UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

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?

scientific studies would suggest otherwise, people don't remember the exact details, they just think they do, after time the brain tends to fill in the blanks with what seems appropriate, this operates the same way as the childs game chinese whispers. Then you also have to factor in that they didn't know what they were seeing in the first place, its easier to remember seeing a 747 as a child then drawing a picture of it as an adult because we have a constant frame of reference for what a 747 looks like. Things that aren't normal everyday objects are harder to remember, our brains have evolved to identify what is familiar to us and to attempt to group what isn't into those familiar boxes, when it can't do that it takes a considerable effort to remember any details correctly.

 

[Rramjet]

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?

I am not sure of your point here. That people cannot identify the objects that they report as UFOs is by definition proof that they cannot identify the objects they report as UFOs.

My point is that the UFO debunkers want to have it that all UFO reports CAN be identified (explained) as mundane objects. I simple reiterate that the “U” in UFO stands for “Unidentified”.

There is NO typology of alternate “definitions” (as you try to make out) and there is certainly NO a priori assessment that they MUST be mundane objects. THAT assessment on the UFO debunker's part is simply placing the conclusion of the argument before ANY investigation has been conducted. That a priori assessment is based on a belief system and not on any evidence that might be available from the cases themselves that we are arguing over. In other words, the UFO debunkers begin with a conclusion and work backwards. Thus their approach is neither skeptical NOR scientific.

 

[SnidelyW]

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

Ahh... Infotainment.

 

[Marduk]

I am not sure of your point here. That people cannot identify the objects that they report as UFOs is by definition proof that they cannot identify the objects they report as UFOs.

My point is that the UFO debunkers want to have it that all UFO reports CAN be identified (explained) as mundane objects. I simple reiterate that the “U” in UFO stands for “Unidentified”.

There is NO typology of alternate “definitions” (as you try to make out) and there is certainly NO a priori assessment that they MUST be mundane objects. THAT assessment on the UFO debunker's part is simply placing the conclusion of the argument before ANY investigation has been conducted. That a priori assessment is based on a belief system and not on any evidence that might be available from the cases themselves that we are arguing over. In other words, the UFO debunkers begin with a conclusion and work backwards. Thus their approach is neither skeptical NOR scientific.

right so what we should do then is like you start with a belief based on no evidence that every UFO is an alien spaceship and then work forwards ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Is it just me or does that just seem rather stupid

 

[Access Denied]

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.

BS… you’re entire argument is falsified by that fact that research shows that 95% or more of the people who reported a UFO were unable to identify a mundane object.

How do you explain that?

If you have ANY evidence for the veracity of this statement you will present it. I will give you a chance to do so.

You’ve consistently refused to acknowledge anything I’ve presented so far so what’s the point? No doubt it will just fall on deaf ears again…

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!

Based on your demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic of scientific principals I suspect you don’t… care to explain how you think that tuned out for him?

[and try to keep it short… it’s off topic]

Perhaps you would like him instead to conduct his work in secret?

It would be preferable to misleading people.

How do you arrive at this estimate?

I used a calculator to find 30% of 5%. I take it basic math is not your forte?

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?

Yep, pretty neat trick those scientists pulled don’t you think?

Still no-one can define “extraordinary evidence”!

I gave a rather specific definition of what I would consider “extraordinary “evidence earlier in this thread that I think any scientist would agree with. Care to explain why such basic scientific evidence doesn’t exist?

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.

What exactly are the conditions that lead to misperceptions? Please list them all to demonstrate that you have sufficient knowledge in this area of research to be considered even remotely credible and that you’re not just talking out your ass again…

 

[SnidelyW]

scientific studies would suggest otherwise, people don't remember the exact details, they just think they do, after time the brain tends to fill in the blanks with what seems appropriate, this operates the same way as the childs game chinese whispers. Then you also have to factor in that they didn't know what they were seeing in the first place, its easier to remember seeing a 747 as a child then drawing a picture of it as an adult because we have a constant frame of reference for what a 747 looks like. Things that aren't normal everyday objects are harder to remember, our brains have evolved to identify what is familiar to us and to attempt to group what isn't into those familiar boxes, when it can't do that it takes a considerable effort to remember any details correctly.

