UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

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…

Although I really can't believe we're still having to have this discussion, I'll bite.

Given what is commonly accepted as everyday life, we have two claims here:
1) I ate fish and chips last night
2) I saw an alien space craft last night

Now the first statement already has credibility because we know that people eat fish and chips and the statement it's self does not challenge science's understanding of the world.
The second statement however, is quite extraordinary and as such, would require a better quality of evidence to support it.
For the first statement (if anyone challenged it) I could take them to the fish and chip shop and allow the owner to verify that he did indeed sell me fish and chips the previous night. He may be able to supply CCTV footage of the event. Case closed, no reason to doubt.
For the Second statement (that needs to be challenged) I could maybe supply a photo, video, or try to find other people who also saw the Alien craft. That would be enough for the UFOlogists (infact just my story would usually be enough for them), but bearing in mind this claim challenges scientific understanding, science requires much more and a higher quality of evidence than a story and some blurry photos.

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.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what the word extraordinary means in this context?
Extraordinary Claim: The Earth revolves around the sun
Extraordinary Evidence: Look through my telescope.
Result: Our perception is changed because of the extraordinary nature of the evidence being able to convince us that the claim was valid.

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!

It is indeed extraordinary... but you fail to understand, it is not evidence.
It is nothing more than a series of extraordinary anecdotes, unvalidated.

 

[GeeMack]

It is indeed extraordinary... but you fail to understand, it is not evidence.

Read it again, Rramjet. It is not evidence. By the way, have you asked one of the science teachers there at your high school to explain things like the scientific method, burden of proof, and what actually constitutes evidence? You'd be much less inclined to look the fool if you had even a rudimentary understanding of those things.

 

[SnidelyW]

I will try and explain extraordinary evidence and why not all hypothesis are equal.

Lets say we have a UFO case, and eyewitnesses give three different interpretations: alien, dinosaur and glider. Of the glider we know that those exist in the present day, of the dinosaur we know that they have existed, and of the alien we have nothing.

Extraordinary evidence is needed to make them equal before we investigate it further. Or we might need to investigate the chance of it being Jesus or fairies (highly counterproductive). This means that for the dinosaur hypothesis we need solid evidence that they exist in the present day. For the alien case we need evidence of that they exist and that they exist in the here and now.

Rramjet was suppose to do the latter, but he has failed epically.

An efficient and cogent explanation. Thank you. I agree with you on all points, but this is where our opinions begin to diverge, it seems.
Do you think people who have seen a UFO, taken the time and trouble to report it, risk social ridicule in doing so, and await some sort of explanation to address what they saw should be told their observations just aren't 'extraordinary' enough?

What would you say to the Rear Admiral, USN, who signed his name to this document? Is an official 'Memorandum For Record' from the NMCC not an extraordinary event?
http://www.nicap.org/760121cannondoc.htm

It seems I find the mere existence of a document like the above extraordinary, and you do not.

 

[SnidelyW]

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.

I cannot speak for the site. I listed it as a database where some of the sightings had been collected, and made no claim of it being a scientific site.

 

[Stray Cat]

What would you say to the Rear Admiral, USN, who signed his name to this document? Is an official 'Memorandum For Record' from the NMCC not an extraordinary event?
http://www.nicap.org/760121cannondoc.htm

It seems I find the mere existence of a document like the above extraordinary, and you do not.

There is a world (if not a whole universe) of difference between a UFO report and an Alien Space Craft report. The 'extraordinaryness' would come from the otherworldly significance placed on a sighting of a flying object that wasn't unidentified.

 

[wollery]

I cannot speak for the site. I listed it as a database where some of the sightings had been collected, and made no claim of it being a scientific site.

A database that isn't actually usable, as the author admits, because it's written in an obsolete code.

There are plenty of database formats that it could be transferred into, with little trouble, and yet he hasn't done that.

He also states that it is "a 20 year research effort", and yet he has done, as far as I can see, no actual research.

So in fact the site is pretty much useless.

 

[tsig]

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.

Father gill was seeing alcoholic hallucinations as proof just look at his name:

"The gill (pronounced /ˈdʒɪl/[1]) is a unit of measurement for volume equal to a quarter of a pint.[2] It is no longer in common use, except in regard to the volume of alcoholic spirits "

All you have to do is connect the dots.

 

[tsig]

It seems I find the mere existence of a document like the above extraordinary, and you do not.

I guess a filing cabinet full of documents must fill you with awe.

 

[GeeMack]

Hey SnidelyW, care to try this one again, or will you again demonstrate that you're as ignorant as your pal, Rramjet?

Regarding that thing you claim you saw that apparently intrigued you enough to get you or keep you interested in UFOs and/or aliens all these years, yes or no, do you have any evidence that the thing you saw was some particular thing? The answer should be formed as such...

No, there is no evidence that the thing I saw was some particular thing.

... or ...​

Yes, there is evidence that the thing I saw was some particular thing.​

See. Nothing to it. Any eleven year old kid could do it. Can you, SnidelyW?

Would that be "yes", or "no", or "I choose to be ignorant"?

 

[SnidelyW]

Wouldn't you think that UFO enthusiasts would begin to demand that the only evidence accepted now, after over 50 years, needs to be solid? The kind Rramjet is bringing to the table is fine for an enthusiast who needs justification to do some investigation. Do you think it should be enough to call "alien" at this point?

I agree with you. I don't like the "extraordinary evidence" phrase. UFO enthusiasts spend too much energy squabbling about what it means and not enough bringing any forth. Would you agree that "extraordinary claims require more than mundane evidence"? That would mean that no anecdotal evidence, even your own, would be enough to declare "alien".

I will answer your question with a question. Do you think humanity would be best served if all the people who observe, video, photograph, or otherwise document a UFO sighting in the future sat on their claims and said nothing to anyone?

As for mundane evidence, I believe societal pressure and the preponderance of computer generated hoax images have pretty much limited the impact of most claims of observation, or photo or video.
What would your relatives say, or do, if you produced a photo you took of a UFO? There might be interest for an hour or so, and then everyone would continue their own lives, and some may even suggest you faked it. I suspect interest would wane quickly, so in a way, society in general is heading towards the 'more than mundane' standard all on its own.

 

[SnidelyW]

Hey SnidelyW, care to try this one again, or will you again demonstrate that you're as ignorant as your pal, Rramjet?




Would that be "yes", or "no", or "I choose to be ignorant"?

Actually, none of your options.

I choose not to respond to insulting behaviour.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I will answer your question with a question. Do you think humanity would be best served if all the people who observe, video, photograph, or otherwise document a UFO sighting in the future sat on their claims and said nothing to anyone?

As for mundane evidence, I believe societal pressure and the preponderance of computer generated hoax images have pretty much limited the impact of most claims of observation, or photo or video.
What would your relatives say, or do, if you produced a photo you took of a UFO? There might be interest for an hour or so, and then everyone would continue their own lives, and some may even suggest you faked it. I suspect interest would wane quickly, so in a way, society in general is heading towards the 'more than mundane' standard all on its own.

That doesn't seem to be happening. Look at the photographs and anecdotal evidence that is rife on the internet and brought forward by true believers like Rramjet.

So, will you answer my question now?

 

[SnidelyW]

There is a world (if not a whole universe) of difference between a UFO report and an Alien Space Craft report. The 'extraordinaryness' would come from the otherworldly significance placed on a sighting of a flying object that wasn't unidentified.

The difference between our viewpoints on this rests on extraordinary, once again. I think the mere admission of a UFO, described by security personnel in detail, in a memorandum, is extraordinary, and you do not.

I respect your views, and I infer you have done much research on the UFO/alien topic, so if you can enlighten me, I welcome your definition of extraordinary evidence for the existence of an alien civilization visiting our planet in UFO's.

 

[Marduk]

so in a way, society in general is heading towards the 'more than mundane' standard all on its own.

I disagree, society is moving away from the scientific dark ages. 100 years ago you could make a good living by claiming you could channel dead tibetans and by kicking a table in a darkened room. Thesedays people are more aware of the facts. This translates to UFO's being much more likely to be something mundane than in the seventies when every UFO was regarded as a possible alien and when ufo cults were springing up all over the place praying for our space brothers to supply a cure for cancer and to end world famine

People are more educated thesedays Snideley, thats all.

 

[SnidelyW]

That doesn't seem to be happening. Look at the photographs and anecdotal evidence that is rife on the internet and brought forward by true believers like Rramjet.

So, will you answer my question now?

It's a question I have been attempting to sort out for the last 30 odd years, and it's why I am hip deep in this forum.

It may seem an easy answer for you, but it's not for me. To admit that what I see with my own eyes cannot constitute evidence is a tough pill to swallow.

I agree with the logic of Dr. Sagan's statement and appreciate the neccessity of solid, verifiable, and repeatable tests to validate a hypothesis. However, I am wrestling with thousands and thousands of eyewitness accounts by people from all walks of life who have their own experiences in observing a UFO. I respect their integrity and their innate truthfulness, and that is what I am having trouble negating as well- their accuracy of observation.

If I read this forum right, skeptics would have me embrace only the most bulletproof, rock solid, unassailable pieces of evidence as proof, of which they claim none has appeared yet.

 

[Rramjet]

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).

Okay sure... I admit to an error of judgement here. I am willing to admit it could be a balloon and that it does not shape shift. I am therefore also willing to withdraw the statements I made in drawing a comparison between Pirouzi's "starfish" shape and this video. It was an error in judgement for me to make the claim and I therefore withdraw it in deference to the closer analysis conducted.

I also therefore thank you Correa Neto for taking the time to actually have a closer look at the video.

 

[SnidelyW]

I disagree, society is moving away from the scientific dark ages. 100 years ago you could make a good living by claiming you could channel dead tibetans and by kicking a table in a darkened room. Thesedays people are more aware of the facts. This translates to UFO's being much more likely to be something mundane than in the seventies when every UFO was regarded as a possible alien and when ufo cults were springing up all over the place praying for our space brothers to supply a cure for cancer and to end world famine

People are more educated thesedays Snideley, thats all.

My point was that it may take more and more sensational UFO events to really make the public pay attention. Although the subject is of interest to most, only a small percentage pay it more than a passing interest. Agreed?

Are they more educated regarding UFO's or are they becoming somewhat bored with all the hoaxes?

 

[Marduk]

It's a question I have been attempting to sort out for the last 30 odd years, and it's why I am hip deep in this forum.

It may seem an easy answer for you, but it's not for me. To admit that what I see with my own eyes cannot constitute evidence is a tough pill to swallow.

I agree with the logic of Dr. Sagan's statement and appreciate the neccessity of solid, verifiable, and repeatable tests to validate a hypothesis. However, I am wrestling with thousands and thousands of eyewitness accounts by people from all walks of life who have their own experiences in observing a UFO. I respect their integrity and their innate truthfulness, and that is what I am having trouble negating as well- their accuracy of observation.

If I read this forum right, skeptics would have me embrace only the most bulletproof, rock solid, unassailable pieces of evidence as proof, of which they claim none has appeared yet.

You have it all mixed up, people are not reporting Alien spaceships and then struggling with the reality of that,. they are reporting that they don't know what they have seen. Hence the term UFO. Rramjet is of the belief that every UFO must be an alien, which is why his research on this subject is worthless. He has no objectivity. If all youre saying is you saw a UFO, why is it a problem for you, if what youre claiming you saw was an alien space ship it would be different, you yourself would have needed to have the evidence to believe that. As you don't......

I saw a UFO in 1995, I was just out walking with a girl and I saw a very bright star that seemed out of place as it was much brighter than anything else in the sky, I pointed it out to her and as we watched it, it shot off and covered half the vault of the sky in a split second. But I don't think it was an alien space ship. I just think it was a UFO. Something that I can't identify because I am not aware of all the facts of plentary phenomena.
I do believe in Alien life, I just have never seen any evidence that they've set foot here, and its not like I havent been looking. If there was any credible evidence it would only be a small step for me to accept it, but until then..........

 

[Marduk]

Are they more educated regarding UFO's or are they becoming somewhat bored with all the hoaxes?

They are more educated regarding outer space, you can blame sci fi for that, most of the small percentage of people who show an interest bother to research to the level when the plethora of hoaxing becomes apparent.

You could probably pin down a lot of the indifference to Star Wars, each movie starts off "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away", thats not local or recent is it. Far more people are interested in star wars than the idea of the reality of Alien life

 

[SnidelyW]

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.

To address the memory question- why can people who have seen a UFO- 10, 20, 30 years later, given a paper and pencil, draw exactly what they saw? They may have witnessed it for several seconds, several minutes, or several hours, but posess infallible memories when it comes to recounting every detail of their sighting?