have to KNOW about UFOS and that they are real to agree to keep quiet about them.

For all you know, proof wise, that craft could be flown by unicorns (lots of historic evidence that unicorns were real and are magical beasts. I'm serious here). Or griffins. Or from inside the Earth (that is still a major UFO/ alien belief. They dont' come from OUT there, they come from inside the Earth). I have to say I'd buy the "inside the Earth" theory over the flying billions of miles through space theory.

UFO, yes. Alien spacecraft isn't an option until you can define and prove "Alien"

 

[Jocce]

And here is an unfounded assertion. It assumes that ALL UFO cases do have mundane explanations.

That is incorrect. It assumes all UFO cases CAN HAVE a mundane explanation taht hasn't been found. That is a big difference and you seem unable to grasp it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

No, I merely contend a UFO, and so far NOTHING mundane has been proposed that fits ALL the available facts!

A FACT is something that has been demonstrated to exist. It is a fact that the witnesses reported seeing this UFO. However, it is NOT a FACT that what they report is accurate. For a person who claims to be a scientist (and every day I doubt more and more this is true) you would know this to be true. However, you have discarded intellectual curiosity and scientific investigation for blind belief and faith in what the witnesses state.
I spent the last hour cleaning up my yard from what my daughter's dogs left behind while she was here. I think that task was far more pleasant than what has been written here. My yard clean up was a disgusting little exercise but at least I could clean that up and dispose of it. This thought process presented here is just plain disgusting and there is no hope of even reasoning it through to clean it up. Your evidence is weak. Your evidence fails to compell. Your evidence provides no conclusions. If you were a real scientist (and not somebody pretending to be one), you would understand this. If you were a real scientist you would create some sort of proposal to further the understanding of UFO reports and the issues associated with them that makes them less than desirable evidence. If you were a real scientist you would research this all beyond just posting a few links and repeating what they say (and in some cases can't get that right). If you were a real scientist you would be open to other possiblities and not simply dismissing them because they are uncomfortable to what you want to believe. What you keep posting here can only be presented as a failure. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and try again when you have something better.

 

[Rramjet]

If you make a claim that it's aliens, you must show the evidence. If someone says that you haven't shown enough evidence for your claim, the burden of proof is not somehow lifted from you, and it doesn't move over to that person who then has to provide evidence that it's not aliens.

Oh, but that is what I find so amusing - I have been showing evidence. And that is why so many people here have gotten a little excited about this whole thread. Not only have I been presenting evidence, the evidence I do present threatens the JREF member’s faith based belief systems and so they need to do whatever it takes to deny the evidence. Hence … statements like the one you just posted.

I find it also amusing that my opponents think that they don’t have to produce evidence to support their own contentions.

Rramjet, your inability to grasp simple concepts such as burden of proof and the standards of evidence, along with your absurdly weak reading comprehension skills, I find so frustrating that I am compelled to remove myself from this time-consuming exercise in futility. Further, your persistent ad hominem attacks render debate with you a most unpleasant experience. Have fun deluding yourself with fantastical explanations for entirely mundane phenomena for the rest of your life. I will not be posting here again, at least not in response to your idiotic ravings.

The burden of proof? You mean where I demand you produce evidence to support your assertions? You mean that burden of proof?

And “ad hominum” attacks. Now this really is amusing! I think you will find that the only people here indulging in that sort of attack are the JREF members posting to this thread. They have this faith based belief that just because someone has an evidence based belief in “UFOs”, then there must be something wrong with them and because there is “something wrong with them” their arguments must therefore be nonsense. I on the other hand deal strictly with the evidence and logical argument.

So you will post here again?

Well, you must prove aliens (ET) exsist.

Why must I do anything at all? I am merely choosing to present evidence to support my hypotheses.

I buy UFO as in "we don't know".

Sure. But then what? Do you propose to leave that as a “black hole” in your system of knowledge? The very fact that you have chosen to post here shows that you have at least some interest in the subject. So why not explore or propose some hypotheses that might explain UFOs? Then see if the evidence supports those hypotheses? That is what I am doing.

But, the leap from "We don't know" to "Advanced alien technology" is quite a leap.

No-one has proposed “Advanced alien technology”. We have NO idea what “alien” actually represents. All we DO know is that something is occurring that is beyond the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world. We are free of course to hypothesise “technological” aliens… but I contend that is merely one among many hypotheses we could (and should) explore.

It's saying that every government in the world is in a conspiracy to keep the truth from us.

Not at all, there are many governments around the world that are actually divulging all they know about the subject. Brazil for example recently released a whole stack of documents on the issue. An example of which can be found here:

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)

And supporting documentation here:
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)

That every observatory and every person that runs a radar and every really good amatuer astronomy group and every member of the military is also involved.

Not at all, for example here:
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...e-study-footage-year-hopes-proving-alone.html) and here:
(http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf129/sf129p15.htm)
And here:
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Astronomer)

Sure they probably haven't all SEEN a UFO and aliens, but they might. Just the fact that a radar might pick up on a UFO and they don't report it (or rarely? for the most part modern radar doesn't suffer from the innacuracies of the old style ones) means they have pre agreed if they SEE a UFO (aliens) they will keep silent
I mean, people have to KNOW about UFOS and that they are real to agree to keep quiet about them.

Again, you have simply not explored the evidence: For example here:
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/radarcases.htm)

For all you know, proof wise, that craft could be flown by unicorns (lots of historic evidence that unicorns were real and are magical beasts. I'm serious here).

Unicorns exist? That’s an hypothesis you NEED to present evidence for if it is to have any traction at all. If you make such assertions then you MUST support them with evidence. But of course you cannot post it here...I suggest you start you own thread "Unicorns: The evidence...".

Or griffins. Or from inside the Earth (that is still a major UFO/ alien belief. They dont' come from OUT there, they come from inside the Earth). I have to say I'd buy the "inside the Earth" theory over the flying billions of miles through space theory.

Then you need EVIDENCE. Present it and we will consider it. BUT of course you cannot post it in this thread... I suggest you start your own thread: "Griffins: The evidence...". Until then you are merely making unfounded assertions. Besides, ON TOPIC, you also make a BIG unfounded assumption that “aliens” fly ”billions of miles through space”, That again is another completely unfounded assumption.

UFO, yes. Alien spacecraft isn't an option until you can define and prove "Alien"

So a definition of alien? At this point “something that is outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world might be an interesting starting point. We could, with a little work and exploration of the evidence tighten that definition up, but we must start somewhere. Right?

As for “proving “alien”. Well, let us see where the evidence takes us then shall we?

That is incorrect. It assumes all UFO cases CAN HAVE a mundane explanation taht hasn't been found. That is a big difference and you seem unable to grasp it.

”All UFOs CAN have a mundane explanation” does NOT equal (or mean) all UFOs DO have a mundane explanation. Besides, I dispute the contention. WHAT mundane explanation do you propose for this case for example:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)

…or this case…

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)

A FACT is something that has been demonstrated to exist. It is a fact that the witnesses reported seeing this UFO. However, it is NOT a FACT that what they report is accurate.

Actually, it is also NOT a fact that you last assertion is a fact. Witnesses CAN be accurate. Just because they can ALSO be inaccurate, does NOT mean that they ALWAYS are. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not. To determine the difference we simply refer back to the research on what conditions lead to witnesses getting things right or wrong and examine each case to see if any such conditions are present that might lead us to conclude “inaccurate” or “accurate”. It is a case by case thing. We CANNOT – indeed if we have ANY pretence to follow the scientific method and logical argument at all - make generalisations about ALL cases, based on a mere possibility that a witness may be in error. No, we must examine each case on its own merits. Thus your following statement:

For a person who claims to be a scientist (and every day I doubt more and more this is true) you would know this to be true. However, you have discarded intellectual curiosity and scientific investigation for blind belief and faith in what the witnesses state.

…simply does NOT represent a scientific of logical point of view. I think you will find it is I who have demonstrated “intellectual curiosity”, while YOU have tried to shut that down at every turn. I think you will find it is I who have been presenting the evidence and conducting scientific investigations, while it is YOU who have tried to shut that down at every turn. I think that you will find that it is I who believe in the evidence, while you merely find belief in faith.

