• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
mike3 said:
So then what kind of evidence would be required to start an investigation?
Click to expand...

Even a piece of metal that could not possibly be manufactured on Earth.
What happens to all the microchips taken out of abductees? Why hasn't even one proven to be out of this world?
 
amb said:
Even a piece of metal that could not possibly be manufactured on Earth.
What happens to all the microchips taken out of abductees? Why hasn't even one proven to be out of this world?
Click to expand...


Because they are apports, not alien implants.

When are you guys going to snap out of the alien mythology?
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
However, you don't cite any use of these materials so posting a link of some journal on the subject does not tell me you actually read this or any other book on the matter. Exactly what formula are you using to determine that the witness observations are accurate or not? If a witness claims an object was traveling at 600 mph, how do you know that is accurate? If it were estimated 3 miles away, how do you know that was accurate? If it were estimated a mile wide or 50 feet wide, how do you know this is accurate? If the witness states something last 5 mnutes, how do you know this is accurate? Could any of these "estimates" have a range of error? If so, what range of error can that be? The problem continues to be the estimates of distance, size, speed, etc are almost completely worthless when dealing with an unknown object. The only reasonable estimates are angular sizes, speeds, and direction/elevation. Unfortunately, most of this data is completely unavailable because, despite the highly trained nature of the observers, they chose to use estimates that have little value in analyzing the case.

I hate to keep bringing up Hendry but his book is a very good source about how witnesses can misperceive things and make errors. Additionally, he demonstrates that those witnesses classified by occupation who are considered "reliable" are not much better than the standard witness (even Hynek's book demonstrated this). They were also susceptible to misperception and error. Therefore, proclaiming a witness as reliable an accurate based on occupation is a mistake. Nobody is doubting they saw something. However, it is their interpretation of what they saw that is in question.
Click to expand...
I wish I had more time to debate this because it is really fundamental to your debunker claims. Unfortunately I have only the time right now to list a couple of point replies.

First the witnesses are not as naïve as you make out. They (we all) have a lifetime of observational experience with which to make judgement calls on distance, size, speed, etc. Moreover, the witnesses in the Rogue River case were not entirely without depth cues – (they had the surrounding terrain for example).

More, shape is not as susceptible to such distortion, in fact the viewing conditions were such as to enhance the possibility of accuracy of shape perception (and the shape rules out blimp).

There are precise formula (as you indicate and also see for example Dr Maccabee’s work on the resolution of the eye and the angular size of blimps that we CAN use to determine whether or not a blimp is a possible contender – and it is not). So there are fixed LIMITS as to the range of distance, size etc. that CAN be determined and working within that range we can determine that blimp does NOT fit within the possible range, given the data we have.

Hendry points out how and where misperceptions can occur and we can USE that information to see if any such situations as he mentions arise in our cited UFO cases. Where they DO, then we must account for those circumstances - thus for example we can understand what went wrong with human perception in the Cempeche case.

But the Tehran case, we have the radar locks of the F-4s to inform us of distance and size for example. The changing of shape (splitting apart and rejoining) and jumping locations is difficult to interpret via “misperception” given that we cannot understand the applicable of conditions that might mislead multiple witnesses in such a way.

IF there are conditions that YOU can think of that might so mislead the witnesses, then please enlighten us so that we may better understand. That is, if the witnesses “misinterpreted” events (as you contend) then you must tell us, given the information we have about the case, HOW this can be so.

That you (or anybody else as far as I can tell) cannot do so, lends veracity to witness statements.

Maybe, I will have time a little later to write some more (there are others I want to respond to)… but I will once away be away for Xmas/NewYear (perhaps nearly two weeks) and again will be unable to access the internet from where I will be to post in this forum. Was that a disappointed sigh I heard…? :eek:

Anyway, since I don’t believe in Santa or religion, I cannot also be consistent AND wish everyone a merry Xmas, so, if I don’t get a chance to post more today, I will just wish everyone the best of the season until my return.

(Yes, I can see how that might be taken to be disingenuous, but who was it who said "keep your friends close but your enemies even closer" - or words to that effect...? ;))
 
Rramjet said:
First the witnesses are not as naïve as you make out. They (we all) have a lifetime of observational experience with which to make judgement calls on distance, size, speed, etc.
Click to expand...

And the margin of error would be...?

Rramjet said:
Moreover, the witnesses in the Rogue River case were not entirely without depth cues – (they had the surrounding terrain for example).
Click to expand...

Aha, care to explain how that works? I have on numerous occasions followed a wasp/bumble bee/whatever in my binocluars, thinking it was a raptor in the distance. It's not as easy as you try to make it sound.

Rramjet said:
More, shape is not as susceptible to such distortion, in fact the viewing conditions were such as to enhance the possibility of accuracy of shape perception (and the shape rules out blimp).
Click to expand...

Yeah right. On a warm spring day with heat haze? Shape is the first thing to be distorted then. You really need to get out in the real world more.

