UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Could you provide a link to a case where a UFO was later positively identified as alien?

Thanks in advance.

This will be at the top of page 65 for you every time you visit this page, waiting for your answer.

 

[tsig]

you don't have an argument roger, just a lot of hot air. At least if it was Helium we could fill a blimp with it

delete

 

[Jocce]

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.

This is one example where you refuse to aknowledge potential problems in your analysis that are pointed out for you:

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!

The topic under discussion is how less than perfect optics and unstable observation platforms could affect viewing of details. That is not something that changes depending on the time of day. We know that these tings affect how much detail we can clearly see but you claim that they saw enough detail to rule out a blimp. As evidence for this you say that the witnesses say they saw detail. That's circular reasoning. Unless you can put forward some real evidence regarding this you simply don't know to what degree detail could be seen.

The same goes for weather conditions. You claim the weather was perfect, sun in their backs etc. We have pointed out that on a warm day there will be heat haze in the air that makes detailed observations, especially with binoculars, hard. We have pointed out that pollen could further deteriorate seeing and transparency. You ignore this and continue to pretend that this is covered in your analysis of the event. It is not.

 

[Jocce]

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?

The derogatory tone in your recent posts is quite amusing when it comes from someone who completely fails to deliver any real evidence and has been shown on numerous occasions to be wrong, have missed details in the evidence he presents himself and in general fail to understand scientific methods.

 

[Jocce]

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.

So, in less words. You're guessing. Why didn't you say so right away? All we're asking for is that you quantify "more or less". You claim it is enough to rule out a blimp and should substantiate that claim with something more than guessing.

 

[Akhenaten]

As I nodded, gaily sunning
Suddenly, I heard a humming
As a blimp, with engine running
Running high above my door

Quoth the Roger, "UFO!"

It's late and I'm tired, and my muse has deserted me, so if anyone wants to run with this they can. Just thought I'd try and add a little culture to this thread.

Once upon a blimp Goodyeary, while I posed and shrieked my theory,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of what the witness saw,
When the sceptics started snapping, suddenly there came a fapping,
As of one intently yapping, yapping on the forum floor.

'Tis some alien,' I muttered, `heading for the Georgia shore -
Only this, and nothing more.'

 

[amb]

Here is a case as reported by Carl Sagan in his investigation of this kooky subject many years ago.
I quote.
''There was a famous case in which a firefly was trapped between two adjacent panes of glass in an airplane cockpit window and the pilots were radioing about fantastic right-angle turns, defying the laws of inertia, estimated fantastic speeds. They imagined it at some huge distance away instead of right in front of their noses.''
End of quote.
I laughed out loud upon reading that.
These were pilots who should know better. Cops are no better.
A cop come upon what to him seemed a flying saucer landing in a field. Incredulus he radios to another officer who was just five minutes away to come quickly. When the other officer arrived, sure enough the 'flying saucer' was still there but this time there was a farmer close to it who seemed to be unaware of this momentous historical event and kept on doing whatever it was he was doing. The two officers rushed to the landed 'craft' and shouted to the farmer. ''Don't you see that spacecraft behind you?''
''What spacecraft?'' ''There right behind you'' said the excited officers.
"That's my wheat silo you idiots'' said the farmer, and sure enough it was shaped sort of flat and round and built out of galvanized sheets of iron which caused it to shine in the sunlight.
99.9% of UFOs are explainable. The 01% is of mistaken natural phenomena

 

[Belz...]

WHAT "counterargument"? All anyone is doing is making unfounded, generalised assertions. Here’s how it goes:

"Rramjet is wrong!"
Why?
"Because he just IS!"
But why?
“He presents no evidence!”
What about in this post?

“He’s said all that before.”
But have you addressed his arguments?
“We don’t have to.”
Why not?
“Because his arguments are not conclusive.”
How do you know?
“It was a blimp!”
But his arguments and evidence make that implausible.
“His arguments are not conclusive!”
But why are they not conclusive?
“We don’t have to answer that! It is up to him to prove that it was not a mundane object.”
But if he presents evidence against mundane objects?
“Then his evidence is not conclusive!”
Why then don’t you address his evidence and argument?
“We don’t have to.”
Don’t you think your argument is circular?
“No.”
Why not?
“Because Rramjet is wrong!”

Your knowledge of the burden of evidence and your comprehesion of the current discussion are apalling.

We have EXPLAINED to you, more than once... hell... more than twenty times, what you're doing wrong here, and you either ignore it or refuse to accept it. Then you come back with another post where you start all over again. You're bound to run into the same kind of opposition unless you start:

A) Understanding how the burden of proof works and what is considered good evidence.
B) Understanding what your "opponents" say.
C) Changing how you are arguing.
D) Presenting some actual evidence and drawing logical conclusions.

 

[Belz...]

The scientific thing to do (the rational and logical thing to do) is present my argument (evidence) then provide you own counterargument (evidence).

This is your critical error. You are arguing against the accepted scientific standards and knowledge. Do you really believe that whenever some bloke comes up with a "theory" that seeks to disprove relativity, skeptics should go through all the steps to prove relativity again ? Of course not.

