The following is first directed at Astrophotographer’s post (#3811, p. 96) where he (again) cites Hendry who in turn cites cases where misinterpretation of mundane events has occurred (or at least has been alleged to have occurred!), and then continues to cover some of the latter posts after that.
Astrophotographer, witnesses can be mistaken in their interpretations of what they perceive. That is accepted by everyone. Fortunately research has shown us precisely in what ways and under what conditions perceptual errors can be committed.
Interestingly, in every day life, witnesses do get things right most of the time. In other words, witnesses are accurate in interpreting what they see almost all the time. It is only in situations where certain conditions combine to mislead witnesses that they may be mislead – but even under specifically “anomalous” conditions, not all witnesses will get it wrong. Indeed a significant proportion will still manage to interpret things correctly.
This is best shown under research conditions (eg Loftus) where researchers deliberately set up conditions designed to mislead witnesses. Sure, some research participants misinterpret or miss pertinent information, but significantly, a number also get it right!
Yet, according to UFO debunkers, witnesses are wrong 100% of the time – and that is patently absurd proposition. Such a proposition runs counter to all research evidence.
Citing “UFO” cases where witnesses have misinterpreted mundane objects (such as stars, planets, etc) is all well and good – and there is no doubt that such things occur - but to extrapolate that finding to cover ALL UFO sightings is just plain nonsense. It cannot be done because no-one knows how often the witnesses got it wrong compared with how often they got it right. Strictly speaking, on the observed evidence (that witnesses get it right in the majority of instances – in other words most people do not misinterpret stars, planets, etc as UFOs) one must consider that in most cases, the witnesses actually have got it right! That scenario is actually more likely – on the evidence – than the scenario that they have got it wrong.
UFO debunkers then disingenuously misinterpret the true odds (based on the evidence) of witnesses accurately describing what they observe. THIS is illogical and unscientific. The facts of the matter are that most people can accurately describe what they observe most of the time – and they patently do so.
The methodology of the UFO debunkers is the same as me contending that because psychosis exists, and because UFO debunkers patently misinterpret the odds of people accurately describing what they perceive, then all statements made by UFO debunkers must be psychotic – and therefore not to be taken seriously.
Another example is that dyslexia exists, and because UFO debunkers seem to misunderstand clear logic (for example the “burden of proof”) then all UFO debunkers must be dyslexic and simply incapable of understanding written contentions in a logical fashion.
Of course the two examples just provided above are illogical and unscientific, yet they contain just the same application of logic as when UFO debunkers dismiss all UFO sightings as misinterpretations. Nonsense is nonsense.
Of course the UFO debunkers will claim that they do not contend that witnesses are wrong 100% of the time – yet they cannot point to any case where this claim holds up under scrutiny – their actions speak louder than words. Of course they claim witnesses are wrong 100% of the time – they simply cannot admit it!
It is in fact a version of the “All crows are black” fallacy. That is, just because crows CAN be black, therefore ALL crows are black. And just because the majority of crows are black, therefore ALL crows are black. Nonsense! Such is the absurd, twisted logic of the UFO debunker world.
Then there are the cases where the UFO debunkers claim a mundane explanation. When it is pointed out that their explanation is unlikely, they simply claim that they were not saying that their explanation IS the explanation – just that it remains POSSIBLE that their explanation is correct.
Of course this is the same as me claiming that the explanation for UFO debunker’s beliefs is psychosis – I am not contending that psychosis IS the explanation – just that it is POSSIBLE for it to be the explanation – so based on that possibility – I therefore dismiss ALL UFO debunkers as psychotic! Nonsense! (yet the possibility remains…).
Simply, in real world situations, the majority of witnesses observe and interpret correctly what they observe most of the time. Any fool can cite cases where witnesses have got it wrong, but that does not mean that witnesses get it wrong ALL the time. So it is with UFO cases. Just because witnesses CAN get it wrong, does not mean that they DO get it wrong.
Simply, each case must be examined on its own merits. The Rogue River case for example. Here we have a case where, in near perfect viewing conditions, witnesses described an object that resembled nothing mundane. They described a circular object with the naked eye and with the aid of binoculars could see that it resembled a “coin” or a “pancake” and THAT description positively defies the “blimp” explanation. Sure we can argue that distance and size estimates might have been inaccurate and indeed, there exist discrepancies in such estimates from the witnesses – and research tells us that this SHOULD be the case – thus lending veracity to the observations (if for example ALL the witnesses described the same distance and size, then we might contend that such a report was suspicious, because research tells us that such estimates are prone to error – thus the variance in these estimates ADDS veracity rather than detracts from it).
The point is that merely citing cases where misinterpretations have occurred says nothing about cases where conditions are such to optimise, rather than detract, from accurate observation (as in Rogue River – clear blue sky, binoculars, sun at their backs, etc). Each case must be examined on its own merits.
I found the exchange begun between Spektator and King of the Americas interesting. Spektator provided an anecdote and KotA provided “mundane” explanations. Wolrab eventually jumped in with Make unfounded assumptions much?
The trick is to use all the available information and only that information. There was absolutely nothing involving drinking in the post you responded to.”
Ha! Talk about hypocritical! When a UFO case is cited, the UFO debunkers jump in with all sorts of assumptions and speculations, just as KotA is alleged to have done, yet when the situation is reversed, the UFO debunkers cry foul! THAT IS hypocritical.
ASnother example of what I was talking about in my specific reply to Astrophotographer above was when SusanB-M1 related an anecdote about a friend of hers seeing something. Astrophotographer jumped in with “Chinese lanterns” – basing this on absolutely NO evidence – Access Denied – then provided a video, again claiming “Chinese lanterns, but again based on absolutely NO evidence – and SusanB-M1 replied with ”Mystery solved”! Such unfounded speculation and wild assumption is NOT scientific OR logical. No evidence was examined in these cases – yet a positive conclusion (a naming of a positive belief!) was reached based on mere assumption and speculation. Talk about hypocritical!
amb then jumps in with a video and claims ”hoax” – but again provides NO evidence that it IS a hoax (it may well be, but that is not the point) – amb is merely making a statement of belief and the UFO debunkers in this forum accepted this statement of MERE belief without so much as a word or even hint of the so called skepticism that is supposed to be the watchword of this forum. Talk about hypocritical!
Of course then p. 97 descends into farce as various UFO debunkers resort to sarcasm and ridicule in place of solid evidence and argument. But of course when science and logic is not on your side – then that is just about all you are left with. Still, it does point to the mentality of posters to this thread that that is all they can come up with.
SnidelyW then posts some Shuttle footage showing an anomalous flash of light. Marduk proposes an obvious nonsense about it being a reflection (as at 3:35) and asks “How are your eyes not seeing the obvious?” and of course it IS obvious that it is NOT such a reflection! So how could Marduk not see the obvious? Of course, this is a typical UFO debunker tactic, throw out any old explanation, even if it is wildly WRONG and hope that it confuses people enough to dismiss the whole thing. Akhenaten actually tries to dismiss the anomaly as NOT an anomaly… again this statement beggars belief until you realise it is again part of the debunker tactic of flat out denial and who cares about whether the evidence supports the contention…just so long as you can obscure and cloud the issue with enough errant nonsense – who cares what is REALLY going on! That is, as long as the debunker belief system is upheld, it matters not whether truth, logic or the scientific method are casualties!
Marduk then comes back claiming that he cannot see anything at all at 3:28! Boy… my psychosis explanation is looking more likely all the time… it is patently obvious that SOMETHING out there “flashed”, and there COULD be an entirely obvious mundane explanation…but the UFO debunkers desperation to maintain their belief system leads them to mistrust the application of science and logic and forces them into a flat out denial in place of a proper logical and scientific exploration of the issue.
Finally Marduk (almost) comes to his senses and calls it a reflection off a satellite (yeah…could be… it is at least a sensible speculation) but then loses it again by trying to forestall an obvious counter to that explanation without thinking it through logically and scientifically. Why release the Hubble “near” another satellite? Of course NASA would NOT do such a thing! But the explanation IS obvious – there is NO depth information to say how FAR the “flash” was away from the shuttle and if it WAS another satellite – then it could actually be a LONG ways off… but of course the obvious point is AGAIN lost in all of this. IF it WAS another satellite… then where is the evidence that another satellite IS in the same orbital vicinity (not necessarily “near”) as the Hubble? Until evidence is provided that another satellite IS in the vicinity, the “other satellite” explanation remains a possibility but critically NOT a definitive answer and others may legitimately contend that entirely speculative explanation to be exactly that… speculative.
I notice also that we now have “Russian technology” as the definitive answer for the Tehran UFO… of course NO evidence has been produced that such a thing is even possible, let alone likely… yet the UFO debunkers operate on beliefs, not logic, evidence and scientific method. They operate on beliefs because in most cases, logic, science and evidence does not add weight to their “explanations”, in fact, in most cases, a close logical and scientific evaluation of the evidence positively rules out their explanations! So they positively fear logic and science. And unfortunately, as has been discovered by most rational people, there is absolutely NO arguing against a fundamental belief system. Fundamental belief systems are simply not amenable to the application of science and logic – for there is always an “out” for holders of such belief systems in an appeal to the unknown.