Rramjet said:
There are precise formula (as you indicate and also see for example Dr Maccabee’s work on the resolution of the eye and the angular size of blimps that we CAN use to determine whether or not a blimp is a possible contender – and it is not). So there are fixed LIMITS as to the range of distance, size etc. that CAN be determined and working within that range we can determine that blimp does NOT fit within the possible range, given the data we have.
Click to expand...

Then use those formulae and include margins of error to make a case.

Rramjet said:
But the Tehran case, we have the radar locks of the F-4s to inform us of distance and size for example.
Click to expand...

What? You're not seriously claiming this again? Show the radar data or stop posting this nonsense.

Rramjet said:
The changing of shape (splitting apart and rejoining) and jumping locations is difficult to interpret via “misperception” given that we cannot understand the applicable of conditions that might mislead multiple witnesses in such a way.
Click to expand...

It has not been shown that anything shape shifted or jumped around.

Rramjet said:
IF there are conditions that YOU can think of that might so mislead the witnesses, then please enlighten us so that we may better understand. That is, if the witnesses “misinterpreted” events (as you contend) then you must tell us, given the information we have about the case, HOW this can be so.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on you. You're a scientist right? You should know this.
 
Last edited:
Stay on topic and stop making personal attacks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Limbo said:
Because they are apports, not alien implants.

When are you guys going to snap out of the alien mythology?
Click to expand...


Or they are shards of metal, glass or human cells clumped together. Why should we go to the paranormal when we have perfectly normal explanations.
 
Rramjet said:
First the witnesses are not as naïve as you make out. They (we all) have a lifetime of observational experience with which to make judgement calls on distance, size, speed, etc. Moreover, the witnesses in the Rogue River case were not entirely without depth cues – (they had the surrounding terrain for example).
Click to expand...

Your claim of lifetime experience is just nonsense. If that were the case, people would never make errors in their estimates. Hendry's book is full of these kinds of errors. Ignoring them is just being unscientific.

One can not make a depth cue unless the object moves in front of or behind another object to which the distance is known or the size of the actual object is known. Without one part of the fomula, it is all a "best guess", for which the amount of error can not be quantified. Again, this is being unscientific. Feel free to explain how a distant hill can be used to determine the distance of an object in the sky many degrees above it, if you do not know what the object being observed is.

Rramjet said:
There are precise formula (as you indicate and also see for example Dr Maccabee’s work on the resolution of the eye and the angular size of blimps that we CAN use to determine whether or not a blimp is a possible contender – and it is not). So there are fixed LIMITS as to the range of distance, size etc. that CAN be determined and working within that range we can determine that blimp does NOT fit within the possible range, given the data we have.
Click to expand...

This assumes all estimates are accurate. Again, how can you determine the accuracy of a witness? If they say an object was 1/2 degree in angular size, could it have been 1 degree? Could it have been 10 degrees? Could it have been a 1/10th degree? How can you assign a range of accuracy?



Rramjet said:
Hendry points out how and where misperceptions can occur and we can USE that information to see if any such situations as he mentions arise in our cited UFO cases. Where they DO, then we must account for those circumstances - thus for example we can understand what went wrong with human perception in the Cempeche case.
Click to expand...


And Hendry cites cases where witnesses misperceive stars as shape shifting, splitting and joining, dancing about, flashing colors, etc. These are similar characteristics stated by Pirouzi.

Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with domes ("Like two plates put together"-case 332; "elongated, as big as a distant plane"-case 377; "dome on top and bottom" - for one and a half hours in case 332), domes, a "plate with a hole in the center," vertically oriented small triangles, ovals, a football ...even "teacups," "Mexican somberos," and "bananas as large as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." People have seen "spikes," beams," "appendages," and sparkles shooting out in all directions from bright stars. (Hendry The UFO Handbook p. 28 Sphere edition)

Witness have "seen" stars:
***Dart up and down (many cases)
***Wiggle from side to side (many cases)
***Zigzag
***Execute loops and figure eights (many cases)
***Drift like a pendulum - cases 450 and 1,086
***Rise like a "leaf falling up" for two hours - case 329
***Ascend and descend in steps - one case
***Meander in square patterns even in an A shape
Fluctuating light and flashing colors have made many witnesses think that a star is rotating. Also, many witnesses have equated the rapid dimming and brightening of scintillating stars as back and forth motion. The key here is the claim that this "motion" lies fortuitously along the witness' line of vision. (p. 26)

I can add his cases that included the pursuit of stars/planets (and even the setting moon by police officers) by people in cars or that witnesses felt they were being chased by stars/planets. I think I already mentioned how ATCs in Detroit stated, "Do you know how many times we've cleared Venus to land?" (p.27) Additionally we have the case of pilot Anthony Perkins, who reports chasing a star during the infamous Lakenheath radar-visual case:

http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/Laken.htm

Also there is the case described by Hynek in April of 1953:

And another sighting - in Northern Michigan - on July 29 of last year, a pilot chased a brilliant multicolored object close to the horizon, and due north. He flew at 21,000 feet, followed the object for over a half-hour but could not gain on it. Radar operator [in the aircraft] reported contact with the object for about thirty seconds. And ground control interceptor station reported blips too [on its radar]. In this case, it seems certain that our harried pilot was pursuing [the star] Capella! Capella was at lower culmination, that is, at the lowest point of its swing around the pole just skirting the horizon. I have seen it at that position myself in Canada, and can vouch for the fact that its blue, yellow, and red twinkling can be spectacular. (Klass 78)

Note it involved radar contact just like the Teheran case.

