UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

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?

Actually all that is required to counter your claim is to point out that everything you present as evidence is an argument from ignorance and incredulity. And of course that is no evidence at all. So far, the skeptics have been totally successful at doing that.

You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you. Your incessant attempts to deflect that responsibility is dishonest. You are not a scientist. You're a UFOlien believer, faithful to that cause at the expense of rational thinking, objectivity, and science.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

The human context of how multiple witnesses can all think they saw something extraordinary when it was something mundane. Again, you ignore the human component part of eyewitness testimony.

 

[Rramjet]

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

And there are countless others.

Well at last. someone willing to explore the evidence and counter-arguments!

But the drawing only superficially resembles a blimp. A drawing of a cigar would resemble a blimp also, but it would not BE a representation of a blimp.

Where are the three other fins? Where is the gondola… where is the “GoodYear” Logo? These are questions that deserve answers too.

Then there is the unanimous description of the object as “circular” (even through multiple viewing angles) and other descriptions such as moving at speeds of a jet plane…(!) and no sound… (Mr C) “With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom…”

Thus while a drawing might superficially resemble a blimp, the EVIDENCE points toward “blimp” as being an implausible explanatory hypothesis.

Anything else?

 

[GeeMack]

But the drawing only superficially resembles a blimp.

And it resembles an alien craft exactly how?

(Watch this everyone. Rramjet will demonstrate his ignorance again. )

 

[Rramjet]

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.

By this logic binoculars are totally useless for viewing ANYTHING.

Perhaps you should inform the manufacturers that the great Astrophotographer has determined that binoculars are a totally useless piece of equipment and that they are dishonestly making a profit from selling us what amounts to junk equipment - I am sure the navy would like to hear your conclusions on the matter also.

 

[Marduk]

Well at last. someone willing to explore the evidence and counter-arguments!

But the drawing only superficially resembles a blimp. A drawing of a cigar would resemble a blimp also, but it would not BE a representation of a blimp.

So its a flying cigar now, building a case out of straw again I see

Where are the three other fins? Where is the gondola… where is the “GoodYear” Logo? These are questions that deserve answers too.

right so now your expecting x ray vision,with some of the fins on the opposite side from the observer how could they see them ?

Then there is the unanimous description of the object as “circular” (even through multiple viewing angles) and other descriptions such as moving at speeds of a jet plane…(!) and no sound… (Mr C) “With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom…”

Yup the perfect description of a blimp

Thus while a drawing might superficially resemble a blimp, the EVIDENCE points toward “blimp” as being an implausible explanatory hypothesis.

You haven't produced any evidence yet, do you know what evidence is roger ?

Anything else?

yes how long do you think the mods will let you stay here when you talk crap all the time ?
I could start a pool on that if you like and we'll split it 50/50, at least that way the only thing you get out of this thread won't be crushing dissapointment and retarded personal rhetoric.
if anyones interested I'm sorry the next few days arent available
cosI have them

 

[GeeMack]

By this logic binoculars are totally useless for viewing ANYTHING.

Perhaps you should inform the manufacturers that the great Astrophotographer has determined that binoculars are a totally useless piece of equipment and that they are dishonestly making a profit from selling us what amounts to junk equipment - I am sure the navy would like to hear your conclusions on the matter also.

But you don't really know anything about binoculars, Rramjet. You've made that clear. So obviously this is just another of your arguments from ignorance.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

But the drawing only superficially resembles a blimp.

Not "superficially", the drawing resembles a blimp very accurately. Why do you expect that an eyewitness would recall details like a gondola or a Good Year logo, whereas it's a well documented fact that eyewitness are far from being 100% reliable sources?

If you don't see a blimp on that drawing, is just because your will to believe in the reality of aliens visiting Earth is clouding your reason and judgment.

 

[wollery]

I'm going to try one last time to get this burden of proof point across to Rramjet.

The boat in the Rogue River case is a perfect example, so that's what I'll use.

Someone asked if the boat was stable. After faffing about for a while wondering whether a boat was involved you said this;

Right. Now we are getting somewhere. Now: How does an anchored boat preclude accurate viewing? Remember there were five people in the boat. How deep was the river at that point? 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.

But this cuts right to the heart of the burden of proof point.

You are make the claim that the boat was stable enough that it didn't have any effect on the observations, and then ask us to show that the boat wasn't stable. But nobody other than you is actually making any claim about the stability of the boat, we just wonder how you can make the claim that the boat was stable when you have no information on it.

You ask "How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat?". But the real question, because you make the claim that the boat was stable enough for accurate viewing, is "How do you know that there weren't waves that could rock the boat?"

In other words, you must show evidence that the boat was stable, or that being in a boat that isn't stable does not make viewing conditions worse. The burden of proof is yours, and yours alone, we just ask questions about your assumptions. And every time you fail to answer these questions, or try to give us the burden of proof, you fail to meet your own criteria of approaching this from a scientific point of view.

 

[Stray Cat]

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?

Been there, done that... I can post a photo of the T Shirt as evidence if you want?

 

[Rramjet]

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.

What sort of “glare” can be expected from a blimp in full sunlight?

First we must consider that the “glare’ hypothesis is implausible because the motion of the blimp (first toward, then turning and angling away from the observers) would have shifted the "glare" so that features of a blimp should have been alternately revealed and obscured over time - especially as neither the observers nor the light source moved.

However (of course) this is perhaps too subtle an argument for the skeptics to accept (not being "specialists" in observation) so what else do we have?

To explain what is occurring with reflected light off a blimp we first must recognise that there are three types of reflection possible: Specular, Diffuse and Semispecular (a mix of the first two). Specular reflection is when light is reflected back as a “beam” such as light off a mirror. This is where the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence and it creates the “glint” phenomenon - and it is well known that this "glint" can obscure the view of reflective objects. And this is where the "glare" hypothesis arises from.

Diffuse reflection is where the light is reflected from a surface equally in all directions - and there is no “glint” – such as off a piece of matte-white paper.

Semispecular is a mixture of both types, but where the intensity of the reflection is greater where a specular “glint” would have been (but of course there is no “glint”, just a brighter area of diffuse reflection) - spreading over the surrounding area and becoming more diffuse the further away from the “central region of glare” one gets.

Semi-specular reflection is precisely the type of reflection that is apparent from blimps. That is, blimps do NOT “glint”. Anyone can prove this for themselves by going to Google Images and entering the search terms “Blimp” or “Blimp Photo” (etc). There, thousands of blimp photos are available and in those with the greatest apparent surface “glare” you will notice a semi-specular reflection of light, but never a Specular reflection (a “glint”). It is also notable that in all such pictures, none of the details of ANY blimp is “lost” in the “glare”. This simply does not happen with blimps (see attached pictures for example).

Some have contended that the blimps of the time were constructed of “aluminium” and thus could have created an obscuring glint. However these objectors must first realise the properties of aluminium - it oxidises very quickly in the open to a matte finish – besides, the advertising blimps were usually painted in lively colours – blue and yellow for Goodyear – and second, that blimps were NOT constructed of aluminium at all. While the airframe might have been (aircraft grade aluminium), the “envelope” most definitely was not: For example “The envelope is usually made of a combination of man-made materials: Dacron, polyester, Mylar, and/or Tedlar bonded with Hytrel. The high-tech, weather-resistant plastic film is laminated to a rip-stop polyester fabric. The envelope's fabric also protects against ultraviolet light. Usually the envelope is smaller than the bladder to ensure that the envelope takes the load when the blimp is fully inflated. The bladder is made of a thin leak-resistant polyurethane plastic film … The envelope is made of patterns of fabric panels. Two or three plies of cloth are impregnated with an elastomer. One of these plies is placed in a bias direction with respect to others. The pieces of the envelope can be put together in a number of ways. They can be cemented and sewn together, or heat-welded (heat-sealed). The outside of the envelope is coated with aluminized paint for protection against sunlight. The envelope will have the required shape when filled with gas.” (http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/airship)

Thus the "glare" hypothesis is refuted.

More: "Angle of incidence/reflection" ONLY applies to specular reflections - and this is NOT the case from blimps so your question is irrelevant. And as for "coefficients of reflection", if you can demonstrate that such a coefficient of reflection from blimps precludes accurate observation of details, then go ahead. But of course you CANNOT. You raise the issue, yet again cannot provide evidence that the issue is relevant.