<snip irrelevancy about dog poo>

Your evidence is weak. Your evidence fails to compell. Your evidence provides no conclusions.

That is merely your opinion. Many do not share that opinion with you.

If you were a real scientist (and not somebody pretending to be one), you would understand this.

If you were a real scientist you would create some sort of proposal to further the understanding of UFO reports and the issues associated with them that makes them less than desirable evidence.

So you are not a real scientist? Otherwise, according to this logic, you must follow you own dictum and create such a proposal.

…and ”less than desirable evidence”, sure, in some cases I agree, in others the evidence is pretty compelling. Nevertheless, at this point we only have the evidence we have to work with. I suggest that is plenty to be going on with.

If you were a real scientist you would research this all beyond just posting a few links and repeating what they say (and in some cases can't get that right).

I think if you Google this post’s text from me you will find it nowhere on the web (except here of course!)

If you were a real scientist you would be open to other possiblities and not simply dismissing them because they are uncomfortable to what you want to believe.

Do you actually follow your own maxim here? Or do you merely pay it lip service because you think it somehow advances you own debunking cause.

What you keep posting here can only be presented as a failure. suggest you go back to the drawing board and try again when you have something better.

Suggestion noted. Oh, by the way, I notice you have failed to comment on this case.

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)

 

[Paul2]

If you make a claim that it's aliens, you must show the evidence. If someone says that you haven't shown enough evidence for your claim, the burden of proof is not somehow lifted from you, and it doesn't move over to that person who then has to provide evidence that it's not aliens.

Oh, but that is what I find so amusing - I have been showing evidence. And that is why so many people here have gotten a little excited about this whole thread. Not only have I been presenting evidence, the evidence I do present threatens the JREF member’s faith based belief systems and so they need to do whatever it takes to deny the evidence. Hence … statements like the one you just posted.

My specific point wasn't whether you've showed evidence, it's that when others bring up possibilities that are contrary to your position, they don't have to prove the contrary to you, they only have to bring up the issue, and then it's up to you to address the issue satisfactorily (which doesn't mean claiming success when others can't prove the contrary to your claim).

So when others bring up potential problems with being in the boat, you must show that no problems occurred, rather than claiming success by requesting evidence from those others ("you must show evidence that simply being in a boat precludes accurate observation," "How do you know they were not simply wading or walking along the shore?") that they then do not (cannot) provide.

A challenge or a problem presented to a hypothesis does not establish necessarily a contrary hypothesis that then must be proved, even though a contrary hypothesis could be inferred.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh, but that is what I find so amusing - I have been showing evidence.

Really? Seems everyone missed it. Please point to the posting(s) where you showed evidence that objectively supports your claim that aliens exist. And no, I don't mean any of those crappy arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies that have made up the bulk of your blathering here so far. Or is that the stuff you mistakenly refer to as evidence?

And about my questions in Post 2246, do you figure to answer those, or will you remain ignorant? You haven't yet shown that there are no conceivable mundane explanations for the Rogue River incident, and until you explain every single detail, eliminate any of the doubts that most everyone here has expressed about your claim, plausible, possible mundane explanations still exist.

Of course if you can't dispel every single little doubt about things like the quality of witness statements, the atmosphere, the optical properties of blimps, binoculars, etc., you can still admit that you made a damned poor choice in using the Rogue River sighting to back your claim that aliens exist. So far your arguments have all ended in total failure. It's pretty hard to see how you could reconcile your position now.

 

[Marcus]

If you were a real scientist (and not somebody pretending to be one), you would understand this. If you were a real scientist you would create some sort of proposal to further the understanding of UFO reports and the issues associated with them that makes them less than desirable evidence. If you were a real scientist you would research this all beyond just posting a few links and repeating what they say (and in some cases can't get that right). If you were a real scientist you would be open to other possiblities and not simply dismissing them because they are uncomfortable to what you want to believe.

The evidence for Rramjet's being a real scientist is roughly equilivent to his evidence for aliens. Which is to say, nonexistent.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip as what you have to say has been demonstrated to be completely worthless.