All indicate that stars and planets appear to do strange things. These cases of misperception have to explored and considered as reasonable potential explanations for UFO sightings at night.


Rramjet said:
But the Tehran case, we have the radar locks of the F-4s to inform us of distance and size for example. The changing of shape (splitting apart and rejoining) and jumping locations is difficult to interpret via “misperception” given that we cannot understand the applicable of conditions that might mislead multiple witnesses in such a way.
Click to expand...

We have one radar lock. In the Campeche case, which you consider solved, they reported numerous radar contacts during their flight. Some were anamolous and some were probably light aircraft. The Capella chase described by Hynek also involved a radar contact for thirty seconds! Radar is not a fool proof system and is suspectible to error as well as operator error.

Rramjet said:
IF there are conditions that YOU can think of that might so mislead the witnesses, then please enlighten us so that we may better understand. That is, if the witnesses “misinterpreted” events (as you contend) then you must tell us, given the information we have about the case, HOW this can be so.

That you (or anybody else as far as I can tell) cannot do so, lends veracity to witness statements.
Click to expand...

I have demonstrated several times by actual UFO cases how these things can happen. You have just dismissed them with your usual wave of the hand (something you deny doing).

As for lending veracity to the witness statements, it does no such thing. The weight of the testimony stands as it always has stood. It is anecdotal and susceptible to human error that can not be measured (despite your claims that you can measure and account for it).
 
Last edited:
In another related case study, I would like to present the observations made by Japanese pilots during WWII. During the battle of Coral sea, Japanese observations planes mistook an oiler (USS Neosho) and destroyer (USS Simms) for a Cruiser and an aircraft carrier. Not only did one pilot err, but many mistook the oiler for a carrier. Those that made the initial attack apparently did not notice what they were attacking was an just an oiler, which should have been obvious. The Carrier group commander would not have sent the massive strike that followed had he realized what he was attacking was not the real threat (They knew at least one American carrier was in the area because it had attacked a seaplane base at Tulagi a day or two before). The oiler was attacked numerous times in belief it was an aircraft carrier (but had no air cover or airplanes on deck!) until it was sunk.

So what? Well, this oiler was about 2/3rds the size (length and width) of US aircraft carriers at the time. These pilots had training on what to look for in US aircraft carriers as far as shape, size, speed, etc. (they probably had silhouette books for reference as well as binoculars) but they still made the mistake of misidentifying the target. I can understand how this happened. The observation planes were looking at the ships from a distance of probably 2-3 miles (outside AA range) against a blue-green background (the ocean). They obviously had difficulty estimating size as well as getting the details wrong. If these trained pilots had this problem (even though they had time to observe the target carefully and in detail), what kind of difficulties in estimating size, distance, details, etc do you think some people in a boat would have over a much shorter time period?
 
Two cars approaching each other at night, one is half a mile away over a hill, it's headlights shining straight up to a cloudy sky which reflects the lights so as the occupants in the other car coming the other way sees them and reports a UFO. Short and sweet, but probably something like this happens all the time.
Cases of mistaken identity happen every day. The face on Mars is a perfect example.
 
Early one evening on our campus, I came across a group of excited college students pointing toward something in the sky: a bright light that, they insisted, was "shooting rays" and moving erratically. It was Venus.

One of our professors, driving over a winding mountain road one night, saw in his rear-view mirror a bright light low in the sky not only pacing him but gaining on him. He admitted he panicked and roared down a mountain much faster than he should have. Only when the road began to climb again did he realize the light was not in the sky--it was a pickup truck behind him that had only one working headlight.
 
Spektator said:
Early one evening on our campus, I came across a group of excited college students pointing toward something in the sky: a bright light that, they insisted, was "shooting rays" and moving erratically. It was Venus.

One of our professors, driving over a winding mountain road one night, saw in his rear-view mirror a bright light low in the sky not only pacing him but gaining on him. He admitted he panicked and roared down a mountain much faster than he should have. Only when the road began to climb again did he realize the light was not in the sky--it was a pickup truck behind him that had only one working headlight.
Click to expand...

"I went to bed at 2 with a 10, and woke up at 10 with a 2." (I think that's Willie Nelson's line)

The moral of the story is that you shouldn't relying on spotting truly attractive women OR ufo's when you are drunk in a bar after midnight.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Baptist college, dry county, cold winter evening about seven p.m. The faculty member who thought he was being chased might have been out around midnight, but he was the college chaplain and did not drink.
 
Spektator said:
Nope. Baptist college, dry county, cold winter evening about seven p.m. The faculty member who thought he was being chased might have been out around midnight, but he was the college chaplain and did not drink.
Click to expand...

When I had my sighting, neither me nor my co-witness were on anything, either.

I saw something that wasn't us, or ours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom