UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Can I just check that everyone is using the same terminology; Roger redefines unidentified flying objects as "objects for which we can find no plausible mundane explanation".

What, you think UFOs HAVE a plausible mundane explanation? If so, then it is NOT a UFO at all, it becomes an IFO (Identified Flying Object). If on the other hand you contend that there are "unknown" mundane explanations that explain UFOs - then you are committing the fundamental logical fallacy of attempting to explain one "unknown" with another "unknown".

 

[GeeMack]

Sure. I just wish everyone was in agreement that there ARE UFOs (that is objects for which we can find NO plausible mundane explanation based on what we know today and all the research that has been conducted).

We all agree that a UFO is something which was perceived as a flying object which has not been specifically identified. There's nothing in that definition about no plausible mundane explanation, your valiant efforts to redefine the term to suit your whim notwithstanding.

Of course to establish evidence for "aliens" it MUST be first established that UFOs exist. If we cannot even take that "small" step, how ARE people going to react when the next step is taken? Simply they will ignore the evidence! Yes, flat out REFUSE to even LOOK at it.

UFOs exist, but you haven't shown that they exist by your definition of UFO. And before you go carrying on about evidence, it might be helpful for you to actually understand what does and does not constitute evidence. And despite what you seem to think, your arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies are not evidence.

So, baby steps must be taken. I know it IS frustrating for some - and I am sorry about that - but I can only go as fast as the members of this forum are willing to go.

Thus I contend, IF we are satisfied that UFOs exist (according to the above definition) AND that Rogue River IS a case where we must admit the veracity of the assertion "UFOs exist", then we CAN move on to the next step.

And you're still wrong. Plausible explanations for the Rogue River sighting have been offered and accepted by nearly everyone in this discussion.

The NEXT step is to show that not only do UFOs exist, but also that they perform outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world. Rogue River established "UFOs exist", and I contend that the Iranian UFO establishes that they DO perform outside the limits of the known world.

Since your convoluted definition of UFO seems to require that no possible mundane explanation can apply, Rogue River didn't establish that UFOs exist. If, on the other hand, you're willing to accept that there are plausible mundane explanations for the Rogue River sighting, and that it hasn't been positively identified as a particular thing, and that simply being unidentified qualifies it as a UFO by everyone else's definition, I think we can all agree on that.

Each step toward my "alien" hypothesis MUST be taken. If I miss a step, then we simply end up back where we started with the same old arguments.

And if you think anyone takes the Rogue River incident as an example of a UFO which cannot be explained in any plausible, mundane way, you'd better go back where you started, but please, not with the same old arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and lies. Those have already failed, repeatedly.

Can you see that if this happens when I present evidence FOR "aliens" then I will STILL have to go back and start again - arguing over all that we have already been arguing over. Therefore I will take it one step at a time, presenting the evidence in a step by step approach, until..."aliens!

So, one step at a time. Learn a little something about evidence, burden of proof, logical fallacies, and the scientific method. That would be a good first step, since so far your arguments seem to stem from a gross misunderstanding about those things.

If anyone at this point decides to "tune out" until that ultimate step is taken, then they better NOT come back to me with ANY of the arguments being discussed along the way.

Oh they better not, eh?

The NEXT step is to be found here:

[*link spamming snipped*]

It's not time for the next step until you prove that no possible mundane explanation can apply to the Rogue River event. Pretty much everyone here still thinks there's a reasonable possibility it was a blimp. You've been asked to prove there are no plausible mundane explanations, but some still exist. As long as they do, there's doubt. Eliminating that doubt is going to be a lot of work for you, and you haven't even gotten started yet...

What make and model were the binoculars? What sort of prisms? What sort of lens coating? What magnification? How old/new? How often were they serviced/cleaned? How recently? Under what conditions were they stored/carried? Did they get wet? Ever? Were they waterproof? Any river sand ever get into the slides/focusing gears? Were they the personal property of the witnesses? Did they tune the diopter adjustment regularly? Recently? For each person that handled them?

