UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Withnail]

WHERE have you "smacked down" my arguments. All ANYONE can see is JREF members stating the have...but producing NO evidence to support that contention.

Speaking for myself, which Rramjet should hold himself to doing, it seems to me that counter-arguements to Rramjet have been made in detail in this thread (in particular the Rogue River case). I find them very compeling. They are clear and I have no confusion of their points. Rramjet's, on the other hand, are laughable. (What boat?!?)

The people on this site hold themselves and other skeptics to task as much as anyone else and if someone wasn't presenting good logical points others would call them on it.

They aren't picking on you Rramjet, they're just right.

 

[GeeMack]

Of course, we also raised the issue of the sun reflecting off the surface of the object causing a potential error in identification. I believe that was also referred to as a "red herring" and/or dismissed with a casual wave of the hand.

Yes, and that's why after Rramjet answers my questions about the binoculars to our satisfaction, I'll have him move on to answer these questions about blimps...

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?​

Because as long as doubt exists about what was or wasn't seen, in what detail, and how well that can be verified according to what we do know about things like viewing devices and optical characteristics of various flying things, he hasn't truly done what he claims to have done. He hasn't actually begun to eliminate all possible mundane explanations for the Rogue River incident.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Small nitpicking point - can I please draw a distinction between "haze" and "heat haze"? A warm day is likely to be hazy, but don't confuse that with "heat haze" as it will just get Roger overexcited, since that is, as he breathlessly tells us, a localised ground level effect.

 

[Rramjet]

The Rogue river is unexplained. So what? You have not eliminated all potential explanations contrary to your hand waving statements simply because you ignored the human element of the equation.
Had you read Allan Hendry's UFO Handbook (as I suggest several weeks ago), you would understand all this. This is how Hendry ends his book (sphere edition page 285):

Personally, I want there to be anamolistic UFOs that defy the laws of physics for the simple reason that it would usher in a new scientific reveloution. But with our current inability to fully draw the distinction between real UFOs and IFOs, fantasies or hoaxes, coupled with a heated emotional atmosphere, I can only assert that it is my feeling that some UFO reports represent truly remarkable events.....and while science may be initiated by feelings, it cannot be based on them. Unless we develop drastically new ideas and methodologies for the study of the baffling UFO cases and the human context in which they occur, we will watch the next thirty years of UFO report gathering simply mirror the futility and frustration of the last thirty years.

The underline is my emphasis, which is what everyone keeps stating about your evidence. You continuously ignore the potential for human error or have claimed you compensated for it. You haven't because nobody can compensate for the potential for human error. It is an unmeasurable quantity.

Hendry wrote this book over thirty years ago based on his investigations of over a thousand UFO cases. I would think his words would mean something to you. They certainly reflect a sane and realistic assessment of UFO reports. Perhaps you need to get a copy and actually read it.

Sure. But this is all merely one man’s OPINION.

And we HAVE moved on since that time. We understand a whole lot more about the UFO phenomena (for it seems unlikely there is a “single source”).

We also understand more about the physical and psychological conditions that lead to misperceptions AND we CAN account for them when we investigate UFO cases.

And of course UFO research will always remain a “frustrating exercise” for those who are merely committed to “debunking” rather than committed to a true scientific exploration of the evidence.

As is so often the case in scientific exploration, there are always people willing merely to “stand in the way” of progress simply because they are so wedded to their own belief systems that they cannot see outside them. Such people have not learned the lessons of history. The “I am right so you must be wrong” stance is simply not rational… yet scientist indulge in it every day when it comes to their own pet theories.

So all I say to you Astrophotographer, if you HAVE no rational arguments or evidence to provide that refute my own arguments and evidence …then simply get out of the way and let others discuss and debate the evidence. For it is the EVIDENCE we are interested in and it is the EVIDENCE that must guide us into the future.

 

[Rramjet]

Speaking for myself, which Rramjet should hold himself to doing, it seems to me that counter-arguements to Rramjet have been made in detail in this thread (in particular the Rogue River case). I find them very compeling. They are clear and I have no confusion of their points. Rramjet's, on the other hand, are laughable. (What boat?!?)