Blimps materials of the time:
Mylar: Never gets above 50% visble light transmission.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...zs_Uat&sig=AFQjCNHOGGslYdhW3mZXXlyjNMUwzTDztw

Polyester is a very porous substance so specular refection is unlikely.

Dacron is a fabric often used I sailmaking. Have you ever seen a sail with a specular glint?

Anything else?

 

[Rramjet]

I'm going to try one last time to get this burden of proof point across to Rramjet.

The boat in the Rogue River case is a perfect example, so that's what I'll use.

Someone asked if the boat was stable. After faffing about for a while wondering whether a boat was involved you said this;

But this cuts right to the heart of the burden of proof point.

You are make the claim that the boat was stable enough that it didn't have any effect on the observations, and then ask us to show that the boat wasn't stable. But nobody other than you is actually making any claim about the stability of the boat, we just wonder how you can make the claim that the boat was stable when you have no information on it.

You ask "How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat?". But the real question, because you make the claim that the boat was stable enough for accurate viewing, is "How do you know that there weren't waves that could rock the boat?"

In other words, you must show evidence that the boat was stable, or that being in a boat that isn't stable does not make viewing conditions worse. The burden of proof is yours, and yours alone, we just ask questions about your assumptions. And every time you fail to answer these questions, or try to give us the burden of proof, you fail to meet your own criteria of approaching this from a scientific point of view.

Could such an observation “platform” have contributed to “misidentification” of the object? First the boat was anchored, so there was no lateral movement to disturb observations. What about the condition of the River (waves rocking the boat for example)? At the point on the Rogue River at which the party were anchored the river is quite wide and slow moving. The time of year (summer) also meant that the river was carrying a relatively low amount of water compared to other times. Indeed, Google Earth images of the river at the point where the witnesses were anchored show a wide, flat riverscape in a shallow valley. It must also be remembered that the witnesses were there on a fishing expedition. Thus it is implausible to imagine that, given the location and time of year, the river was very much disturbed at all, and considering also that they were fishing, it is equally implausible to imagine that they would have anchored anywhere that might have made it uncomfortable and difficult for them to fish. It is implausible then that the condition of the river (rocking the boat) made observations of the object difficult enough to cause misidentification.

To sum up then. First, we have found that a hoax is implausible as an explanation. To all intents and purposes the witnesses were responsible, reliable people. Second, we have found that the viewing conditions were as close to perfect as we are likely to get (clear day, sun at their backs). Third, we have found that it was physically possible (especially for the two witnesses using binoculars) to have observed and described the object as they did. Finally we have found that local conditions (anchored in a boat on a wide flat river) were not plausibly responsible for any misinterpretation of the object.

Anything else?

 

[fromdownunder]

The boat in the Rogue River case is a perfect example, so that's what I'll use.

This can be used as an example of a scientific test in action. Roger:

1. Hire a boat
2. Put five people in it.
3. Bring along a pair of Binoculars.
4. Put it on a flat tideless pond or lake on a windless "clear" day.
5. Have an object in mind when you start.
6. You can start with the Binoculars, and point to the object that you consider worthwhile, and then start handing the Binoculars around to the five people, and get them to carefully describe the object.
7. Film the result, and tell us if the boat "rocked" at all. Or better still have somebody hold a camera onto your "object" for the entire time of the experiment and see if it wobbles at all.
8. Tape the descriptions given by the five people, and see how well they all agree with each other at the end of the day

9. Rinse and repeat with a slightly inferior pair of binoculars.

I am sure there are many more checks and balances that a brilliant scientific mind such as your own will come up with, but this really does give you a practical "on the ground" (well, so to speak) example of how to use the scientific method to your own advantage, and actually, uuummm, you know, do a real practical experiment to confirm what you have been claiming.

The ball is in your court.

Norm

 

[GeeMack]

To sum up then. First, we have found that a hoax is implausible as an explanation. To all intents and purposes the witnesses were responsible, reliable people. Second, we have found that the viewing conditions were as close to perfect as we are likely to get (clear day, sun at their backs). Third, we have found that it was physically possible (especially for the two witnesses using binoculars) to have observed and described the object as they did. Finally we have found that local conditions (anchored in a boat on a wide flat river) were not plausibly responsible for any misinterpretation of the object.

Anything else?