What material was used as blimp skins in 1949? What differences were there between the skin of the envelope and the skin of control surfaces? What differences were there between covering material for the horizontal stabilizer and the elevator surface, vertical stabilizer and the rudder surface? What materials were used for the surfacing the gondola? What types of paint were used for all those various surfaces? All the same? Different types for different surfaces? What was the pigment that made it silvery? What was the paint base made from? Technically describe its reflective qualities, or even in layman's terms, flat, matte, satiny, glossy? What would have been the maximum angle of all four control surfaces, elevators and rudders, and how would that have affected the light reflectivity from all various distances within the guesses of the witnesses?

What was the pollen count at that time on that day in that part of that state? What kinds of pollens? What was the measured humidity level, temperature, air pressure? Which direction was the wind from and at what speed? Where were any sources of pollen and/or pollutants relative to the sighting? Distances and directions? What sort of man made environmental pollutants were in the air? In what densities? What optical distortion and/or reflective properties would those various pollutants cause at those various densities and at various distances within the range of guesses of the witnesses? What sort of non-pollen natural pollutants, dusts, spores, sea salts, etc., were in the air? In what densities? How would their various optical properties have specifically affected viewing conditions of the atmosphere that day?​

And damn, still no evidence. I thought you said you'd come back today with some evidence that aliens exist. Maybe you meant like the humorous sign on the wall at the bar that says, "Free Beer Tomorrow".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What, you think UFOs HAVE a plausible mundane explanation? If so, then it is NOT a UFO at all, it becomes an IFO (Identified Flying Object).

You reinforce my point: You do not regard every unidentified flying object as a UFO. You exclude from that group all unidentified objects which might have several mundane explanations, none of which can be precisely established with confidence. That was all I meant.

 

[Stray Cat]

Rramjet has presented the same arguments which have all been refuted in some way or other in this thread. It has now got to the point where people are unwilling to keep going round the merry-go-round re-presenting their refutations.

But the real sticking point I think is this definition of UFO.
Rramjet wants us all to accept his (convoluted) definition because his whole case rests upon the ASSUMPTION that a UFO has to be something other than mundane in origin.

Perhaps if you could expand on why that ASSUMPTION is necessary Rramjet?

 

[Rramjet]

We all agree that a UFO is something which was perceived as a flying object which has not been specifically identified. There's nothing in that definition about no plausible mundane explanation, your valiant efforts to redefine the term to suit your whim notwithstanding.

Patently we do not ”all agree”. All I am saying is that a UFO is such because it is unidentified by the observers and by all who have investigated the case subsequently. Is that too subtle for you? What is YOUR definition?

If you contend a “plausible” mundane explanation for Rogue River, then you should present that explanation and show how MY arguments against it might be mistaken.

As for you multitude of questions, I think you will find I HAVE actually answered them. Of course you would not know that would you. Have you even read my report? No, of course you haven’t. You are still relying on the irrationality of “It IS so merely because I say it is so”.

 

[Red3]

” For all we know they were out there smoking crack and drinking whisky all day.”[/I]

And this is precisely why we present data on whether the people concerned might be responsible, reliable, etc. THESE ARE factors we can account for. Weather conditions are even easier to account for.

You need to reassess your faith based belief system and look at the evidence with a dispassionate, critical eye. So far you have demonstrated your faith. Now let us see your scientific credentials with a rational, logical discussion of the EVIDENCE.

O.K, nothing can be proved. But that's a cop out, because some things can be "proved to be valid" better than others. You can't recreate or independently verify a one off eyewitness account. And your comment about Darwin is absolutely ridiculous for this reason. Darwin's theories are proved to be valid over and over throughout the years by countless different people (ie, all with different perceptions of the world and subjective standpoints, who all agree it to be valid). There is no way of testing eyewitness testimony beyond the obvious. It's completely different. And no, observers a lot of the time don't know what they see; the rates of wrongful criminal convictions based on eyewitness testimony have made this quite apparent. As for the people involved smoking crack and drinking whisky, it was an off the cuff remark but still a valid one. If they were under the influence of a substance would they tell any investigators? More than likely not.