The people on this site hold themselves and other skeptics to task as much as anyone else and if someone wasn't presenting good logical points others would call them on it.

They aren't picking on you Rramjet, they're just right.

WHAT "counter-arguments"? WHERE have they been presented?

A truly scientific (rational and logical) strategy would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

That simply has NOT occurred. Merely repeating an unfounded, generalised assertions (such as you have just done) ad infinitum does NOT make that assertion valid. It merely shows the assertion maker to be bereft of rational argument.

The "I am right, you are wrong" contention is merely childish and has no place in rational debate.

 

[GeeMack]

So all I say to you Astrophotographer, if you HAVE no rational arguments or evidence to provide that refute my own arguments and evidence ...then simply get out of the way and let others discuss and debate the evidence. For it is the EVIDENCE we are interested in and it is the EVIDENCE that must guide us into the future.

Well you'd have to actually provide some evidence other than your arguments from ignorance and incredulity before we can start discussing your evidence. As far as those who are countering your claims, all they are required to do is show that you haven't supported your claims. And so far they've done that, completely, with 100% success. Burden of proof back to you, kid, right where it belongs...

 

[Nonpareil]

WHAT "counter-arguments"? WHERE have they been presented?

A truly scientific (rational and logical) strategy would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

That simply has NOT occurred. Merely repeating an unfounded, generalised assertions (such as you have just done) ad infinitum does NOT make that assertion valid. It merely shows the assertion maker to be bereft of rational argument.

The "I am right, you are wrong" contention is merely childish and has no place in rational debate.

Okay, you know what? Rramjet obviously hasn't learned anything about how to participate in an honest debate in all this time. I'll be leaving now.

Again.

 

[GeeMack]

WHAT "counter-arguments"? WHERE have they been presented?

A truly scientific (rational and logical) strategy would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

That simply has NOT occurred. Merely repeating an unfounded, generalised assertions (such as you have just done) ad infinitum does NOT make that assertion valid. It merely shows the assertion maker to be bereft of rational argument.

The "I am right, you are wrong" contention is merely childish and has no place in rational debate.

Once more, as far as those who are countering your claims, all they are required to do is show that you haven't supported your claims. And so far they've done that, completely, with 100% success. Burden of proof back to you, kid, right where it belongs...

 

[Astrophotographer]

One last Hendry quote that I think has to be applicable here has to do with the idea that this case is good because it involves multiple witnesses. Hendry writes on page 191 (in the chapter Tools: Multiple witnesses):

The presence of multiple witnesses did NOT serve to dampen misjudgements about IFO sources. As mentioned earlier, a full 74 per cent of the IFO sightings had the benefit of multiple witnesses, compared to 63 per cent of the 113 UFO reports. Note the smaller presence of multiple witnesses in the UFO events, contrary to what one might have expected. In terms of the universal, emotional desire to "see" UFOs as demonstrated by the IFO control group (see chapter 8: "The IFO message"), it is not really surprising that "groupthink" results during the excitement of a sighting.

Hendry then moves on to cite numerous examples of multiple witnesses mistaking stars, ad planes, air planes, etc as UFOs. The funniest was this one:

Another example is the group of ten people who gathered to share binoculars trained on a star that flashed colors for seven hours. When a drunk came along to see what the commotion was about, he cried, "Oh my Lord, it is the end of the world! I'd better get down on my knees and pray!" (Page 192)

I did not select this example for the issue of binoculars use but the response of the "drunk". I am not sure how he determined the individual was actually "drunk" but it is amusing.

 

[Stray Cat]

WHAT "counter-arguments"? WHERE have they been presented?

Every time this thread goes onto a new page, it doesn't mean that old pages become irrelevant!

This thread is liberally splattered with 'counter-arguments' and you denying that they are there does not mean that they are not there.
And to simply re-state everything you have already stated and expect the merry-go-round to start all over again is just plain silly.

EVERY SINGLE POINT you have made has been adequately covered over the 1,000's of posts in this thread.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So all I say to you Astrophotographer, if you HAVE no rational arguments or evidence to provide that refute my own arguments and evidence …then simply get out of the way and let others discuss and debate the evidence. For it is the EVIDENCE we are interested in and it is the EVIDENCE that must guide us into the future.

I am so hurt.....NOT!!!! Heaven forbid that I stand in the way of your "progress" and "research" by pointing out you are going down the dead end. I am trying to demonstrate the evidence you present is flawed because you are NOT considering the human element which is key in any discussion of anecdotal reports. You have yet to satisfactorily demonstrate how you can compensate for errors in observation.

 

[Astrophotographer]

And we HAVE moved on since that time. We understand a whole lot more about the UFO phenomena (for it seems unlikely there is a “single source”).

Oh....feel free to elaborate on this gem. Please list what has been learned about UFOs between 1978 and 2009. I think everyone in this forum would love to hear what has been learned in about the UFO phenomena.

We also understand more about the physical and psychological conditions that lead to misperceptions AND we CAN account for them when we investigate UFO cases.

Really? This from the person who has dismissed any discussion about problems with eyewitness testimony with a simple wave of the hand. If you want to say we have learned more about the flaws of eyewitness testimony, I will agree. There have been more studies about this (even though you seem to be dismissing them). However, I have yet to see any reports on how it is possible to account for misperception when investigating UFO cases. Perhaps you can direct us towards these studies or guidelines on accounting for misperception.

 

[Rramjet]

As far as optics is concerned, I will quote Hendry (Sphere edition page 196):

In general practice, however, optical devices like binoculars proved to be more of a nusiance than an aid. To understand why, we must first examine the role they played in the reports that were easily identifiable. Of the 1,158 IFO sightings, 18 per cent of the reporting witnesses made use of such equipment. Four out of five times, it was binoculars; most of the rest were telescopes and riflescopes. What kind of IFOs held up even under scrutiny? No less than twelve categories in 203 IFO reports including ad planes, aircraft, balloons, the moon, kites, searchlights and so on....

Hendry goes on to point out that 67 per cent of these mistakes were stars and planets. Things he noted (that was noted here, which were referred to as "red herrings") were:

A good number of people experienced trouble focusing on the point sources posed by stars; half of them were honest about it while the rest committed themselves to the strange, enlarged, circular shapes generated by the poor focus. (197)

and

Trouble in holding the binoculars steady resulted in some claims that the stars were looping around in circular motions. (197)

This all has to do with night viewing and “stars” – it has NOTHING to do with the Rogue River context. Another red herring! Is that ALL you can provide us. It is beginning to smell fishy in here

Of course, we mentioned the potential of a rocking boat added to holding the binoculars steady. Personally, I always try and prop up my 7X50s with my arms against something for an accurate observation of objects.

On a rocking boat?! Yeah…sure…if you say so…

These have to do with stars but one can carry them forward to potential errors with daylight observations of airplane/blimps/balloons/etc.

Yeah…you said it, “stars” … but HOW can you carry them forward? Again you make unfounded assertions. Night viewing through binoculars is an entirely different context that daylight viewing! You have not shown that these points CAN be carried forward into daylight conditions at all!

He also describes how research balloons were misperceived in daylight:

...the selected portions of that reflected the light in patches were all that were generally enlarged such that these balloons were ascribed shapes like "angel" (With halo wings and gown), or "horizontally oriented, oblong" when only the top was reflective, or a "circle with lights and beams". (197)

But we have NONE of that type of situation or description from the Rogue River case!

Of course, we also raised the issue of the sun reflecting off the surface of the object causing a potential error in identification. I believe that was also referred to as a "red herring" and/or dismissed with a casual wave of the hand.

I have provided extensive and comprehensive evidence and reasons for dismissing the contention when it comes to blimps. YOU refuse to address that evidence and merely indulge again in unfounded assertion.

He summarizes, Thus, optics can play a role in enhancing distortion rather than penetrating it. (197-8)

You have NOT demonstrated the applicability to Rogue River and we are therefore entitled to dismiss such spurious unfounded generalisation.

While this does not mean the optics at Rogue River were faulty or the people using them did not focus properly, it is an aspect to consider and one should not simply state that the use of binoculars assured the witnesses made an accurate observation of the target.

I HAVE considered these factors, indeed have placed my reasons on the record as to why I reject you interpretations.