Exactly my point. I have seen a series of drawings done over a 30 year period, each drawing of the same witnessed UFO done every 10 years- they're identical. This person can draw at any time the object they saw with 100% recollection. UFO's are hardly familiar, are they?

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Feel free how you are able to determine that Father Gill absolutely did misperceive something. Exactly what criteria did you use to determine how he was not 100% accurate when he described little figures on top of a disc-shaped object? How did you scientifically determine that he did 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% inaccurate (something you claim you do not state), then that is what I call "faith based" belief. Using the terms "faith based belief" and UFO "proponent" are not what I call terms that a REAL skeptic 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 skeptic but a UFO debunker that is trying to pretend to be a skeptic.

 

[Marduk]

Exactly my point. I have seen a series of drawings done over a 30 year period, each drawing of the same witnessed UFO done every 10 years- they're identical. This person can draw at any time the object they saw with 100% recollection. UFO's are hardly familiar, are they?

who ?

 

[Access Denied]

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

Have you ever actually looked at the declassified Project Blue Book files? I can assure you there’s hundreds more just like it… there’s really nothing extraordinary about this particular unsubstantiated report at all.

If you’re curious, I recommend using Footnote to browse or search the files…

Project Blue Book - UFO Investigations

“From Alaska to Arizona, from Florida to Labrador, UFO sightings were reported from within North America and even around the world. They are documented in these files. Very few photographs are included in these records. Instead these are text descriptions of encounters or sightings during the years 1947 to 1969. Names of people involved in the sightings are excluded. They are arranged chronologically, then by location.…”

 

[wollery]

So, Snidely, any chance of you responding to the rest of my post that you said you were going to respond to?

 

[Access Denied]

So, Snidely, any chance of you responding to the rest of my post that you said you were going to respond to?

Good question... I suspect not as he’s ignored several of my responses to him, including the one where I believe (although I would have to look it up to be sure since it was so long ago) I answered his specific request for what might be considered extraordinary evidence (i.e. evidence that would likely convince even the most hardened skeptic and the majority of scientists) and yet he just asked for it again from someone else.

Go figure…

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Do you think you can be objective about UFOs since you've had your own sighting?

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.

Don't confuse their assumed honesty and integrity with their accuracy.

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.

Do you disagree that that is as it should be for an extraordinary claim?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” 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.”

BS… you’re entire argument is falsified by that fact that research shows that 95% or more of the people who reported a UFO were unable to identify a mundane object.

How do you explain that?

I explain it by referring you to the research conducted that shows that more than 20% of sightings remain unidentified even after careful research.

I explain it also by referring you to the billions of UFO reports that DO NOT occur because people are actually VERY good at determining mundane objects in our skies.

You’ve consistently refused to acknowledge anything I’ve presented so far so what’s the point? No doubt it will just fall on deaf ears again…

Perhaps if you actually presented evidence to support your statements I might even take it into account… go on…perhaps you should give it a try… just this once…

To refresh your memory you stated:

” … however, considering these “common” characteristics have consistently changed over time and can be found in popular literature that predates the observations, this may be considered strong evidence of anthropomorphic bias in the observations and tends to support the notion that the psychosocial/cultural hypothesis is most likely correct…”​

For which I merely asked you for evidence in support of the many unfounded assertions contained within that statement.

I stated:
”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!”

Based on your demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic of scientific principals I suspect you don’t… care to explain how you think that tuned out for him?

Short and sweet then. Einstein was referring to his dislike of the probabilistic uncertainties that lie at the heart of quantum theory. Even though a key founder of the theory, he actually disliked it immensely and spent the latter years of his life trying unsuccessfully come up with alternatives. If he had accepted the (now tried and tested) theory and applied his obvious talents to its explication, then perhaps physics would be even more advanced than it is today.

Perhaps you would now care to explain what YOU meant by YOUR comment?

FYI: You know… it IS highly irresponsible of you (and is a dirty tactic) to snip bits of people’s posts out of context so that readers have no reference as to what you are actually referring to.

For people’s information the subject now turns to Michio Kaku, a notable professor of theoretical physics, who believes in popularising his discipline in order to make it more accessible and understandable to the general public… something I believe even Sagan was an avid proponent of doing… yet Access Denied criticized him as an “entertainer” based on this. I asked, somewhat facetiously, if Access Denied would rather the good professor work in secret.

It would be preferable to misleading people.

If he the professor has mislead people, then I ask you to show HOW and WHERE he has done so. The UFO debunker tactic of making unfounded and generalised slurs on people is wearing a little thin by now don’t you think? My repeated calls for a rational, sceptical and scientific debate seems to fall on deaf ears in this forum.

Moving on again - Access Denied seems not brave enough to place his own statements into their correct context. He stated:

“What the Condon Study shows us is that with more effort the number of unexplained cases can be reduced to around 1.5%…”​

I simply asked how he arrived at that figure.

I used a calculator to find 70% of 5%. I take it basic math is not your forte?

I’ll make no direct comment but let his reply stand for itself.

Again Access Denied seems not brave enough to give us the information he states actually exists.

I gave a rather specific definition of what I would consider “extraordinary “evidence earlier in this thread that I think any scientist would agree with. Care to explain why such basic scientific evidence doesn’t exist?

Where is that explanation Access Denied?

What exactly are the conditions that lead to misperceptions? Please list them all to demonstrate that you have sufficient knowledge in this area of research to be considered even remotely credible and that you’re not just talking out your ass again…

Ah yes, abuse is the lowest form of argument – just short of physical violence. Do you feel threatened by my comments and statements Access Denied? That is the usual explanation for abuse.

Fortunately I do not have to personally list them (and besides it would be a huge diversion from the topic of this thread to do so). I think you will find such conditions outlined in any basic psychology textbook and of course much research has been conducted to expand upon the basics (hint: just type into your preferred search engine “human perceptual psychology” or explore the found set when searching for “perceptual illusions”, or any related search terms. I think you will find a wealth of information that will inform you).

 

[Rramjet]

Exactly my point. I have seen a series of drawings done over a 30 year period, each drawing of the same witnessed UFO done every 10 years- they're identical. This person can draw at any time the object they saw with 100% recollection. UFO's are hardly familiar, are they?

Indeed, I would add that the unfamiliar and surprising are at the heart of Mnemonics, which are a positive aid to long term memory - and UFOs are certainly surprising and unfamiliar!

 

[Marduk]

Indeed, I would add that the unfamiliar and surprising are at the heart of Mnemonics, which are a positive aid to long term memory - and UFOs are certainly surprising and unfamiliar!

you've never studied Mnemonics then or you'd know that it aids the memory of unfamiliar and surprising things only when deliberately associated with the unsurprising and familiar. In your case this would be by associating something youre clueless about, i.e. UFOs with something you are familiar with like sci fi.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>


I explain it also by referring you to the billions of UFO reports that DO NOT occur . . .

<snip>

Yeah. You do indeed, and apparently you think it makes sense to to use references to non-existent reports as explanations.

Do you see any problem with that at all?

 

[Alley Cat]

Extraordinary Evidence: Look through my telescope.

Still not "evidence".

I'm looking forward to seeing the Evidence though. Has anybody actually got any?

 

[Belgian thought]

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.

You cannot make the statment in bold, and ignore the following:

a) You claim daylight - I have shown it was not daylight - but the end of twilight and then darkness, but you have so far refused to accept this fact and ignored it completely
b) 3 visible planets were in near alignment, namely Venus and Mars and Mercury, with Uranus thrown in - direction WNW
c) Weather was overcast, and stormy

 

[Access Denied]

I explain it by referring you to the research conducted that shows that more than 20% of sightings remain unidentified even after careful research.

So then you agree that at least 80% of the people who report a UFO were unable to identify a mundane object.

Again, how do you explain that?

I explain it also by referring you to the billions of UFO reports that DO NOT occur because people are actually VERY good at determining mundane objects in our skies.

Irrelevant, we’re only concerned with those who can’t identify what they saw and what the probability of misinterpretation is.

So far you agree it’s at least 80% but you can’t explain why…

Perhaps if you actually presented evidence to support your statements I might even take it into account… go on…perhaps you should give it a try… just this once…

To refresh your memory you stated:

” … however, considering these “common” characteristics have consistently changed over time and can be found in popular literature that predates the observations, this may be considered strong evidence of anthropomorphic bias in the observations and tends to support the notion that the psychosocial/cultural hypothesis is most likely correct…”​

For which I merely asked you for evidence in support of the many unfounded assertions contained within that statement.

Well, the Betty and Barney Hill abduction case is perhaps the best contemporary example. Here we have what is arguably the prototype “grey” alien with wraparound eyes…

An alien seen on TV 12 days prior to the making of Hill's 'Grey' hypnosis tape

Coincidence? How can you be sure?

At any rate, most everybody started reporting “grey” aliens after this instead of whatever type was consistently reported (“in fashion”) previously like “Venusians”, or before that, men in space helmets and shiny suits, or before that short little furry creatures etc.

The canonical example would of course be Kenneth Arnold’s sighting on June 24, 1947 just two weeks before the Roswell “incident”… even though he didn’t see a “flying saucer” that’s what was reported in the press and that’s what practically everybody started reporting seeing afterward.

And no, I don’t care whether you agree or not… make of it what you will but it is what it is.

Perhaps you would now care to explain what YOU meant by YOUR [Einstein and God "rolling the dice"] comment?

You do realize that quantum indeterminism in more a philosophical issue than it is a physics problem don’t you? Especially if, as experimental physicists do, you subscribe to the “shut up and calculate” interpretation which is “deterministic enough” for all practical purposes… it just works.

[again this is off topic]

If he the professor [Michio Kaku] has mislead people, then I ask you to show HOW and WHERE he has done so.

OK one quick example…

1. How much energy and of what kind does it take to open just one end of a wormwhole? (never mind the other)
2. How long will it take you to get to the other end to open it (or move one created locally where you actually want to go instead of some random location) so you can go through it?
3. In the case of an existing "natural" wormhole how would you find the other end in the first place and how would you get there to hold it open?
4. How fast would you actually travel through the length of the wormhole?

If you don’t know the answers to these practical questions then I’m afraid you have been misled… perhaps you think it’s as simple as folding the fabric of spacetime over like a piece of paper?

[Hint: Wormholes, even if possible, don’t actually result in effective FTL travel until after you have traveled to the desired destination to “open the door”, in which case what’s the point? You’re already there!]

Shall I continue?

[the correct answer is no, it’s off topic]

Moving on again - Access Denied seems not brave enough to place his own statements into their correct context. He stated:

“What the Condon Study shows us is that with more effort the number of unexplained cases can be reduced to around 1.5%…”​

I simply asked how he arrived at that figure.

I’ll make no direct comment but let his reply stand for itself.

Again Access Denied seems not brave enough to give us the information he states actually exists.

Where is that explanation Access Denied?

1.5% is 30% (still unexplained) of 5% (previously unexplained).

[by the way, in case you didn’t notice, you responded before I noticed an error and corrected my post]

The point stands, you should have been able to figure that out on your own… that or you’re being deliberately dishonest again. Which is it?

Fortunately I do not have to personally list them (and besides it would be a huge diversion from the topic of this thread to do so).

Attempt to deflect duly noted. In fact, your entire argument rests on you being able to quantify all the factors that affect human perception in order to even begin to eliminate them. That you refuse to do so may lead one to conclude you in fact have no idea what you’re talking about…

Suit yourself.

 

[AWPrime]

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?

In my opinion seeing something that one can't identify isn't a reason to be ridiculed.

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.

From my pov this document is nothing special, if security saw something they can't identify then it must be put on record and singed by the person responsible for security.
Also this document doesn't contain any evidence that allows anyone to conclude that it was alien.

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?

How can we be sure of this? As soon it goes away, their brains will likely try and fill in the details. And then every attempt to remember it will reinforce this version. Please look into the satanic abuse scare phenomenon on how easily memories can be distorted.