It's interesting to note that you called me a "debunker" because I'm skeptical of the "evidence" UFO cases are based on; I actually like the idea of aliens/visitations from other planets, dimensions etc and would like to believe it was true and remain open minded. But I don't buy into it because of the eveidence, it's just not that strong. I've even seen one or two things in the sky I can't explain, but I'm still skeptical as to what they were. I am not a "debunker". You're doing what most "believers" in something do, and that's reduce the argument to us and them and ignore the grey area (pardon the pun).


The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony

 

[Rramjet]

You reinforce my point: You do not regard every unidentified flying object as a UFO. You exclude from that group all unidentified objects which might have several mundane explanations, none of which can be precisely established with confidence. That was all I meant.

What I meant - and you selectively snipped because it would refute your statements - is that is is irrational to "explain" one unknown with another unknown. Either a UFO is identified as a mundane object, or it is not, there is no "in between" status.

A UFO is a UFO. It is NOT mundane and it is NOT alien. It is a Unidentified Flying Object.

But not merely from the perspective of the observer. It is also such from the perspective of all who research the case, for if ANYONE can apply a plausible mundane explanation (or an alien explanation) it is then IDENTIFIED (an IFO) and no longer fits the category of UFO.

 

[GeeMack]

All I am saying is that a UFO is such because it is unidentified by the observers and by all who have investigated the case subsequently.

Oh, then you're dropping your qualifier that for it to be a UFO there are no plausible, mundane explanations? As long as you're with the rest of us that a UFO is something which was perceived as a flying object which has not been specifically identified, and that there's nothing in that definition about plausible mundane explanations, we can move on.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What, you think UFOs HAVE a plausible mundane explanation? If so, then it is NOT a UFO at all, it becomes an IFO (Identified Flying Object). If on the other hand you contend that there are "unknown" mundane explanations that explain UFOs - then you are committing the fundamental logical fallacy of attempting to explain one "unknown" with another "unknown".

And for you there are no UFO's because you have identified them as alien. For you they are all IFO's. Scientist Claus failed again this xmas.

 

[Stray Cat]

Patently we do not ”all agree”. All I am saying is that a UFO is such because it is unidentified by the observers and by all who have investigated the case subsequently.

Remembering it is also unidentified by YOU... So where next?

We will never be able to say with any certainty what the flying object actually was... It could have been a Goodyear blimp, a Navy blimp, A Navy Reserve blimp, or it could have been an alien space blimp.
Any certain conclusion that you seem to be calling for in relation to putting an alien tag on this is ASSUMPTION based upon lack of information.

 

[GeeMack]

But not merely from the perspective of the observer. It is also such from the perspective of all who research the case, for if ANYONE can apply a plausible mundane explanation (or an alien explanation) it is then IDENTIFIED (an IFO) and no longer fits the category of UFO.

No, absolutely not, not in the English language that the rest of us are using to communicate here. Just because something has a plausible mundane explanation does not mean it has been identified.

 

[Garrette]

What, you think UFOs HAVE a plausible mundane explanation? If so, then it is NOT a UFO at all, it becomes an IFO (Identified Flying Object). If on the other hand you contend that there are "unknown" mundane explanations that explain UFOs - then you are committing the fundamental logical fallacy of attempting to explain one "unknown" with another "unknown".

Someone broke the lamp at my house. My children were roughhousing near it when it fell. I saw it all but did not see any of them touch it.

It might have been my oldest; it might have been my youngest; it might have been my middle child. Come to think of it, it might have been the cat.

It is a ULB. An Unexplained Lamp Breaking.

But since I didn't see any of them actually touch it (or the cat), it was probably a ghost.

 

[Rramjet]

O.K, nothing can be proved. But that's a cop out, because some things can be "proved to be valid" better than others. You can't recreate or independently verify a one off eyewitness account. And your comment about Darwin is absolutely ridiculous for this reason. Darwin's theories are proved to be valid over and over throughout the years by countless different people (ie, all with different perceptions of the world and subjective standpoints, who all agree it to be valid). There is no way of testing eyewitness testimony beyond the obvious. It's completely different. And no, observers a lot of the time don't know what they see; the rates of wrongful criminal convictions based on eyewitness testimony have made this quite apparent. As for the people involved smoking crack and drinking whisky, it was an off the cuff remark but still a valid one. If they were under the influence of a substance would they tell any investigators? More than likely not.

It's interesting to note that you called me a "debunker" because I'm skeptical of the "evidence" UFO cases are based on; I actually like the idea of aliens/visitations from other planets, dimensions etc and would like to believe it was true and remain open minded. But I don't buy into it because of the eveidence, it's just not that strong. I've even seen one or two things in the sky I can't explain, but I'm still skeptical as to what they were. I am not a "debunker". You're doing what most "believers" in something do, and that's reduce the argument to us and them and ignore the grey area (pardon the pun).


The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony

Wow...so many misconceptions, so little time to answer them all. You Do make "off the cuff unfounded generalised assertions and each one would take many pages of text to explain exactly how and why you went wrong...ughhh! If I had another lifetime... but I'll skip to the substantive arguments in the link you provided.

I know you probably won't believe me but the article you referenced has substantially little to do with UFO observation. But again to explain HOW and WHY would take some time because the general considerations DO play a role, but NOT in the way mentioned in the article. Context means a great deal when psychological concepts are examined. A subtle change in context and the human reaction is different all over again. This is what makes creating general laws in psychology SO very difficult. Not to mention Individual differences...

To resolve the issue I suggest you read the article you referenced again, but THIS time with the Rogue River case in mind. Try to notice HOW and WHY each of the research outcomes might apply in such a case. If you CAN apply the outcomes, then try to formulate them into a case against Rogue River based on those outcomes. If the research outcomes DO apply, then this should not be too difficult a task to accomplish. Can you do that?

 

[Nonpareil]

What, you think UFOs HAVE a plausible mundane explanation? If so, then it is NOT a UFO at all, it becomes an IFO (Identified Flying Object).

No.

Just... no.

Saying that it has a mundane explanation does not make it an IFO. Merely stating that is has a possible mundane explanation does not identify WHICH mundane explanation it is. Since we don't know which mundane explanation it is, it is still unidentified.

If on the other hand you contend that there are "unknown" mundane explanations that explain UFOs - then you are committing the fundamental logical fallacy of attempting to explain one "unknown" with another "unknown".

Then what makes your "alien" contention any better? You are replacing one unknown - "UFO" - with another - "aliens".

 

[Nonpareil]

I know you probably won't believe me but the article you referenced has substantially little to do with UFO observation.

No. It has everything to do with UFO observation. UFO observation is eyewitness testimony. The article deals with eyewitness testimony.

 

[Stray Cat]

But since I didn't see any of them actually touch it (or the cat), it was probably a ghost.

Or a blimp!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J9P1gKSLvo

 

[Astrophotographer]

If you were honest with yourself you would realise that the Sturrock Panel was an exercise in "debunking". Its recommendations were carefully worded so as to (as far as possible) preclude and forestall any rational investigation of UFOs. This recommendation is much too narrow and (if you notice) would preclude many OTHER scientific investigations along with UFO investigations.

The MOST appropriate thing here would be for YOU to stop dragging red herrings across the path and argue the merits of the EVIDENCE before us.

I love the inappropriate UFO use of the word "debunking". Debunking is the act of exposing something to be untrue. I assume that what you are stating is the Sturrock panel exposed the cases as untrue? For somebody who is so educated, you seem to revert to the true UFO parrot mode. Your programming is complete. Go preach to the unfaithful.

The truth is that Sturrock panel was a UFO organizations attempt to do EXACTLY what you are doing here but in a true scientific forum. These UFO scientists (not people pretending to be one) failed to convince the panel of independent scientists that these cases were anything extraordinary. You are just repeating the failures of the past. Why not try something new? Are you incapable of doing so? Is it because you fear to discover that so many of these UFO reports are inadequate and turn out to be mundane things? The most appropriate thing is for you to stop repeating yourself and ACTUALLY talk about a proposal to attack the problem. Failure to do so indicates to me that you are:

1) Not the scientist you proclaim you are.
2) Too lazy
3) Fear to discover the truth about UFO reports.
4) Incompetent

I am sure you can come up with some other excuse but these are the four that are, IMHO, probably most accurate.

Again, the panel's recommendation is VERY appropriate. That being, "stop wasting your time with these old reports because they prove absolutely nothing. Try a new approach to get real time data". The truth is the technology for such data gathering has existed for some time. UFOlogists just don't want to prove they are wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

As for you multitude of questions, I think you will find I HAVE actually answered them.

I must have missed the answer to this one. Refresh us...

What make and model were the binoculars?​

 

[Rramjet]

Remembering it is also unidentified by YOU... So where next?

YES! It IS also unidentified to me! NOW we are getting somewhere.

We will never be able to say with any certainty what the flying object actually was... It could have been a Goodyear blimp, a Navy blimp, A Navy Reserve blimp, or it could have been an alien space blimp.
Any certain conclusion that you seem to be calling for in relation to putting an alien tag on this is ASSUMPTION based upon lack of information.

No, I have presented evidence that rules AGAINST ANY of your proposed mundane explanations being plausible. You merely repeating that "It could have been..." gets us precisely NOWHERE. I have presented evidence and argument AGAINST your explanations. The ball is now in your court to show HOW and WHY I might have been mistaken.

BUT I DO NOT tag it as "alien". It IS a UFO, plain and simple. NOT mundane and NOT alien.

Simply, I have presented evidence and arguments against your mundane explanations. If you want to counter that evidence and those arguments then please do...BUT merely stating you don't believe my evidence and argument does NOT make your case. You are simply making a "faith" based claim and that is not scientific.

 

[Rramjet]

I love the inappropriate UFO use of the word "debunking". Debunking is the act of exposing something to be untrue. I assume that what you are stating is the Sturrock panel exposed the cases as untrue? For somebody who is so educated, you seem to revert to the true UFO parrot mode. Your programming is complete. Go preach to the unfaithful.

The truth is that Sturrock panel was a UFO organizations attempt to do EXACTLY what you are doing here but in a true scientific forum. These UFO scientists (not people pretending to be one) failed to convince the panel of independent scientists that these cases were anything extraordinary. You are just repeating the failures of the past. Why not try something new? Are you incapable of doing so? Is it because you fear to discover that so many of these UFO reports are inadequate and turn out to be mundane things? The most appropriate thing is for you to stop repeating yourself and ACTUALLY talk about a proposal to attack the problem. Failure to do so indicates to me that you are:

1) Not the scientist you proclaim you are.
2) Too lazy
3) Fear to discover the truth about UFO reports.
4) Incompetent

I am sure you can come up with some other excuse but these are the four that are, IMHO, probably most accurate.

Again, the panel's recommendation is VERY appropriate. That being, "stop wasting your time with these old reports because they prove absolutely nothing. Try a new approach to get real time data". The truth is the technology for such data gathering has existed for some time. UFOlogists just don't want to prove they are wrong.

Then MOVE ON Astrophotographer. Why are you so unwilling to address my evidence and arguments? You can SAY what you like, but mere unfounded assertion advances us precisely NOWHERE. Address the evidence and arguments! I am not afraid of a truly scientific exploration, you should not be either.