Suggestion noted. Oh, by the way, I notice you have failed to comment on this case.

I chose not to comment on this case because I see no reason to since it is a highly selective presentation of the event. We are missing some of the most important data associated with the radar, which includes sounding balloon temperature profiles. I talked to a friend of mine in Brazil and he states that many of the officers in the military at the time were very gullible and at least one UFO researcher has indicated the story is way overblown. I could collect this man's information and present it but you would just ignore it. So, I have no interest in wasting my time.

So tell me, when are you going to the scientific community with your theories about UFOs? What papers are you going to write? Exactly how many scientists do you hope to convince with the argument you presented here? I think I can answer that question. You will convince just as many scientists as you have convinced people in this forum. Once again, that is a failure on your part.

 

[jhunter1163]

I like "Dummkopfs Aloft".

OK, it's not funny, but it's original.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Not at all, for example here:
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...e-study-footage-year-hopes-proving-alone.html) and here:
(http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf129/sf129p15.htm)
And here:
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Astronomer)

I had to go back and see these ridiculous links.

The first one is a bogus translation. The real story can be found here:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-09/12/content_8684729.htm

An excerpt:

Ji said he doesn't know why his explanation about a bright spot close to the sun, very likely to be the result of some coronal activity filmed during the total eclipse, was misunderstood.

"Obviously, there have been misunderstandings," Ji says while speaking to China Daily.

Ji says that on Sept 2 he received a call from a journalist who asked him about UFO images taken during the solar eclipse. "I was confused and retorted, 'what UFO?'"

It was not until the journalist referred to the photograph of a bright spot near the sun, posted on the observatory's website as a summary report about Chinese observation of the eclipse, that Ji realized what he was talking about.

The report refers to the bright spot as one of the best examples of Chinese scientists' success in capturing some fresh and clear images for up to 40 minutes of the corona of a solar eclipse.

Ji told the journalist that "people were being organized to study the data, complete the analysis and reveal the scientific results. That will take at least one year to finalize."

So once again, your intellectual curiousity is nil and you just parrotted a UFO story without any background check.

For the second link you apparently never read Menzel’s book (so much for doing extensive research), "The world of flying saucers". In that book, Menzel quoted Tombaugh as stating that what he saw that night was not a “craft” but faint shapes/lights that faded in intensity. Tombaugh added that he felt the more probable answer was probably some sort of natural optical phenomenon. Even if it were not an optical illusion of some kind, Tombaugh never stated he saw physical craft/spaceships. Again, it is easy to proclaim something but you really should read more than just what you can find on the internet.

For the third link, we have no identification of the "amateur astronomer" or his qualifications. Was he just a casual sky watcher that claimed to be an amateur astronomer or was he just somebody who liked to look at the stars while walking the dog? This report lacks substance and is inadequate to support your claim.

BTW, I don't think anyone is saying that astronomers do not report UFOs. However, they report them in numbers far less than the standard populace (See article by Robert Young in SUNlite 1-3) and the rarely, if ever, report actual craft of unknown origin. Most of their reports have to do with unidentiified lights in the sky.

It seems your knowledge about astronomers and UFOs is very limited. You are nothing more than a UFO propoganda parrot. You simply repeat what these websites tell you and don't even look beyond it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, but that is what I find so amusing - I have been showing evidence. And that is why so many people here have gotten a little excited about this whole thread. Not only have I been presenting evidence, the evidence I do present threatens the JREF member’s faith based belief systems and so they need to do whatever it takes to deny the evidence. Hence … statements like the one you just posted.

The ball is back in your court, burden of proof wise. All of your cases have been refuted.

So what was it about those cases that made you (a scientist) so gullible as to believe they were evidence of aliens?

 

[GeeMack]

So tell me, when are you going to the scientific community with your theories about UFOs? What papers are you going to write? Exactly how many scientists do you hope to convince with the argument you presented here? I think I can answer that question. You will convince just as many scientists as you have convinced people in this forum. Once again, that is a failure on your part.

Yes, being a published scientist, as he claims, he should be familiar with the process of submissions and the peer review system. I'm curious, too, about when we might see this material formally presented to the scientific community. The response should be spectacular.