Some serious doubt exists regarding the reliability of the witnesses' ability to effectively see and describe the sighting. You claim that the witness descriptions were accurate in part because of viewing through binoculars. You can support your claim by filling us in on some of the details about the binoculars. Here are some pertinent questions that you've neglected to answer...

What make and model were the binoculars? What sort of prisms? What sort of lens coating? 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?​

When you've answered those, I have some more questions about the viewing conditions that you claim were "as close to perfect as we are likely to get". That's going to be a tough one for you to support, but you seem awfully sure of yourself, so I know you won't mind supporting that claim.

But first, the ones about the binoculars, unless you intend to remain ignorant.

 

[Rramjet]

This can be used as an example of a scientific test in action. Roger:

1. Hire a boat
2. Put five people in it.
3. Bring along a pair of Binoculars.
4. Put it on a flat tideless pond or lake on a windless "clear" day.
5. Have an object in mind when you start.
6. You can start with the Binoculars, and point to the object that you consider worthwhile, and then start handing the Binoculars around to the five people, and get them to carefully describe the object.
7. Film the result, and tell us if the boat "rocked" at all. Or better still have somebody hold a camera onto your "object" for the entire time of the experiment and see if it wobbles at all.
8. Tape the descriptions given by the five people, and see how well they all agree with each other at the end of the day

9. Rinse and repeat with a slightly inferior pair of binoculars.

I am sure there are many more checks and balances that a brilliant scientific mind such as your own will come up with, but this really does give you a practical "on the ground" (well, so to speak) example of how to use the scientific method to your own advantage, and actually, uuummm, you know, do a real practical experiment to confirm what you have been claiming.

The ball is in your court.

Norm

But we don't need to carry out this experiment. We can base reasonable judgements on the evidence we already have. For example we KNOW what the river at that point is like. We also KNOW it is entirely possible for people in a boat to describe objects external to that immediate environment accurately. We also have the actual description of the object and the eyewitness testimony from which to draw reasonable inferences. All this together allows as to draw the reasonable inference that the people described more of less accurately an object in the sky which they could not identify and that also has defied mundane explanation by all researchers (who have made a proper accounting of the evidence) past and present.

It is simply unreasonable to assume that merely being in a boat precludes accurate observation when there is NO evidence to support that contention at Rogue River. There is just not enough evidence to support a "worst case scenario" as you contend.

There is however reasonable evidence to support the contention that the descriptions provided by the eyewitnesses are more or less accurate.

 

[fromdownunder]

There is however reasonable evidence to support the contention that the descriptions provided by the eyewitnesses are more or less accurate.

No, just no!

Norm

 

[TjW]

Please…can SOMEONE here Google “explain” one unknown with another unknown (using quotation marks around “explain”) and then inform the rest of JREF about the fallacy involved?

Can someone supply a definition of mundane and point out the fallacy behind contending “more (or less) mundane”?


But you are contending that - A UFO is such only because we have yet to discover a MUNDANE solution. THAT is fallacious. A UFO is such because we have yet to discover ANY solution.

You are simply contending that EVERYTHING has a mundane solution. This is fallacious. For example, how is it that we must rotate some quarks through MORE that 360 degrees to return them to their original state? Is THAT mundane?

You asked for beliefs. My belief that any explanation that changes the Rogue River observation from unidentified to identified will be mundane is based on the fact that every single explanation that has changed any unidentified observation to identified has been mundane. To quote Heinlein's character Lazarus Long: "The race may not always be to the swift, nor the battle to the strong -- but that's the way to bet." I don't offer it as evidence.

Besides there are simply not THAT many plausible mundane explanations for Rogue River. We must apply reasonable inference here to an examination of PLAUSIBLE competing explanatory hypotheses. Obviously extra-terrestrial explanations (planets, meteors, bolides, satellites, stars, etc) are implausible explanations. Then there are the terrestrial mundane explanations. Birds… implausible. Planes…implausible (no wings, no sound, circular…)… VERY quickly we run out of plausible mundane hypotheses. What is left… blimp? Well then, if you contend so, then ADDRESS my evidence and arguments against this hypothesis!

Yes, I can see that's your opinion. I wish you'd stop presenting it as though it were evidence of something other than your ignorance and stubborness.

