UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

1. I didn't mean to include scientists in my original formulation, but because you have brought up a situation in which scientists have made a conclusion that is contrary to naive perception, then observations of scientists have to be included, in which case my original statement leads to concluding that the sun revolving around the earth. But that would be a mis-use of my original statement in a way in which it wasn't intended. We were talking about naive, everyday witnesses, not scientists trained in empricism, observation, etc. So bringing in a situation in which professional empiricists (?) rightly overrule naive perception changes the context inappropriately.

2. We aren't saying “It cannot be so, therefore it is not so," we are saying "It probably isn't so, therefore it's likely that it's not so." Duh.

1. Oh, so now you contend that scientists have better observational powers than the ordinary person because they are trained? Perhaps your fellow UFO debunkers can step in at this point and disabuse you of such fanciful notions... but of course they will not (!), instead they will uncritically accept a contradiction in their own argument just so long as it is seen to support their own belief system.

2. "We"? (see above). "It probably isn't so"? So tell me, how precisely do you calculate your "probability" to end with "likely"? Of course you do (and can) not... it is a mere statement of belief and of course that does NOT make it true.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet now thinks we're bookies. Could someone conjure up a suitable image for this, preferably with the Gay Rodeo blimp in the background?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

UFOs cannot exist because I don’t believe they exist? Illogical nonsense!

Oh, and you are (once more?) misrepresenting here. No skeptic says that UFOs cannot exist. You should know better, since skeptic's position on the matter has been explained to you ad nauseum on this thread.

 

[Sledge]

Oh god, we're about to slip back into pointing out once again that no one has said UFOs don't exist. We're saying it's extremely unlikely that they're alien spacecraft.

 

[Rramjet]

Come on, Rramjet... do you even have the slightest doubt about the reality of miniature human beings?

How do I know?, because there's no place for fairies in the Darwinian evolutionary line. Because no remains of such creatures have ever been found.

What if fairies turn out to be "aliens"? Or extra-dimensional beings? Perhaps they are related to UFO phenomena in some way... And what ARE the descriptions of "fairies" in the reports anyway? Are they really all "miniature human beings"? ... I would suppose (because I really don't know) that there would exist a vast difference between the "Disney" conceptualisation (in behaviour and form) and what is reported in historical sightings...

 

[GeeMack]

Oh god, we're about to slip back into pointing out once again that no one has said UFOs don't exist. We're saying it's extremely unlikely that they're alien spacecraft.

Which will put us back at about Page 1. Then we can start all over showing Rramjet how his arguments from incredulity and ignorance aren't evidence to support his claim that aliens exist. And he'll lie again that we're claiming the Rogue River sighting was a blimp. And we'll be on the way towards 8,000 posts in this thread. And Rramjet will have made 1,500 posts. And he still will not have provided a single mote of evidence.

 

[Sledge]

Oh good grief, he's moving onto fairies.

 

[Rramjet]

Well gosh, I'd say that the evidence is bad because it is 100% anecdotal. Yes, a lot of people claimed they saw something, but this manifestation did not leave a single trace of physical evidence? It didn't even make a sound?

Yeah, that's bad evidence. No, I don't know why they thought they saw an alien spacecraft, or at least agreed to all say so, but there is still no solid evidence. That makes it "bad". In science, that is how evidence works. No amount of repeating it will turn it into "good evidence", no matter how hard you wish it.

Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily "bad" evidence. It all depends on the information content. If the information is accurate then it is "good" evidence.

Father Gill (and the 38 other witnesses who signed a testimony) did NOT claim "aliens" (spacecraft or otherwise). They merely described what they saw. The challenge for us is to explain what they saw. To merely deny that they saw anything (because it is supposedly "bad" evidence) is simply to stick ones head in the sand. They saw something and if any of you had any conviction in your own beliefs, then you should be able to explain the sighting in rational terms.

 

[Sledge]

No, Rramjet. It's not up to us to drift through the internet attempting to explain every person who saw something in the sky and doesn't know what it is. This thread was started with the very clear purpose of you presenting your evidence of aliens. Apparently the Father Gill case isn't it, so why do you bring it up?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

What if fairies turn out to be "aliens"? Or extra-dimensional beings? Perhaps they are related to UFO phenomena in some way... And what ARE the descriptions of "fairies" in the reports anyway? Are they really all "miniature human beings"? ... I would suppose (because I really don't know) that there would exist a vast difference between the "Disney" conceptualisation (in behaviour and form) and what is reported in historical sightings...

These are the fairies of Conan-Doyle time, certainy human-like small creatures, about which there are numerous eyewitnesses testimonies.



Possible alien or extradimensional beings?. Yes, possible. But unlikely on the extreme. You should wonder what's the probablilty of beings evolved in outer space or in "other dimensions", looking exactly like human beings. Tends to zero, right?

 

[Nonpareil]

Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily "bad" evidence. It all depends on the information content. If the information is accurate then it is "good" evidence.

But there is no way to verify the accuracy of the accounts.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oh, now you are just wilfully and deceptively misinterpreting the results of the studies that have been made. The Battelle study came up with a figure of greater than 20% unknowns (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and the Condon report came up with a figure close to 30% unknowns (http://ncas.org/condon/)!

We have been down the Battelle study long ago and their discussion about the problems with the data has been ignored by you with a wave of the hand. The Condon report "unexplained" cases were discussed as well. If you read Menzel, you can see why some of these "unexplained" cases remained so because of some of the particulars regarding the witnessses (See Menzel - The UFO enigma). The National Academy of sciences wrote the following about the study, It is the unanimous opinion that this has been a very creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem. The report recognizes that there remain UFO sightings that are not easily explained. The report does suggest, however, so many reasonable and possible directions in which an explanation may eventually be found, that there seems to be no reason to attribute them to an extraterrestrial source without evidence that is much more convincing. The report also shows how difficult it is to apply scientific methods to the occasional transient sightings with any chance of success. (Condon bantam paperback p.viii) If you want to list those sightings in the Condon study that were truly compelling feel free to do so. However, before you list the Trent photos and Lakenheath, you should know that Dr. Hartmann (who wrote the report about the Trent photos) changed his opinion on the mattter after being shown that there were problems with the photograph he did not identify (see UFOs: A scientific debate and Klass UFOs explained). The Lakenheath case has been recently revealed to be not so compelling after a thorough investigation by Dr. Clarke, Andy Roberts, jenny Randles, and Martin Shough. Sure there are some "undentifieds" left in this case but nothing extraordinary. The "Cat and mouse" chase story was debunked by the testimony of the pilots, who stated this did not happen the way it was described in the Condon report and they eventually felt they were chasing a balloon (one pilot stated he ended up chasing a star!). http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/Laken.htm

These cases preceded the study. Perhaps you can pick out the really good ones that happened during the study that clearly demonstrate exotic craft or completely inexplicable cases.

The numbers I am describing are the overall sample by UFO investigators. Hendry's book has a rate of <10%. Jenny Randles wrote in her piece about UFO investigations (UFOs: 1947-1997 -248) "If you don't solve at least nine out of ten cases you are doing something wrong". Obviously, she did not arrive at that number using the Battelle study but by her knowledge about investigating UFO reports. Bluebook had <10% and when Hynek reviewed the bluebook cases he arrived at a similar number. The point being that most UFOlogists will agree with the idea that roughly 9 out of 10 cases can usually be explained. If you want to use only the Condon and Battelle values, that is being selective with the data IMO.

 

[tsig]

An explanation is neither sensible nor logical if there is NO evidence to support it. First, your “friend” saw some lights in the sky. To make the leap from that to “Chinese Lanterns” is preposterous!

.

They were blimps.

 

[GeeMack]

Hey, Rramjet, got any evidence to support your claim that aliens exist? Or have you abandoned that claim?

 

[marineboy]

'Acecdotal evidence' is an oxymoron.
An anecdote is simply a starting point, something which suggests that you begin to look for evidence.
The anecdote itself is not evidence.

 

[tsig]

Oh good grief, he's moving onto fairies.

You got to go with your strengths.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This tends to rule against them being Chinese lanterns.

The point is that while they COULD have been Chinese lanterns

muddleheaded.

Well, there's your problem.

 

[fromdownunder]

What if fairies turn out to be "aliens"?

Fairies are aliens, and I even have directions as to how to find them:

"second star to the right and straight on till morning. "

Norm

 

[Marduk]

What if fairies turn out to be "aliens"? Or extra-dimensional beings? Perhaps they are related to UFO phenomena in some way... And what ARE the descriptions of "fairies" in the reports anyway? Are they really all "miniature human beings"? ... I would suppose (because I really don't know) that there would exist a vast difference between the "Disney" conceptualisation (in behaviour and form) and what is reported in historical sightings...

Fairies, some people are ok with them, some others are away with them

 

[Access Denied]

Moreover, Chinese lanterns have a heat source (also emitting light) at their “base”, yet in the video there seems to be an even distribution of light throughout the objects. This tends to rule against them being Chinese lanterns.

Wow, evidently you don’t know much about optics… you know like what something relatively bright and far away looks like in the dark and out of focus? Nor apparently are you a very thorough investigator… did you miss the part about it being “slightly windy and raining” at the time? If so, how might the atmospheric conditions affect what we’re seeing? Man, good thing you’re not a UFOlogist and taking people’s money in exchange for your “professional” opinion…

This statement is just illogical nonsense. The conclusion does NOT necessarily follow from the premise. In fact if people got it right 100% of the time there would be no misidentifications of mundane objects. This says NOTHING about whether there would be UFO reports or not. In fact, if people got it right 100% of the time (a ridiculous proposition in itself) it would simply mean that those reports that did come in would represent genuine unknowns.

[slaps forehead]

Wait I get it now…. this is Opposite Day, you’re an amateur comedian, and I didn’t get the memo.

First you make an unfounded assumption that UFOs do not exist. Then you use that unfounded assumption to claim that those who interpret their observations as UFOs are 100% wrong. This is illogical nonsense.

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there…

Oh, now you are just wilfully and deceptively misinterpreting the results of the studies that have been made.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, please explain for the audience what criteria was used to select the cases the Condon Committee examined and how that affects the AIAA review conclusion of 30% unidentified relative to other studies. If you don’t know then please apologize to everyone for your ignorance…

So if the reports ARE “ambiguous” then HOW can you pretend to definitively “explain” them as mundane events.

Unlike you I don’t “pretend” to “definitively” explain anything…

Either they are too ambiguous to conclude anything (and therefore like the Battelle Study did, place them into an “Insufficient information” category) OR they contain sufficient clarity to come to a conclusion.

Since when does “sufficient clarity” lead to a conclusion of “unexplained”?

Oh wait… I forgot this is Opposite Day. Never mind…

You seem to want to have ot both ways and that is irrational. So perhaps your statement…

“Congratulations Rramjet, based or your own admission you’ve debunked yourself.”

…should more aptly apply to yourself.

I’m thinking no…