• 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.
Rramjet said:
Actually “probability” is NOT a likelihood statement.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp


"prob•a•bil•i•ty . . . 3. Statistics, a. the likelihood of an occurrence . . ." (Source: The Random House College Dictionary)

This is too easy.
 
SnidelyW said:
Correa Neto;

I'm intrigued by your claim that you once were a UFO 'Brazil nut' and your movement away from that to a skeptical position. Did you have an 'aha' moment, or was your change in thinking much more gradual?
The reason I ask is that I look at a video like this, from STS-125
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4uZeeUWrU0

...at the 3:28 mark, in the left centre of the screen, what 'flares up'? Is it space junk? If it is, it seems close given they are releasing the Hubble Space Telescope. There are other views of this 'anomaly' on youtube as well.
Surely your curiosity level must be piqued? Given this event is in space, there isn't much which could account for the sudden brightening, unless it was a reflection, but that would have to have come from something floating on its own.
I'm trying to get a sense of your journey in thinking, and understand the evolution.
Click to expand...
Sorry, had some pressing issues and answering your questions before would have demanded some bits of time, a commodity I was a short of.

Back in the early 80's I could have been described as an young enthusiast or "UFOlogy researcher" - several books and large collection of newspaper articles as well as my own sightings and sparse participation in UFOlogy groups included. I tried to build my own "theory of everything UFOlogical" - just like Rramjet and King of the Americas as well as many others.

The change was gradual but there were three milestones; I already wrote about them, even at this very thread.

The first one can be found here- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4925510&postcount=57. Its sighting No. 2. Top UFOlogists thought a weather baloon which stood visible for at least 20 minutes was an alien craft travelling at incredible speeds... I couldn't help but question their research and expertise -as well as UFOlogic research as a whole- after such experience. OT note- The earlier triangle sighting stood as one of the pillars of my UFO beliefs untill I leanerd years later about NOSS.

Second milestone- when I entered at the university, about one year later. That's when I learned about the scientific method and realised how crappy the evidence and methods of UFOlogy actually are. This confirmed my previous insights exposed above.

Third milestone was exposed at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683010&postcount=55 and http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=5307200&highlight=multicolored#post5307200. It pretty much devastated UFOlogists' arguments regarding sigthings with multiple eyewitnesses and those were the eyewitnesses are millitary personnel being reliable.

Aftr each "milestone", some belief still resisted. There was always that particular case I read about somewhere... But nothing which could withstand even the most surficial scientific evaluation.

The bulk of my "deconvertion" came, however, by the continous repetition of displays of bad methodology and crappy evidence coupled with lieas and hoaxes which build UFOlogy. A mix we can see right here in this thread in Rramjet's posts. Yes, you should add the fact that I work a lot on the field, far from cities and sometimes at UFO hotspots without seeing an alien craft (my personal argument from incredulity fallacy).

And yes, I know people who told me about seeing things in the sky which would be hard to explain in conventional ways. And yes, I have seen things in the sky (distant lights) which I have no idea of what they were. These facts, however, doesn't mean there are no conventional explanations. I would need better and propper information to adopt such a position. Note that many UFO cases so far exposed at this and other threads by UFO proponents as good or compelling evidence fall within this category.

And this brings me down to the video you posted. Sorry, I don't find it particullary interesting or challenging. Personally I found the oil wells fire video much more interesting and challenging (when it was released) than this one. All I can say is about it is that its something at a distance which I can't estimate which reflected sunlight. Space junk, a piece of the telescope, a piece of the arm, a distant satellite, some external object reflecting on the window, an alien spacecraft. These are all possibilities. Ask yourself which one is more plausible. Not the one which you would find more interesting or exciting. The most plausible one.
 
Every time someone says "I don't believe in UFOs" an UFO dies...

Funny that Rramjet now is supposing Tinker Bell is an intelligent agent acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world... After rejecting such nonsense supposition presented by Valée.

Check these:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5261360&postcount=1744
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5259691&highlight=elves#post5259691
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5261196&highlight=elves#post5261196
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5259691&postcount=1716
 
Correa Neto said:
Funny that Rramjet now is supposing Tinker Bell is an intelligent agent acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world... After rejecting such nonsense supposition presented by Valée.
Click to expand...

Using his methodology and the quality of evidence he is willing to accept, he has no choice but to accept Tinker Bell as real. Not if he wants to maintain consistency in his belief in UFO as aliens using the same quality of evidence.
 
Sledge said:
Rramjet, you yourself have admitted that there is no case that proves UFOs are craft piloted by aliens.
Click to expand...
Your contention is not strictly correct. I have stated that there is no single case that can, by itself, constitute definitive “proof” of anything at all. I contend that there is a body of evidence that is constituted by many cases that suggest an “alien” interpretation. I have always maintained that definitive “proof” cannot be found in ANY discipline, let alone the study of UFOs. ALL disciplines operate on a preponderance of evidence.