The scientific (rational and logical) thing to do would be to cite my argument(s) and then provide your counterarguments supported by the evidence. It really is THAT simple…yet you do Not do such a thing. Why not?

 

[Rramjet]

Every time this thread goes onto a new page, it doesn't mean that old pages become irrelevant!

This thread is liberally splattered with 'counter-arguments' and you denying that they are there does not mean that they are not there.
And to simply re-state everything you have already stated and expect the merry-go-round to start all over again is just plain silly.

EVERY SINGLE POINT you have made has been adequately covered over the 1,000's of posts in this thread.

A truly scientific (rational and logical) strategy would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

It is a simple proposition. Why cannot you do that?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

WHAT "counter-arguments"? WHERE have they been presented?

Here's one, for example. Don't you find it a valid counter-argument?.

And there are countless others.

 

[Rramjet]

One last Hendry quote that I think has to be applicable here has to do with the idea that this case is good because it involves multiple witnesses. Hendry writes on page 191 (in the chapter Tools: Multiple witnesses):

The presence of multiple witnesses did NOT serve to dampen misjudgements about IFO sources. As mentioned earlier, a full 74 per cent of the IFO sightings had the benefit of multiple witnesses, compared to 63 per cent of the 113 UFO reports. Note the smaller presence of multiple witnesses in the UFO events, contrary to what one might have expected. In terms of the universal, emotional desire to "see" UFOs as demonstrated by the IFO control group (see chapter 8: "The IFO message"), it is not really surprising that "groupthink" results during the excitement of a sighting.

Hendry then moves on to cite numerous examples of multiple witnesses mistaking stars, ad planes, air planes, etc as UFOs. The funniest was this one:

Another example is the group of ten people who gathered to share binoculars trained on a star that flashed colors for seven hours. When a drunk came along to see what the commotion was about, he cried, "Oh my Lord, it is the end of the world! I'd better get down on my knees and pray!" (Page 192)

I did not select this example for the issue of binoculars use but the response of the "drunk". I am not sure how he determined the individual was actually "drunk" but it is amusing.

Again, you simply have not demonstrated the applicability of "your" points to the Rogue River case.

The scientific (rational and logical) thing to do would be to cite my argument(s) and then provide your counterarguments supported by the evidence.

It really is THAT simple …yet you do no such a thing. Why not?

 

[Astrophotographer]

More hand waving. You have not demonstrated your credentials as a scientist therefore you can not be the judge on what is applicable and not applicable. Therefore, your opinion is invalid.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have provided extensive and comprehensive evidence and reasons for dismissing the contention when it comes to blimps. YOU refuse to address that evidence and merely indulge again in unfounded assertion.

No you haven't. I asked for angles of incidence/reflection and coefficients of reflection. You chose not to present anything of the sort. Therefore, this claim is false.

 

[Marduk]

A truly scientific (rational and logical) strategy would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

It is a simple proposition. Why cannot you do that?

Its been done in every case, not that you had any evidence to begin with, just unsupported assertion, also how can you ignore what scores of rational people are saying to you, you're totally wrong about every facet of UFO research, you havent a clue how to go about it and are never going to prove to anyone that aliens exist. Your posts are doing an admirable job of bringing the fence sitters down on the sceptic side. Does that mean nothing to you either, that you have convinced everyon of one thing, that you are totally wrong ?

you seem to think your I.Q. superior (I'm guessing here its about 100 because of all the obvious spelling mistakes which speak of a poor education) to the combined I.Q. of all your opponents, or will you admit that you are a hopeless ufo fruitcake with no hope of finding the truth if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts because you are at heart, an inherently hopeless liar, just out to defend your religious ufo belief. ?

that what you are Roger, wether you think so or not, thats what youre making yourself look like.

and I for one am loving it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

This all has to do with night viewing and “stars” – it has NOTHING to do with the Rogue River context. Another red herring! Is that ALL you can provide us. It is beginning to smell fishy in here

As always, you have reading issues. People had difficulty focusing/using binoculars. When you can't hold a pair of binoculars steady and foucs on a stationary star, how does that translate to an object that is moving? It does translate but you are too dense to see it.