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?
In fact, given that physical laws seem to be the same throughout the universe (and presumably similar evolutionary forces) then perhaps the humanoid form is the most ubiquitous when it comes to technological intelligence. Besides your term “exactly like” is stretching things just a bit…
I stated:
” 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.
But of course there is! At the lowest level we can have multiple witnesses (eg: Rogue River). Then we can have multiple witnesses in different locations (White Sands, Tehran). Then we can have radar, photo/video confirmation (of course the ideal would be something like a video of a UFO including another guy taking a video of the UFO… and access to both videos). Then we can have repeatability (eg; Tehran “starfish” UFO shape – which seemed highly unlikely - later filmed over Brazil matching exact description…!). Then there is the forensic examination of the information content itself utilising perceptual and psychological research to inform us. There are also past cases that might be similar… and so on…So yes, there a various methods of verifying the accounts…
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.
I have never dismissed with “a wave of the hand” the “problems” with the data – in fact you and I have been arguing over those “problems” at length. Primarily they amount to the “anecdotal” and “transient” claims… and we could probably go on arguing over it… but the point to make is that even though these problems do exist, that does not mean that the evidence is worthless or that it is not amenable to scientific study.
Your whole contention seems to be that anecdotal accounts ARE worthless because human perception is often mislead by mundane conditions and also that because UFO sightings are not repeatable, then they cannot be scientifically analysed. But I counter that with my answer to Pure_Argent (above), which outlines methods of verification and study of the accounts that CAN be utilised.
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).
You cite Menzel as impugning the status of the witnesses, but never mention which cases (from either Battelle or Condon) or precisely how he does so… this type of general “accusation” is merely a mud slinging exercise
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)
The very first sentence of this passage shows how far out of touch with reality the Academy was! It is well known that Condon’s was most definitely NOT a “creditable” nor “objective” assessment! He was biased from the start. One only has to compare his “summary” with the results of the actual research contained within the body of the report to understand this (let alone the existence of such documents as the “trick” memo)!
The passage goes on to recognise that unexplained sightings exist, but then seems to revert to relying on Condon’s “summary” to draw further conclusions (and we KNOW Condon was biased). If the Academy had looked at the conclusions of the actual case studies, then their
opinion would
necessarily have been MUCH different.
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).
Problems with the Trent photos? We’ve been through all that in another thread, and I seem to recall that you could NOT actually point out such problems as would make the photos hoaxed…
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
I have not studied the case and I am unaware of the assessments of the authors you mention… but even if it IS as you say… this is just ONE case… (if you are still talking Lakenheath…)
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 cases under review necessarily preceded their study…
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.
For too long serious UFO researchers have tactically “given ground” on this point to the UFO debunkers in order to forestall argument on the point. The thinking behind this is that all it takes is one or two genuine cases and who cares about how many are “misidentified” mundane objects. This IMO has been a
serious miscalculation on the UFO researcher’s part. I do not wish to “appease” the UFO debunkers in this manner. It is unscientific and tactically unwise – but I cannot help what has happened in the past but I am not going to repeat their timidity or mistakes.
'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.
This misconception is a “favourite” of the UFO debunkers but is simply resolved. Just type in “anecdotal evidence definition” into your search engine and see what happens… get back to me when you have done so…
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…
Actually I invited you (and others) to examine videos of Chinese lanterns at night and to compare them with the video in question. Obviously you have not done that or you would have returned with a more considered opinion based on that research rather than attacking the messenger… of course this (again) is a typical UFO debunker “trick” - attack the man rather than deal with the evidence.
Wait I get it now…. this is Opposite Day, you’re an amateur comedian, and I didn’t get the memo.
I think you will find the key to your understanding in the italicised section of my statement as follows:
“…if people got it right 100% of the time there would be no
misidentifications of mundane objects.”
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…
Are you suggesting that the Condon Committee was
biased in its selection of cases
toward cases that support the “UFO” conclusion
before they examined the cases? What exactly
are you trying to suggest here?
I have answered the “AIAA” conclusions above in my reply to Astrophotographer.
Unlike you I don’t “pretend” to “definitively” explain anything…
Sure you don’t… How many times has the definitive and categorical phrase
”It was a blimp been used in this thread in reference to Rogue River then? Of course when pressed the UFO debunkers will
say they did not
mean the categorical, merely the probable, but when it is pointed out that “probable” in this case is actually highly
unlikely the reply is invariably something like “It WAS a blimp – get over it!”
I stated:
” 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…
It is a subtle point I know…perhaps I can clarify it. I did NOT state the conclusion would be “unexplained” I merely referred to ANY conclusion - including mundane. Either the reports contain sufficient information to draw conclusions – or they do not… you cannot have it both ways.
At the TAM London conference, one of the speakers was the son of the woman who deliberately faked the photographs which, it seems, Conan Doyle accepted as proof of fairies.
I would be very interested to know why you are so keen to hope and believe that UFOs are inexplicable, or alien craft, or ... well, I don't know what. How would it improve your enjoyment of life and mystery? As an ancient person, may I strongly recommend that you do not spend too much of your time on the pursuit of the subject, as you will find that, the nearer you get to the end of your life, you will not have found any real evidence. I spent quite a lot of time when I was young reading on the subject, and even went UFO-watching once!, but finding the sceptical, practical answers I found is far more satisfying. I shall die content in the knowledge that UFOs are explicable, eventually.
Oh, and by the way, the reason I did not read all of your long post was that it takes such a long time with a screen reader; not because I was not interested in what you had to say.
I am sorry that you feel so disinterested in one of the greatest mysteries mankind has ever faced – the possibility of visitation by “aliens”… but wait…WHAT are you doing in this thread then…?
I stated:
” 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.”
This is ironic, since you seem to be quite happy to dismiss first-hand witness statements when it suits you.
…and the irony of my statement seems to have been
completely lost on you… The irony was actually in a UFO debunker claiming that certain professions have a privileged position when it comes to observation (to make an argumentative point) when this has been strenuously and often denied by UFO debunkers… I used irony to avoid the direct claim of “hypocrite”.
In the case of the NY eve Chinese Lanterns over the London Eye? I stated that I saw 5 above London and higher than the LE on the night in discussion. And I can call upon at least a dozen others that identified these lanterns.
Oh irony on irony! A UFO debunker recounting an anecdote to make a point!
Yet you still deny that Chinese Lanterns are a possibility because there is no evidence.
Of course I do not expect you to have actually read what I stated… but I DID state that Chinese lanterns WERE a possible explanation… ugh…
So are eyewitness accounts valid or not?
If so, then SusanB-M1's report can pretty much be explain by the prosaic - the most likely explanation is blimps Chinese Lanterns.
“Most likely”? That is where you lose all integrity. Yours is an assessment based on a
“belief” and that is precisely what you criticise UFO researchers for doing! I will persist with “irony” in preference to “hypocrisy”!
If not - you have presented absolutely no evidence in any of your "cases", since they are all based on eyewitness accounts.
Of course eyewitness testimony can be valid (see my answer to Pure Argent above for clarification of this point).
(Paul2) You stated (#3895, p. 98)
“We were talking about naive, everyday witnesses, not scientists trained in empricism, observation, etc.”
I stated:
“Oh, so now you contend that scientists have better observational powers than the ordinary person because they are trained?”
I did not say that. I can see how you would think that I did. But I think trying to get you to see that will cost more than its worth.
So you DID say that…
Probabilities do not have to be quantified ("I'll probably go to the store today.")
Actually “probability” is NOT a likelihood statement. You merely and incorrectly USE it as one. I merely asked you to clarify what and how you calculated the
likelihood estimate implied in your statement. If you say an explanation is “probable” then I simply want to know HOW you arrived at that assessment.
I must say, this game of trying to use skeptics language to try to turn the tables on them is a dismal failure. Your heartfelt desire that skeptics prove a negative (aliens don't exist) is doomed to failure. Despite your protests, the situation is exactly the same with regard to all the other unlikely beings that have been mentioned: you can't prove they don't exist.
So here it is then. You twist the burden of proof yet again! All I am doing is presenting cases that do not lend themselves to mundane explanation. IF we cannot discover mundane explanations for these cases then we are free to hypothesise alternative answers. You are simply denying my right to do so on a faith based
belief system (that “aliens” do not exist).
I notice that no-one is able to talk about the EVIDENCE as presented in the Father Gill case… but I guess by now I can positively expect UFO debunkers to ignore the evidence… to not be able to explore it logically or scientifically (yes, Access Denied,
scientifically!).