YOU are proposing the unknown, not us.

 

[Belz...]

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”).

According to who ? You ? If you persist in making up the answers all by yourself it's no wonder you'll clash with other people's conclusions. However, the first step is do doubt yourself.

As is so often the case in scientific exploration, there are always people willing merely to “stand in the way” of progress

Appeal to emotion.

 

[Belz...]

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 ? It still looks like a blimp, as you've finallyadmitted, which makes the blimp hypothesis plausible.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Says who ?

Yousee, this is the kind of "evidence" presented in the middle-ages. "A judge accused of murder ? Why, no! He's a fine gentleman, so that's impossible. Innocent !"

 

[Belz...]

But we don't need to carry out this experiment. We can base reasonable judgements on the evidence we already have.

That's odd. That doesn't sound scientific.

 

[Rramjet]

This is one example where you refuse to aknowledge potential problems in your analysis that are pointed out for you:

If you say so… then I will simply (again) present my arguments below to show how wide of the mark you are.

The topic under discussion is how less than perfect optics and unstable observation platforms could affect viewing of details.

You people are playing a totally irrational game here. I present evidence. You ignore the evidence I present to claim the same things over and over again. For example:

I have made the contention that there is nothing about the case or witness statements that would lead any reasonable person to believe they were using faulty binoculars. In fact quite the opposite is true. I HAVE presented evidence such as (for example);

“Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved…”

And

“I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that…”

And

“I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that…”

These witness statements indicate that the binoculars were perfectly capable of resolving details of the object. That is, on any reasonable assessment of the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude the binoculars worked just fine!

Now the witness statements above, along with the following assessment...

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.​

...Clearly indicate to any reasonable person making a rational judgement based on the available evidence, that neither the binoculars nor the location or viewing position would have detrimentally affected the ability of the witnesses to describe the object.

That is not something that changes depending on the time of day.

Actually, the position of the sun DOES affect viewing conditions... need I spell that out in more detail?

We know that these tings affect how much detail we can clearly see but you claim that they saw enough detail to rule out a blimp. As evidence for this you say that the witnesses say they saw detail. That's circular reasoning.

Actually, as has been clearly demonstrated above, I do NOT use the detail of what the witnesses describe to support my case. I use the nature of the statements themselves and what we know of the location. This is scientific investigation at its best…using real evidence and data to explore and conclude about things that are not readily apparent in the “raw” data.

Unless you can put forward some real evidence regarding this you simply don't know to what degree detail could be seen.

I have placed my case on the record, I have supported it with evidence and have provided reasons for the conclusions I have reached. If you want to argue against that evidence, argument and conclusions then I suggest you consider that a truly scientific (rational and logical) response would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

The same goes for weather conditions. You claim the weather was perfect, sun in their backs etc. We have pointed out that on a warm day there will be heat haze in the air that makes detailed observations, especially with binoculars, hard. We have pointed out that pollen could further deteriorate seeing and transparency. You ignore this and continue to pretend that this is covered in your analysis of the event. It is not.

I have not “ignored this” at all. In fact I have supplied a detailed argument to support my case.

I have provided the raw data: For example: the witnesses described a “clear” day – (eg; Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good” and that the meteorological data from Agent Brooks described the weather as ”clear” and also the sun was no more than 38 deg. above and behind the witnesses…

That is VERY “clear. No rational person would then contend “Oh but the haze…oh, but the pollen…!” But even ignoring the above DIRECT evidence we also have rational inference.

Even though it was a “clear” day with no clouds, it is possible there might have been some haze in the air which the witnesses did not think to mention - but if the object were as huge as a blimp and only a mile or a few miles away, it would have been visible unless there was so much haze that the witnesses would have most likely mentioned it (for example they might have stated “We lost site of it when it disappeared into the haze…” rather than merely “…disappeared…” or “…the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction”). It must be pointed out, concerning this haze issue, that typical the phrase "clear air and visibility unlimited" during the daytime means one can see objects up to 15 miles away (or further if bright enough) - so to see for a few miles ought to have been relatively "easy" for the observers at the time. This then adds a final note of implausibility to the blimp hypothesis.​

Again I state: If you have any rational refutations then a truly scientific (rational and logical) response would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

Your knowledge of the burden of evidence and your comprehesion of the current discussion are apalling.

We have EXPLAINED to you, more than once... hell... more than twenty times, what you're doing wrong here, and you either ignore it or refuse to accept it. Then you come back with another post where you start all over again. You're bound to run into the same kind of opposition unless you start:

A) Understanding how the burden of proof works and what is considered good evidence.
B) Understanding what your "opponents" say.
C) Changing how you are arguing.
D) Presenting some actual evidence and drawing logical conclusions.

The burden of proof according to JREF members posting in this thread...imo.

I make an assertion.
Naturally I support that assertion with evidence and argument.

You make an assertion.
You claim you have no parallel obligation to support your assertion with either evidence or argument.

THIS is a hypocritical position on your behalf.
It is arrogant and dismissive and certainly does not meet rational scientific or logical standards.

What is it that simply eludes your understanding here? The contentions are simple enough. The argument is simple...what is it? You have a singularly peculiar blind spot here. This is a mystery even rivaling that of UFOs!

Look at my previous post (for example) to see therein presented EVIDENCE and argument and logical reasons for conclusions. Again... WHAT don't you get about that?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Binoculars: The witness statements very strongly imply that the view through the binoculars was more detailed than their naked eye view. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

 

[Rramjet]

Says who ?

Yousee, this is the kind of "evidence" presented in the middle-ages. "A judge accused of murder ? Why, no! He's a fine gentleman, so that's impossible. Innocent !"

Yours IS the kind of unfounded assertion unfortunately presented in the here and now!

"Agent Brooks also obtained statements from six other people who had known one or the other of the witnesses for periods of time ranging from several months to several years. These character references concluded with statements that they were (for example) "inclined to take seriously any statement Mr.___ might make"; "inclined to place considerable reliability in anything Mr.___ might have to say"; and so on, all indicating the general reliability and trustworthiness of the witnesses."
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Perhaps you should actually READ the report?

 

[Rramjet]

<polite snip to cut to the chase>
99.9% of UFOs are explainable. The 01% is of mistaken natural phenomena

In one of the few truly scientific studies to explore this statistic...

"The Battelle Study" (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

...it was found that 21.5% of the over 3000 reports directly examined constituted "UNKNOWN" - as opposed to either "Identified" (mundane) or "Not enough information".

I contend that statistic to be just a "little" different than the figures you believe to be true...

I would support the evidence of truly scientific studies over "folklaw" conceptions any day.

I am posting in this forum in part to dispel some of the "folklaw mythology" of just this kind that seems prevalent in the "debunker" community. I use the evidence provided by scientific research to do this and to support my case more generally. It is my sincere hope that others will similarly use research and evidence to support and prosecute their own cases.

 

[Jocce]

I have made the contention that there is nothing about the case or witness statements that would lead any reasonable person to believe they were using faulty binoculars. In fact quite the opposite is true. I HAVE presented evidence such as (for example);

“Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved…”

And

“I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that…”

And

“I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that…”

These witness statements indicate that the binoculars were perfectly capable of resolving details of the object. That is, on any reasonable assessment of the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude the binoculars worked just fine!

Now the witness statements above, along with the following assessment...

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.​

...Clearly indicate to any reasonable person making a rational judgement based on the available evidence, that neither the binoculars nor the location or viewing position would have detrimentally affected the ability of the witnesses to describe the object.

What is wrong with you? You are still saying that the proof that they could see enough detail to rule out a blimp is that they didn't see all the details they would see on a blimp. How is that not circular reasoning?

You coninue your drivel by claiming that, in this particular case, the boat was a stable enough platform to not cause any difficulty in observing. Which planet do you come from? You should really try it yourself sometime and you'd see how completely ridiculous your assertion is. A boat is unstable, period. It doesn't matter if the wind is totally calm and everyone is trying to stay completely still. It will still rock enough to let an observed object dance around in the field of view.

I have placed my case on the record, I have supported it with evidence and have provided reasons for the conclusions I have reached. If you want to argue against that evidence, argument and conclusions then I suggest you consider that a truly scientific (rational and logical) response would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

Arguments from ignorance and incredulity paired with circular reasoning and selective perception when reading various articles on the interwebs.

I have not “ignored this” at all. In fact I have supplied a detailed argument to support my case.

I decide when you have presented enough arguments to convince me, thank you very much. You're an utter failure.

I have provided the raw data: For example: the witnesses described a “clear” day – (eg; Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good” and that the meteorological data from Agent Brooks described the weather as ”clear” and also the sun was no more than 38 deg. above and behind the witnesses…

Raw data is meterological observations from reliable sources. Not tourists saying "oh, we had really nice weather".

That is VERY “clear. No rational person would then contend “Oh but the haze…oh, but the pollen…!” But even ignoring the above DIRECT evidence we also have rational inference.

There was haze that day or it was completely unique among all the sunny spring days in history. You claiming otherwise is quite astonishing. Or are you claiming that the rules of physics were suspended during the time of observation?

 

[GeeMack]

I am posting in this forum in part to dispel some of the "folklaw mythology" of just this kind that seems prevalent in the "debunker" community. I use the evidence provided by scientific research to do this and to support my case more generally. It is my sincere hope that others will similarly use research and evidence to support and prosecute their own cases.

You've made a claim, and so far you have been wholly unable to support it with legitimate, objective evidence. Everyone else's "case", since nobody else has made a claim, is simply to accept or reject your evidence. And it's been rejected, completely.

Seems you can start over with what you have already offered, as you have many, many times now, and likely continue to fail at supporting your claim. Or you can rebuild your case to include something more substantial than your incessant arguments from incredulity and ignorance, because clearly that strategy isn't getting you anywhere. Or you can acknowledge that you don't have anything more than incredulity and ignorance to support your claim.

These may not seem like appealing choices, but really, like it or not, you have failed. The rational, sane choices are to admit failure or come up with some actual evidence to support your claim. The irrational choice is to ignore your failure and repeat your assertions under the mistaken impression that they are actually evidence.

Your call.