We all understand, and have understood for quite some number of posts now, that you don't think it was a blimp.
As for the meaning of mundane:

Adjective
mundane (comparative more mundane, superlative most mundane)

Positive
mundane

Comparative
more mundane

Superlative
most mundane

1. worldly, profane, vulgar as opposed to heavenly
2. ordinary; not new
3. tedious; repetitive and boring

[edit] Synonyms

* worldly
* routine

[edit] Antonyms

* heavenly
* arcane

I believe definitions 2 and 3 are the most relevant here. Most explanations of UFOs that turn them into IFOs are indeed, ordinary, and not new.

Thus, the more common or routine an explanation is, or the more accurately a n explanation predicts the phenomena the more mundane that explanation is.

Quantum effects are absolutely mundane. They may be counterintuitive, but QED and QCD are the most accurately predictive theories we have. What's more, the effects can be duplicated by anyone who does it properly. They are part of the way the world works, and being of this world, are mundane.

A blimp cruising up from San Francisco many miles away from its base is more unusual, and thus less mundane, than a blimp cruising a few hundred miles away from its base. But even if it were rare for such a thing to happen, every explanation involving things which are known to exist is mundane compared to the explanation that alien aircraft are visiting our planet, because such spacecraft are not known to exist. You may believe them to exist, but that is not evidence that they do.

That said, it wouldn't have to be a blimp. About 1969, a couple of guys flying a Schweizer 2-32 sailplane spotted a little cloud. Instead of being puffy like a cumulus would be, it was lens-shaped, like the clouds associated with mountain standing wave. So they went over to look for lift. (And probably because it was darn peculiar, under the circumstances.) Lenticular clouds are stationary. This one was moving, much faster than the wind speed. But the lift was there, so they surfed along behind it for about 15 minutes, slowly climbing while flying in a straight line. Then it turned right almost 90 degrees. They followed in the lift for another 10 minutes or so until it dissipated. The lift might still have been there, but they didn't have the cloud as a marker.
Now, their best guess was that it was a moving wave as opposed to a standing wave. They had no idea what could have caused the initial impulse.
The turn happened about where they would have expected to find a shear line (where two air masses come together).
I've flown out over that area many times, and I haven't seen that scenario repeated.
Now, honestly, I think even though this happened, it would be a far less likely explanation than a blimp, even though lenticular clouds from mountain wave have been misidentified as alien spacecraft before. But it's still a far more mundane explanation than an actual alien spacecraft.

 

[GeeMack]

All this together allows as to draw the reasonable inference that the people described more of less accurately an object in the sky which they could not identify and that also has defied mundane explanation by all researchers (who have made a proper accounting of the evidence) past and present.

And which researchers would those be?

 

[Access Denied]

It is simply unreasonable to assume that merely being in a boat precludes accurate observation when there is NO evidence to support that contention at Rogue River. There is just not enough evidence to support a "worst case scenario" as you contend.

Sure there is... evidently the witnesses were unable to identify the object.

What do you propose the possible reason(s) for that are? Considering how unmistakably reliable you consider their descriptions to be and how perfect you believe the viewing conditions were, don’t you think if it was an alien spaceship they would have identified it as such?

 

[Stray Cat]

Could such an observation “platform” have contributed to “misidentification” of the object? First the boat was anchored, so there was no lateral movement to disturb observations. What about the condition of the River (waves rocking the boat for example)? At the point on the Rogue River at which the party were anchored the river is quite wide and slow moving.

Oh dear

Actually in Google Earth that part of the river looks tidal to me.
Was the tide in or out?
This would effect the amount of 'rock' on the boat.

Also on another point - Every photo that has been posted of blimps in the 1940's and 50's has shown them to have a semi-reflective metallic looking finish, we know the sun was behind the witnesses so it must have been shining directly onto the blimp UFO... some of that sunlight MUST have reflected off the blimp UFO... That's how reflections work!

Then add in the actual size the blimp UFO appeared in the binoculars (plus the possible boat rocking and 8x magnification problems with stability without a tripod) and the size the other three witnesses would have seen the object aving NOT seen it through the binoculars, and suddenly a small glare reflection turns into a possible distortion.

You haven't ruled any of this out in your speculations and presumptions that the witnesses saw accurately, remembered accurately and reported accurately.