UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sledge]

Hang on, everyone. Wait up. I think this deserves some close analysis.

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.

Let me get this straight: because people often recognise that the flying object with wings and making jet noises is in fact an aeroplane, eyewitnesses are always correct, therefore: ALIENS!!! Good grief. Goddamn. GodDAMN. It's staggering at so many levels.

What alarms me is that Rramjet isn't even a good UFOlogist. Back in my teenage years, all this malarky became very popular because of stuff like The X Files. For a while I read a magazine called Alien Encounters (you can guess the subject material). Despite the writers clearly being heavily invested in this sort of thing, they were far better at analysing evidence than Rramjet.

Example: a group of people went out UFO spotting one night. After many hours lying on a hillside looking at the sky and nattering about UFOs and aliens, the group splits up and heads home. The writer of the article has been at home a short time when he gets a phone call. One couple from the group has got home and is now petrified because aliens are opening a portal in their back garden. The writer races round to their house to find their is a rectangle of light in their garden caused by an uncurtained window in their next door neighbours house.

So, Rramjet. People are NOT good at identifying anything. What they see is easily coloured by what they expect to see.

Oh, and the reason I say Rramjet isn't even a good UFOlogist? In the above example, the writer investigated what was reported. Rramjet would probably have been on the phone to the police reporting an alien invasion, because we all know eyewitnesses are 100% correct all the time.

 

[GeeMack]

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

Oddly, although SnidelyW and Rramjet claim to be interested in understanding, the evidence shows that they'd rather remain ignorant. Watch...

SnidelyW, Rramjet, yes or no, do you have any evidence that any of these UFOs you describe were some particular thing?​

See? No response to the question. It should be so easy, and it would be for any honest intelligent rational adult, yet something about it makes them turn and run. Ignorance appears to be a common trait among the UFO faithful. They are exactly like the religious faithful in that they don't even want to understand.

Like many children their age, they want to talk about this stuff because it's cool and exciting to them. So they avoid the simple questions like the plague. If they answer that question "no", the talking is over. If they answer it "yes", they'll be asked to put up or shut up. They don't want to stop talking, and they can't come up with the evidence. Either way they might answer would wreck their little fantasy.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

This is because, despite clear explanations, you apparently still do not understand what the word "extraordinary" actually means in that context. Yes, it can also mean what you use it to mean, but applying that definition here is simply nonsensical.

I'll try to explain it even more clearly. Take two possible statements:
1) I have a pet cat.
2) I have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex.

What evidence would be needed for statement 1)? Well, probably none. Many people have pet cats, so most people would probably believe me if I simply told them I have one. If they wanted more evidence, they may be satisfied with a picture of me with a pet cat. Or maybe copies of documents, receipts for cat food, that sort of thing. Maybe they'd even want to visit my house and see it for themselves. None of that would actually prove I own a pet cat in the absolute sense, since it could all be an elaborate hoax. Maybe I simply borrowed a cat off someone else.

However, no matter what they require out of the above, there is some evidence that they are extremely unlikely to ask for. They won't ask for evidence that cats exist. They won't ask for evidence that it is possible to keep a cat as a pet, or for evidence that people actually do so. This is because there is so much evidence for these things that pretty much everyone is fully aware of that there is no point asking for more every time a claim about cats is made. The established body of scientific knowledge can be assumed true, and the only evidence required is for more specific claims.

Now take statement 2). What is the established evidence we have? Well, T. Rex existed. But that's pretty much it. There is no evidence that anyone ever kept one as a pet. There is no evidence it would even be possible to do so. In fact, there is pretty good evidence that unless I live in a converted aircraft hanger it's unlikely I could even fit one in my house. The same person who would be convinced of my pet cat by a photograph would be very unlikely to be convinced by a similar photo of me with my pet dinosaur.

That is what we mean by extraordinary evidence. It does not mean, as you appear to take it, that we should be surprised people are willing to make reports. The reports are entirely ordinary evidence - they're mostly just anecdotes, nothing extraordinary about that. What the extraordinary part means is the evidence that can be taken as a given in some cases, but not in others. The ordinary part is the photo of a cat/dinosaur. The extraordinary part is the evidence that a cat/dinosaur exists and would make a good pet. In one case the extraordinary evidence already exists, in the other the person making the claim is required to provide it in addition to the ordinary evidence before the claim should be taken seriously.

 

[Sledge]

And now we wait for Rramjet to complain that no one will explain what they mean by "extraordinary evidence."

 

[Stray Cat]

Still not "evidence".

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

Evidence enough for those who dared to look.
And repeatable observation lead to a change in how physicists viewed the universe.
If you choose not to look into the telescope, I'm blaming your catholic upbringing

 

[Belgian thought]

And now we wait for Rramjet to complain that no one will explain what they mean by "extraordinary evidence."

- and link him to Rorylee's post to find the truly extraordinary...

 

[Astrophotographer]

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”.

Ahhh...but you miss the key word in all of this. Skeptics (or your chosen epithet of UFO debunker) state that all UFO reports can PROBABLY be identified/explained as mundane objects. We are not saying that can not be alien spaceships but that it is highly unlikely. Dr. Richard Feynman once was asked about UFO reports and his eventual response was:

"I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."

http://heelspurs.com/zpics/feynman8.rm

My (and I assume most others here) position is that when faced with a UFO report, the first thing one must examine is what possibly could be the source of the report and not to immediately accept the extraordinary stories that it was something exotic. If there is a potential source, then one has to see if it is possible if that could cause a misidentification based on what is known about how people have made this mistake before. If somebody states they saw a bright shape-shifting object in the sky that split into three objects and reconverged into one and also flashed colors, I would guess they were reporting a bright scintillating star and see if this were the case. I have seen somebody report the star Sirius do this and they used binoculars! This is why I assume they PROBABLY have mundane explanations and not exotic ones.

It has been sixty years and not one of these cases have proven anything other than that people make mistakes in observation. Presenting the same old (and I do mean old since the most recent one you presented is over thirty years ago) cases as evidence is not going to cut it. See if you can present something a bit more recent or try and setup a program to gather real data. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and everybody elses.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Very funny but you really need to prove your claim since you are the one claiming that it can not be a mundane object. I only suggest it is possible that it is a mundane object (like venus). You also made the claim that you had scientifically examined the case and used various scientific resources to verify the claims of the case. Since you refuse to list them and how they applied, I can assume that you really never looked at anything of the sort. At least I have examined case histories where people have made these kinds of misidentifications before. Keep convincing yourself that you are being scientific but everyone can see you for what you really are.

BTW, a debunker is somebody who exposes false claims. If you want to state that I am exposing false claims, then I accept the "debunker" label. However, if you are using it as an epithet then you are totally off base and being far from scientific or reasonable.

 

[Stray Cat]

BTW, a debunker is somebody who exposes false claims. If you want to state that I am exposing false claims, then I accept the "debunker" label.

Indeed, Ramjet, take note: For something to be debunked, it has to be bunk in the first place.

 

[Marcus]

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.

The piece of the puzzle that may be missing for you is the realization of just how easily human senses are fooled, even those of smart, well intentioned people. Visual images are not a direct reflection of the world, but undergo a lot of processing in the brain before they are finalized. The brain tends to fill in the blanks of anything that can't immediately be made sense of. These days, the blanks tend to be filled in by things like aliens, in other eras, they were filled by whatever ideas were currently in vouge with popular culture.

 

[SnidelyW]

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..........

Okay- this is the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned.
You observe something which defies all known laws of physics. Isn't the nature of man, and his development, built to wonder? Haven't some of the most amazing inventions been inspired by wonder?
In your case, you probably have a good grasp of what is possible aeronautically. Since this particular event transcended everything you knew about aeronautics, isn't leaving it at "I don't think it was an alien space ship. I just think it was a UFO.", an abandonment of basic human wonder?

I think Rramjet posesses the spirit of wonder in spades, and isn't afraid to take his thinking to the next level, and postulate the alien existence theory.
Doesn't logical thinking send us into the thought bubble of "if it defies all laws of physics as we know it, and it was a manufactured object, then it cannot be made on earth?"

That is what I am struggling with- the deliberate and wilful suspension of that part of being human - the 'wonder factor'.

 

[Nonpareil]

Okay- this is the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned.
You observe something which defies all known laws of physics.

But the point is that you cannot verify that it was actually breaking the laws of physics. The human eye is easily tricked, as is the mind.

In your case, you probably have a good grasp of what is possible aeronautically. Since this particular event transcended everything you knew about aeronautics, isn't leaving it at "I don't think it was an alien space ship. I just think it was a UFO.", an abandonment of basic human wonder?

We don't disagree that they were UFOs. But Rramjet is trying to make the leap from UFO to alien.

I think Rramjet posesses the spirit of wonder in spades, and isn't afraid to take his thinking to the next level, and postulate the alien existence theory.
Doesn't logical thinking send us into the thought bubble of "if it defies all laws of physics as we know it, and it was a manufactured object, then it cannot be made on earth?"

But you can't show that it was breaking the laws of physics, nor that it was manufactured.

The spirit of wonder is a great thing, yes. But not when the desire to feel wonder results in a warping of reality.

 

[Marduk]

Okay- this is the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned.
You observe something which defies all known laws of physics. Isn't the nature of man, and his development, built to wonder? Haven't some of the most amazing inventions been inspired by wonder?
In your case, you probably have a good grasp of what is possible aeronautically. Since this particular event transcended everything you knew about aeronautics, isn't leaving it at "I don't think it was an alien space ship. I just think it was a UFO.", an abandonment of basic human wonder?

No because it was obviously not in the atmosphere. So I know it wasn't man made so had no need to wonder about what was manoeuvering like that. IMO it was most likely a meteorite burning up. Everything it did fits the classic description and I have seen known meteorites perform in exactly the same way. I call it a UFO because I cannot prove to anyone that it was a meteorite so it would not be correct to assume something that I dont know for sure and of course, I was on my way home from a pub at the time, so I do doubt my own eyes when my blood alcohol level is affected by around 10 pints of export strength lager, though of course, if I was going to the trouble of reporting that to authorities and wanted them to take me seriously I doubt I would mention that I had been drinking.

I am human

 

[Stray Cat]

Doesn't logical thinking send us into the thought bubble of "if it defies all laws of physics as we know it, and it was a manufactured object, then it cannot be made on earth?"

No, not really. Logical thinking would tend to give us the thought that "perhaps what was observed didn't actually defy the laws of physics as we know them" (based upon quite sound knowledge that 'defying the laws of physics' requires more than seeing a light in the sky). Along with what we already know about the fallibility of human perception and a history of misidentification.

That is what I am struggling with- the deliberate and wilful suspension of that part of being human - the 'wonder factor'.

More appropriate is the 'willful ignorance' that UFOlogists constantly engage in when they don't consider what we know before proclaiming their 'Wonder Factor' theories as proven truths.

 

[SnidelyW]

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

It certainly is if you're a professional pilot.

"Though aerial encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) have been documented at least since the 1930's, the aviation industry has been hesitant about addressing this matter. Cold War security issues, cultural mythology as well as concerns about image have prohibited many aviation executives from pursuing this matter with more curiosity. Certainly many cases have gone unreported by aviation professionals for the same reason...
...There is a bias in the aviation community against reporting or publicly acknowledging observations and incidents that may involve UAP. The sources of this bias are discussed in NARCAP Technical Report 8, Aviation Safety in America: Under-reporting Bias of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Recommended Solutions Ted Roe, 2004"
http://www.narcap.org/

 

[wollery]

So, that's a no on the response to my post then, Snidely?

 

[SnidelyW]

But the point is that you cannot verify that it was actually breaking the laws of physics. The human eye is easily tricked, as is the mind.
...snip

Well, no, because the object wasn't measured, which is why we call it observation, no?

This is the interesting part, to me, and part of the struggle I have upon reading of incidents of hovering, splitting, accelleration from a standstill, silent operation or instantly vanishing and reappearing etc.

To me, hovering motionless in exactly the same spot for hours, noiselessly, defies the laws of physics as I know them. (Sure, helicopters can, but they make noise and move around a bit and aren't glowing, flashing, smooth objects either, and they need to refuel.)
I have no idea if any research has been carried out regarding observers being able to differentiate between properties of physics and properties which were physically impossible, as defined by our laws of physics. It might be interesting to know, though.

 

[GeeMack]

So, that's a no on the response to my post then, Snidely?

When I asked the same sort of thing he made it clear that he would rather stay ignorant. Interesting position to take for someone who claims to want to learn. Of course he's lying. He doesn't want to learn. This thread is an excellent example of the faithful UFO believers being so intent on hanging on to their faith that they would resort to lying and willful ignorance to avoid even questioning it.

For any lurkers or newcomers, watch this display of willful ignorance:

SnidelyW or Rramjet, regarding any of the sightings you use as examples, do you have evidence that any of them were some particular thing?​

Now we'll probably get complete ignorance, but on occasion we'll get smarmy backtalk and the kind of insolence that you would expect from a typical smart-assed high school kid. