Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
But it can't be a balloon! I am sure we will now get all sorts of reasons for it not being a balloon. Is this how a scientist investigates UFO videos and reports?
- Status
But it can't be a balloon! I am sure we will now get all sorts of reasons for it not being a balloon. Is this how a scientist investigates UFO videos and reports?
My flock of geese story perfectly illustrates this point. If the geese had not circled around, I would, to this very day, be able to describe a huge, silent, triangular shaped craft. I would probably have added very impressive details to that sighting as the years went by.
From the few psychology courses I have taken, I would say perception memory, with a dose of wanting to believe, are the culprits responsible.
The way the eyes receive images and the way the brain processes that information are imperfect (to say the least). Then there is memory. It has been shown time and time again, how faulty memory can be.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Bolded the operative component there. It's clear from the willful ignorance and the complete and intentional refusal to be objective and/or skeptical about it, Rramjet and SnidelyW may continue to wallow in the happy little land of UFO woo for a long time to come.
I know when I was a fan of this stuff, back when I was maybe 13 or 14, it was exciting to think about the implications of aliens bopping around the Earth in various exotic craft, defying all sorts of Earthbound physical explanations. But when I got into high school, probably about Rramjet's age, I realized that being honest with myself required me to answer what were then tough questions, those simple yes/no questions that SnidelyW and Rramjet cannot bring themselves to answer.
It would wreck their fun fantasy if they were to admit, honestly and objectively, that in all the cases mentioned, the Rogue River event, SnidelyW's sighting, the Iran case, the Father Gill example, etc., there is no evidence that the thing seen was some particular thing. And then where would they be? They wouldn't be here with all these people engaging them in conversations about their nifty alien stuff, and they'd have to fill their time with a new hobby. Maybe one that involves legitimate science or skepticism where actual thinking comes into play. But probably not. That's too much work for some people. So they'll talk and talk, and play the junior UFO researcher game as long as they can find a forum full of playmates. And when everyone here tires of these kids, they'll move along to some other forum where they can talk and talk and talk and...
It seems that a clarification of my position is in order.
In my OP I claimed that:
Of course no single case can provide “definitive proof” of anything. But individual cases CAN and DO provide evidence for “aliens” and together, cases add to a body of evidence for both UFOs and “aliens”.
If you remember my stated objective here was first to provide cases which were exemplars of evidence for UFOs, then present cases that were exemplars for evidence of “aliens” – in a step by step fashion, each case “building” on the last.
In doing this the first two cases (Rogue River and White Sands) represented evidence for UFOs. Then I presented the Tehran case. This case may seem problematic because while it constitutes evidence for UFOs, it is merely suggestive of “aliens” -insofar as it is a UFO that exhibits “intelligent control”. Now rather than claim this case directly as evidence for “aliens” I allowed it to be a mere stepping stone – a kind of “halfway” case. Thus when I stated:
It is true statement and not inconsistent with my original objective.
Then with the Father Gill case, while it ramps up the “heat” a little more (insofar as it is a case that now directly involves observed “beings”), it nevertheless is still a UFO case - and given that the “beings” were distinctly “humanoid” (to the observers perhaps even indistinguishable from “ordinary” humans), I again did not wish to press it directly as evidence for “aliens”. Thus when I stated:
It is again a true statement and not inconsistent with my original objectives. Thus my statement:
…is ALSO true and not inconsistent with my stated objectives. Simply I have NOT as yet presented cases which I consider to be direct evidence for “aliens”.
However, if you were all “on the ball” you all WILL remember that early on I ALSO presented the Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955). Here I DO claim a case that does provide evidence for “aliens”. Now of course some here will claim that owls can withstand repeated shotgun and rifle blasts and then come back for more (while losing no blood or feathers), but I like to confine my analyses and assessments to the real world.
Now I turn to the UFO debunker’s claim that they do NOT deny that UFOs exist. They think that there is a subtle loophole in the definition of the term here that they can utilise to deflect the UFO proponents claims of their denial of UFOs. However they are mistaken in that assessment.
UFO debunkers claim that UFOs are actually misinterpreted mundane events. For them “UFO” actually means “UMFO” (Unidentified Mundane Flying Object). That is, when UFO debunkers use the term “UFO” they have an a priori belief that it is actually a mundane object (as yet unidentified). But to enter the argument with an a priori belief of this nature is NOT a skeptical position and most certainly it is NOT a scientific position.
Alternatively, when I use the term “UFO”, I attach no a priori beliefs (neither mundane NOR alien). However, once it is established that no plausible mundane explanation is forthcoming, then I can hypothesise what it could mean. It COULD mean “alien”, it COULD mean “secret government technology”, it COULD even mean “hoax, misinterpretation, delusion, etc”. This IS a position that is both skeptical and in accord with scientific principles.
The key word I make use of in my hypotheticals is plausible. If it is in fact a misinterpretation (hoax, delusion) then a reasonable set of circumstances MUST be able to be described which would show HOW it can be so. Similarly with “secret technology”. However, given that the cases I am presenting contain characteristics that make it implausible that mundane or human technological explanations are the answer, by definition the explanation becomes “alien”.
Astute readers will note that I use “alien” in quotation marks. This is because I have no evidence that “ET” is the culprit (unlike, paradoxically, the UFO debunkers, who seem to insist that ET IS the only meaning possible). It might NOT be ET – but it is certainly “alien” to our way of conceptualising reality and the world around us.
In summary, the UFO debunkers have tried to show my position is inconsistent. It is not. Second, the UFO debunkers have tried to claim that they do NOT deny UFOs exist. They patently DO deny the existence of UFOs.
In my OP I claimed that:
“I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information.”
Of course no single case can provide “definitive proof” of anything. But individual cases CAN and DO provide evidence for “aliens” and together, cases add to a body of evidence for both UFOs and “aliens”.
If you remember my stated objective here was first to provide cases which were exemplars of evidence for UFOs, then present cases that were exemplars for evidence of “aliens” – in a step by step fashion, each case “building” on the last.
In doing this the first two cases (Rogue River and White Sands) represented evidence for UFOs. Then I presented the Tehran case. This case may seem problematic because while it constitutes evidence for UFOs, it is merely suggestive of “aliens” -insofar as it is a UFO that exhibits “intelligent control”. Now rather than claim this case directly as evidence for “aliens” I allowed it to be a mere stepping stone – a kind of “halfway” case. Thus when I stated:
“For example, I HAVE stated that the Tehran case suggests intelligent control of a UFO which in turn allows one to hypothesise “aliens” – but I have NEVER claimed that it is evidence for aliens.”
It is true statement and not inconsistent with my original objective.
Then with the Father Gill case, while it ramps up the “heat” a little more (insofar as it is a case that now directly involves observed “beings”), it nevertheless is still a UFO case - and given that the “beings” were distinctly “humanoid” (to the observers perhaps even indistinguishable from “ordinary” humans), I again did not wish to press it directly as evidence for “aliens”. Thus when I stated:
” In the Father Gill case we have “beings” associated with a UFO. Again I have NEVER claimed this to be direct evidence for “aliens” – merely that it is suggestive of such an interpretation.”
It is again a true statement and not inconsistent with my original objectives. Thus my statement:
” As you well know, I have NEVER claimed that the cases I have so far presented represent aliens.
…is ALSO true and not inconsistent with my stated objectives. Simply I have NOT as yet presented cases which I consider to be direct evidence for “aliens”.
However, if you were all “on the ball” you all WILL remember that early on I ALSO presented the Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955). Here I DO claim a case that does provide evidence for “aliens”. Now of course some here will claim that owls can withstand repeated shotgun and rifle blasts and then come back for more (while losing no blood or feathers), but I like to confine my analyses and assessments to the real world.
Now I turn to the UFO debunker’s claim that they do NOT deny that UFOs exist. They think that there is a subtle loophole in the definition of the term here that they can utilise to deflect the UFO proponents claims of their denial of UFOs. However they are mistaken in that assessment.
UFO debunkers claim that UFOs are actually misinterpreted mundane events. For them “UFO” actually means “UMFO” (Unidentified Mundane Flying Object). That is, when UFO debunkers use the term “UFO” they have an a priori belief that it is actually a mundane object (as yet unidentified). But to enter the argument with an a priori belief of this nature is NOT a skeptical position and most certainly it is NOT a scientific position.
Alternatively, when I use the term “UFO”, I attach no a priori beliefs (neither mundane NOR alien). However, once it is established that no plausible mundane explanation is forthcoming, then I can hypothesise what it could mean. It COULD mean “alien”, it COULD mean “secret government technology”, it COULD even mean “hoax, misinterpretation, delusion, etc”. This IS a position that is both skeptical and in accord with scientific principles.
The key word I make use of in my hypotheticals is plausible. If it is in fact a misinterpretation (hoax, delusion) then a reasonable set of circumstances MUST be able to be described which would show HOW it can be so. Similarly with “secret technology”. However, given that the cases I am presenting contain characteristics that make it implausible that mundane or human technological explanations are the answer, by definition the explanation becomes “alien”.
Astute readers will note that I use “alien” in quotation marks. This is because I have no evidence that “ET” is the culprit (unlike, paradoxically, the UFO debunkers, who seem to insist that ET IS the only meaning possible). It might NOT be ET – but it is certainly “alien” to our way of conceptualising reality and the world around us.
In summary, the UFO debunkers have tried to show my position is inconsistent. It is not. Second, the UFO debunkers have tried to claim that they do NOT deny UFOs exist. They patently DO deny the existence of UFOs.
Ovni à niteroi, brésil 30déc 1992
There have been claims that this object is merely a balloon ("balão estrela" to be precise) and that it does not display any “shape shifting ability” (as Pirouzi described).
Perhaps people should look CAREFULLY at the video then. Look for example at the 1:00 mark and compare that with the 1:21 mark. Tell me now that it does not shape shift!
(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t3s0_ovni-a-niteroi-bresil-30dec-1992_tech)
There have been claims that this object is merely a balloon ("balão estrela" to be precise) and that it does not display any “shape shifting ability” (as Pirouzi described).
Perhaps people should look CAREFULLY at the video then. Look for example at the 1:00 mark and compare that with the 1:21 mark. Tell me now that it does not shape shift!
(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t3s0_ovni-a-niteroi-bresil-30dec-1992_tech)
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It does not shape shift.
There ya go. Anything else?
There ya go. Anything else?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Yes or no, Rramjet, do you have any evidence that this thing was some particular thing? If not, and if you're trying to use it to support your claim that aliens exist, it is an argument from ignorance and incredulity. I'm sure you'll agree. Of course.
SnidelyW, take note. Rramjet does not have any evidence that the thing discussed here was some particular thing. Also note that he will remain steadfast in his ignorance and refuse to acknowledge that the question was even asked, much less that he has no evidence.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
In summary, the skeptics in this Forum, none of whom are 'UFO debunkers' have successfully shown that you have no credibility.
Second, the skeptics in this Forum, none of whom are 'UFO debunkers', have never denied the existence of UFOs.
Who do you think you're addressing with the above post, Rramjet? It really does give the appearance of chattering away to yourself, and it's not a good look, really.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Easy then... just establish that there are no plausible mundane explanations for the UFO reports you are posting.
The problem being that in 103 pages, you haven't been able to do that without simply denying out of hand, the very plausible explanations given.
PS: The Brazilian balloon didn't shape shift... it may have altered it's angle to the camera slightly... but that's hardly shapeshifting otherwise I'm also a shape shifter.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
Is there any branch of science that would work in the manner Rramjet suggests, that you take a lot of evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis and combine it so it does? I'm having trouble thinking of an example where this would be acceptable methodology.
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
That's the simplest of all explanations, but UFO believers tend to prefer a more complicated one. The magical thinking in action.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Nick Park takes a few shapeless blobs of ambiguity and puts them together to make something where the whole is much greater than the sum of it's individual parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAffJiYDpnM
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Pseudo science works like that, though I don't think its a legitimate branch of real science, more like a twig
Again the UFO debunkers deliberately obfuscate the subtleties in research on human perception. Research has found that, while prone to error (of specific and explicable type), humans are actually very good at identifying what they see. See for example (http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cach...erception+of+objects&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au).
For the UFO debunkers to claim that human perception is fallible and therefore anything UFO reports have to offer is not admissible as evidence is primarily an extremely simplistic assessment of the extant research – showing that the UFO debunkers making the claims clearly have not understood the research. Theirs is a peculiarly “folk-psychology” point of view. They take the headline “Human Perception Can be Fallible” and turn that into “Human Perception is ALWAYS Fallible”. This is an utterly erroneous assessment of the conclusions from perceptual research studies.
For example, UFO debunkers like to cite the research of Elizabeth Loftus concerning eyewitness testimony as being relevant to UFO sightings. However, if one carefully examines that literature, one immediately notices that it is the minute details of eyewitness testimony that were in error. For example in the identification of perpetrators of a crime, it is merely in distinguishing one man from another, of one type of car from another, and so on, it is NOT a case of claiming that a man was a dog, and NOT that the car was a bicycle…and so on. Yet the UFO debunkers want to claim that men ARE mistaken for dogs and cars ARE mistaken for bicycles and so on… and THIS is NOT what the research shows. Simply, the UFO debunkers take the conclusions of the research and in a “folk-psychology” way extrapolate them to circumstances that do not apply.
On the limitations of UFO typology:
There are many unfounded assumptions here. Your statement above represents the parroting of a mere UFO debunker faith-based belief. It (again) represents a “folk” perception of what is really occurring. If you have ANY evidence for the veracity of this statement you will present it. I will give you a chance to do so.
If you like to deny the possibilities as revealed by theoretical physics - then you would still have us living in caves, staring at our shadows on the wall wondering what it could all mean – so go right ahead. I prefer to think that theoretical physics is a valuable means of advancing our knowledge. UFO debunkers want to stultify our imagination of what might be possible, tying it down, constraining it to ONLY those things that we already know. This is the type of thinking that had Einstein famously (but unfortunately for him) declaring that “God does not play dice”! and we all know how THAT panned out for him!
Michio Kaku? He has expounded upon some visionary theoretical concepts but it seems to me to that call him a “mere” entertainer (as a disparagement) is short-sighted in the extreme and reveals more about the UFO debunker mindset than the nature of the good professor of theoretical physics. He is of the mind that popularising theoretical physics is a good thing. I happen to agree with that approach. Perhaps you would like him instead to conduct his work in secret?
On Condon:
How do you arrive at this estimate? That is, on what evidence do you base you claim here? The fact that Condon’s research scientists could not explain nearly 30% of their cases? Yeah…1.5% (“if not zero”) is easily extrapolated from that figure! LOL.
How exactly does this define “extraordinary evidence”?
“…we have a UFO case…”? No…
“…three different intepretations…”? No…
“…alien, dinosaur and glider…”? No…
“Of the glider we know that those exist in the present day…”? No…
“…of the dinosaur we know that they have existed…”? No…
“…and of the alien we have nothing.”? No…
“Extraordinary evidence is needed to make them equal…”? No… (and what does this mean anyway!?)
…and so on…there is NOTHING in this post that defines “extraordinary evidence”!
It should be simple …there MUST be such a thing as “extraordinary evidence”… shouldn’t there be? After all, Guru Sagan stated as much - so it MUST be true… funny how we cannot define it though… LOL.
Perhaps Stray Cat can help us out?
Ahhh… I see… the “quality of the evidence…” But wait, what makes quality evidence “extraordinary evidence? It is either of sufficient quality to support the argument or it is not… nothing there about “extraordinary”… Still no-one can define “extraordinary evidence”! Stray Cat takes it to mean quality evidence… but “quality” evidence is NOT “extraordinary”. Rather it is distinctly ordinary, in that it is a basic requirement of evidence in the first place if we are to accept it as supporting our arguments.
Stray Cat then goes on to argue that the evidence in UFO cases is not of sufficient quality - and he legitimately may do so. However, he cannot claim that the evidence is not extraordinary enough! To do so is ridiculous! Thus MY claim that Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” statement is utter nonsense remains true!
I have NEVER contended that the eyewitnesses are 100% accurate. Indeed I have pointed out how the inaccuracies in the witness testimony are precisely where research suggests they SHOULD be.
I have also presented a large body of historical evidence to show that (while not impossible) it is highly unlikely that a blimp could have been the culprit - and yet you claim that to be ”handwaving”. I should have known that a UFO debunker simply cannot accept the study of the EVIDENCE as the best way of explicating a case.
As for the misidentification of aircraft in the case… you don’t think that the two witnesses using binoculars could not have identified an aircraft (especially on a clear day with the sun at their backs)? And after viewing with the naked eye, upon using those binoculars claimed that the object then “resolved” itself into a disk shape. Does that not provide ANY clues for you as to the implausibility of the “aircraft” hypothesis? And no noise? Do you realise the distance one can hear them (especially the particularly noisy beasts of the time) even before one can see them…?
It seems to me that I am rejecting your claims based ON the evidence, yet you are claiming things that run counter to the evidence…who IS being more “scientific” in their analysis here…?
On Father Gill:
By scientific I mean we bring to bear research on for example physics and human perception to show how the “craft” defies conventional physics and that the eyewitnesses were (in the absence of conditions that lead to misperceptions) accurate. THAT is what I mean. You on the other hand seem to want to claim that because cases exist where misidentifications HAVE occurred, this necessarily means that, without your describing how the cases relate (in ANY way let alone using past scientific research as a guide) misidentification MUST have occurred in this case as well. It is THIS which constitutes a “faith-based” belief. I use science to support my hypotheses, YOU merely use faith-based belief.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
I'll tell you- it doesn't shape shift.
It seems that for whatever reason you fail to understand the simple concept of perspective (many a post of yours regarding the Rogue River case pointed towards this direction) and also regardind the side effects of overblowing images.
BTW, have you noticed it moves just like a baloon?
Have you noticed how the video ends?
Are you aware of the dates when most of the baloons are launched?
You should look CAREFULLY at the material you present as evidence for intelligencies from outside the limits of what we call nature (whatever that actually means).
Last edited:
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Please prove that any of have stated that people report things they can not identify? That is the definition of a UFO, isn't it? A person sees something they can not identify and then files a report about it. Are we now trying to state that UFOs have different classifications? Those that can be explained, those that possibly can be explained, and those UFOlogists/you claim that can never be explained?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Who exactly are these mysterious 'UFO debunkers' that are claiming these things? You should invite them to post here so we can educate them.
You know that's a strawman, I assume, since you've been using it for so long. When will you realise that it doesn't work, even a little bit.
Well, yeah. Why do you keep doing it?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Feel free how you are able to determine that Father Gill absolutely did not misperceive something. Exactly what criteria did you use to determine how he was 100% accurate when he described little figures on top of a disc-shaped object? How did you scientifically determine that he did not misperceive something that is mundane? What papers on physics and human perception to did you "bring to bear" to analyze the case? If you have nothing to back up your claim other than you trust the testimony as being 100% accurate (something you claim you do not state), then that is what I call "faith based" belief. Using the terms "faith based belief" and UFO "debunkers" are not what I call terms that a REAL scientist would use to describe those with a valid opposing opinion on the subject. All this does is reinforce the idea that you are not a scientist but a UFO proponent that is trying to pretend to be a scientist.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Yep, he's no scientist. He's a high school kid. He doesn't know a thing about this UFO stuff except what he reads in the standard, commonly available material that panders to the believers. He doesn't have the guts to answer my simple yes/no questions. First, a simple yes or no doesn't give him a chance to yap and yap and write a bunch of crap so he can read a pile of his own words. Second, answering it requires that he acknowledge that he's talking out his ass and doesn't actually have anything at all in the way of evidence to support his claim. Woo at it's highest level.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Well, I've looked through a large chunk of that site, and frankly I have no idea what the guy thinks he's showing.
As to it being scientific, there's no hypothesis, no conclusion, and no real aim as far as I could see.
Of course there are going to be periodicities in the data. You get that with almost any data set, including random noise, and this data isn't random noise.
There are also interesting inconsistencies in the data. For instance, he notes that most UK sightings are in residential areas, unlike other countries, such as France, where most sightings are in rural areas, but offers no explanation as to why this might be. Of course, the reason should be bleeding obvious to anyone who has any interest in finding out, but apparently that's a tad difficult for Mr. Hatch.
There's also a distinct lack of real "research". His maps lack any real data from central and eastern Europe, because, "Larry Hatch can't read German, Dutch, Polish etc." What, he couldn't contact the UFO societies that undoubtedly exist in those places and ask them for data in English?!?! How about this lot? I found them with a five minute search, and they have people with PhDs, who I guarantee will speak good English, and will be happy to furnish him with reports from all over central Europe.
His whole idea of this "research" seems to boil down to, "Well, let's just graph as many different things as we can from the reports that are easily available and see if anything looks interesting." That's hardly scientific.
- Status