Sledge said:
The question you have never answered is the one I pose: how does evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis add up into evidence that does?
Click to expand...
You have a belief that the evidence I present does not support my hypotheses. If that IS the case then you should be able to point out HOW and WHY my evidence does not support my hypotheses.

Sledge said:
If you have one case that truly supports your hypothesis, present it. Not something that's unexplained, not something that's suggestive, something that proves aliens are piloting UFOs.
Click to expand...
I have outlined my strategy here numerous times. I am building a case step by step, each case adding toward a body of evidence that is suggestive of an end conclusion. Your asking for definitive “proof” simply places the bar too high for ANY discipline, let alone the study of UFOs. Moreover, you do not apply such a standard when proposing your “mundane” explanations, it is therefore (and here is that word again) hypocritical of you to apply such a standard to UFO research and yet not require it of the UFO debunking side in proposing mundane explanations.

Sledge said:
That's what you promised, so present it. If the Father Gill case is it, I'm sure we'll all be happy to examine it. But what's the point when we'll rip it to shreds and find you on the other side saying "Well, it was never proof by itself"?
Click to expand...
So please examine the Father Gill case then. Point out precisely HOW and WHY it fails to support my hypothesis.

Marcus said:
No matter how hard you try, you can not shift the burden of proof onto skeptics. You are the one claiming that aliens exist. You are the one requiring others to prove a negative, or they must support your unsupported claim. You are the one using a faith based belief system, I'm sure you know this, you're trying to preempt this observation using the old "I know you are, but what am I!" strategy
Click to expand...
I claim “aliens” exist and have been presenting cases that are suggestive of that conclusion. I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. All you have to do is come up with a reasonable mundane explanation to “disprove” the cases I present. And let’s face it. In the Rogue River case, the “blimp” hypothesis flies in the face of the eyewitness testimony and is therefore not a “reasonable” explanation.

Astrophotographer said:
As always, I thought you might have read Menzel's argument about these "unexplained" cases and felt no need to put tons of stuff in my post. It is not "mudslinging" if you do not sling mud. I only pointed out that some of the cases did have some rather interesting personalities associated with them and the cases were listed in the "unexplained" category. If you doubt Menzel's word, the read Roy Craig's discussion on some of these cases.
Click to expand...

Again you fail to mention specific cases. If the witnesses were “suspect” in specific cases, then name the cases and we can go from there. I maintain that without naming specific cases yours IS an exercise in mudslinging.

I stated:
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!”
Astrophotographer said:
Who says this? Oh yeah.....UFOlogists say this. Gee, one might suggest they were upset about what the Condon report did. It destroyed the idea of a government UFO research entity (something that Hynek and McDonald were trying to establish). One might think that they had an axe to grind when he stated the government should get out of the UFO business. Condon was right that this would have been a huge waste of taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

(Sigh) I suppose I no longer expect honesty from you – I also stated WHY Condon’s summary was not credible or objective. Anyone able to read and understand the report can understand why – simply because his summary is entirely at odds with the research contained within the report (which means he did not take into account the report when writing his summary), there is also the little document called the “trick” memo (in which it is stated that the conclusions had been reached even before ANY research had taken place – and remember this is a matter of undisputed record) – as is Condon’s writing of the summary BEFORE the research was completed. ALL that is a matter of undisputed public record. For you to claim it is just “UFOlogists” who say this is being (to be polite) disingenuous at the very least!

All of that being undisputed and on the public record one might begin to wonder at YOUR motivations Astrophotpgrapher. Certainly they are not those of a genuine sceptical enquiring mind. You present as merely obscuring evidence behind a wall of deliberate misinterpretations and half-truths. Shame on you.

You state in reference to the “trick” memo:
Astrophotographer said:
A document that was taken completely out of context by somebody who was not in charge of the project at the time. Talk about slinging mud.
Click to expand...
Oh? …and precisely HOW was it taken “out of context” then? The author of the memo was an integral part of the project and we KNOW (as in it is undisputed in the public domain) that Condon’s thinking was in accord with the sentiments expressed in the memo. Again you are trying to rewrite history – just like the Nazi sympathisers do with the holocaust.

Astrophotographer said:
Maybe in your mind DR. pseudoscience. Do you really believe that NONE of the distinguished scientists on the panel read any of the report? Is this what you truly believe? I think their opinions were made clear based on what they read and not what you think they read.
Click to expand...
Now who is mudslinging? First, for the AIAA to call the report “creditable” and “objective” is at odds with what we KNOW about the spurious methods and motivations of Condon. Second, all I know about what the AIAA did or did not read is that the AIAA MUST NOT have read the case histories in Condon because 30% of them had “unexplained” as a conclusion. That is 30% of cases researched in Condon were UFOs! Where does the AIAA mention THAT statistic? If they were TRULY objective, then they would have NOTED such a significant figure. That they did NOT, tells us a great deal about their own spurious motivations.

Astrophotographer said:
The density measurements made by Hartmann (which were the linchpin at putting it as a genuine "craft") were demonstrated to be flawed by Sheaffer and Dr. Hartmann agreed. Couple that with the distinct shadows which indicated a morning shoot instead of an evening shoot and there is now reason to doubt the authenticity of the photographs. It is more likely a hoax than a real craft floating over the Trent's farm.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you read the more professional, extensive and more detailed analysis of the photos (and the case) by a qualified military optics engineer at (http://www.nicap.org/cufospaper2.htm) for a second opinion.

Astrophotographer said:
Give me a break. Feel free to present your one case that proves UFO reports represent alien spaceships. So far you have failed in that effort. which means there are none. Over fifty years of research and nothing has been produced. What does that say about UFOs?
Click to expand...
I have explained many times that you ask the impossible – and it would be impossible no matter WHAT scientific discipline you ask it of. In NO discipline will a single case (observation, data point, etc) be sufficient to “prove” anything! Rather it is the body of evidence, built up over time that lends support to a hypothesis. More, no body of evidence will ever be sufficient to definitively “prove” the hypothesis, because there will always remain a chance, no matter how remote that chance might seem to us today, that a single observation will destroy the hypothesis entirely – no matter HOW well established we think it is today! THAT is just the nature of the world (universe) we live in. THAT is the nature of science and we just have to learn to live with such constraints on our knowledge.

What I am doing is building a body of evidence by presenting cases that defy mundane explanation. It is of course only your own (and that the UFO debunkers posting herein) opinion that I have failed in that endeavour. Of course no-one has provided a reasonable explanation for the Tehran sighting, but I am willing to move on and explore the Father Gill case. Perhaps you have a reasonable mundane explanation for THAT case? No? I thought not.

Astrophotographer said:
What is the "evidence"? Some stories told about a UFO? Where are the photographs? Where are the physical traces? Where are the independent sightings of the UFO from another location with associated angles of elevation, azimuth, angular size speed? Where are these in Father Gill's testimony? You take a story about Gill seeing strange objects and "creatures" and make it sound like it is proof. It is not proof and, as evidence, it lacks anything that can be analyzed (other than the date and time). Feel free to demonstrate how you evaluated this "evidence". Don't give us any links and do not cut and paste from the UFO websites. Tell us how you "scientifically" analyzed this case? Did you determine the azimuth, angle of elevation, angular size and speed? If so, how? Did you determine the actual physical size of the craft, it's beings, and the speed of the craft? If so, how? Feel free to give us this scientific data that is reliable and can be duplicated by others.
Click to expand...
Strangely…you never ask these questions when someone proposes (for example) “blimp” as an “explanation” for Rogue River – even though the “explanation” does NOT fit with what the witnesses observed, NOR does it fit with the historical data on blimps at the time… so WHY Astrophotographer do you not apply the same rigorous standards to your own side of the argument that you do to the UFO researcher side?

Besides, many of the things you ask, while sounding “scientific” and worthy of inclusion in any analysis, are actually irrelevant to the cases under examination. Who actually CARES what the angular speed was in the Father Gill case (by the way - it was ZERO) …there were also 38 other witnesses to the event… and these objects were not “strange” as you mean it … the people involved saw a silent, brightly lit, (presumably technological) hovering craft from which distinctly human like beings interacted with the people on the ground on two separate occasions. Those are the pertinent details. It is those details that need to be examined and explored. What you are asking for is peripheral information – some of which is available, but even if it were not, the primary details are extremely puzzling.

Paul2 said:
"prob•a•bil•i•ty . . . 3. Statistics, a. the likelihood of an occurrence . . ." (Source: The Random House College Dictionary)

This is too easy.
Click to expand...
Sigh… I suppose I should have known that wilful misinterpretation of what I state is to be expected.

YOU used the term “probability” to mean likelihoods (at least) greater than 50% (meaning more likely than not). It was THIS that I was questioning. Specifically HOW you arrived at such likelihood estimate.

In another way, the term “probability” has no intrinsic VALUE, nor does the dictionary definition you supply. But you DID attach a value to it. I simply asked (and ask again) how you arrived at such a value judgment.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
Using his methodology and the quality of evidence he is willing to accept, he has no choice but to accept Tinker Bell as real. Not if he wants to maintain consistency in his belief in UFO as aliens using the same quality of evidence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should check out the link posted by Correa Neto for a fuller explanation (obviously he could not get past the fact of the mere mention of fairies - but perhaps YOU can get past it to the underlying argument?).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5261196&highlight=elves#post5261196

...and of course it is only the UFO debunkers that deal with Disney characters such as "Tinker Bell" - and they do this because to deal with the REAL world, they would have to accept science and logic, and such things are an anathema to their peculiar belief system (which seem to contain a belief in UFOs as ETs and a belief in such things as Tinker Bell being a historical figure and Unicorns being real, etc..)
 
I stated:
” Simply, each case must be examined on its own merits.”
And
”… each case adding toward a body of evidence that is suggestive of an end conclusion.”
RoboTimbo said:
One of these things is not like the other.
Click to expand...
Actually the two statements are not mutually exclusive. The one precedes the other in logical order… what’s your point?

I also stated:
” I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. All you have to do is ... “disprove" the cases I present.”
RoboTimbo said:
Logic wasn't taught at your scientist school?
Click to expand...
Perhaps neither logic NOR the scientific method was taught at yours? It is a well known (although painful to accept by many) principle of science that NO amount of evidence can add to a definitive proof, BUT a single case (counterexample) CAN definitively disprove an hypothesis (or chain of logic).

Want a chance to rethink your statements above?
 
Rramjet said:
I stated (in part):
” …BUT a single case (counterexample) CAN definitively disprove an hypothesis (or chain of logic).”


Ummm... what exactly does Campeche disprove?
Click to expand...

Your question should have been, "What is it a counter example of?" since that was the subject.
 
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!)
Click to expand...
Is this your evidence? That's pathetic. There are a hundred explanations for that episode including a hoax, lies, and wishful thinking. But the better one would be a hydrogen balloon with a deck for travelers.
UFOs are just slightly more advanced than Earth technology, I wonder why.
 
amb said:
Is this your evidence? That's pathetic. There are a hundred explanations for that episode including a hoax, lies, and wishful thinking. But the better one would be a hydrogen balloon with a deck for travelers.
UFOs are just slightly more advanced than Earth technology, I wonder why.
Click to expand...

...or perhaps you simply have NOT read ANYTHING about the case at all. People really should familiarise themselves with at least the basics of any case before proposing nonsense propositions. They merely tend to embarrass themselves if they don't.

“William B. Gill, an Anglican priest with a mission in Bosinai, Papas New Guinea, observed craft-like UFOs -- one with Humanoid figures on top – on two consecutive evenings, June 26-27, 1959. About twenty-five natives, including teachers and medical technicians, also observed the phenomena. They "signaled" the humanoids and received an apparent response. This was one of sixty UFO sightings within a few weeks in the New Guinea area.”

(…)

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

(…)

Large UFO stationary, others (about three) like disks coming and going through clouds

(…)

In a signed statement, the witnesses agreed that the object was circular, had a wide base and a narrower upper "deck," had something like legs beneath it, at times produced a shaft of blue light which shone upward into the sky at an angle of about 45 degrees, an that four humanoid figures appeared on top.

(…)

"As we watched it," Father Gill said, "men came out from this object and appeared on top of it, on what seemed to be a deck on top of the huge disk.

(…)

Father Gill described the movements of the objects, especially the smaller disks, as very erratic.

(…)

When the large object disappeared at 9:30 P.M., Father Gill said it made a slight wavering motion, then suddenly shot away at tremendous speed, changing color to red and blue-green, and disappeared across the bay, vanishing. No sound was heard throughout. (http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)​

And from an interview with Father Gill:

(Father Gill): Until my sighting I thought UFOs were a figment of
imagination or some electrical phenomenon.

(…)

Q: Did the object - appear solid? Metallic? Gaseous?
Transparent?

A: Well, it appeared solid, certainly not transparent nor gaseous; we just assume it was metallic from our own experience of things that travel and carry men.

Q: Was any sound perceptible?

A: No.

(…)

Q: What was its speed in flight?

A: Much faster than a passenger plane.

(…)

Q: Were there any witnesses to this?

A: yes, there were thirty-eight of us.

(…)

A: “…but as we watched it, men came out from this object, and appeared
on top of it on what seemed to be a deck on top of the huge disk … And then later all those witnesses who are quite sure that our records were right, they agreed with them, and saw these men at the same time as I did - they were able to sign their names as witnesses of what we assume was human activity or beings of some sort on the object itself ... but as we watched it, men came out from this object, and appeared on top of it on what seemed to be a deck on top of the huge disk.

(…)

Q: What did the craft look like?

A: Like a disk with smaller round superstructure, then again on top of that another kind of superstructure - round rather like the bridge on a boat. Underneath it had four legs in pairs pointing diagonally downwards these appeared to be fixed, not retractable, and looked the same on the two nights - rather like tripods.

(…)

Q: Did the machine cause any noise?

A: No engine noise heard at any time by anyone during the whole
series of sightings. ((http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)​

Perhaps amb, you would like a chance to rethink your statements in light of the evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom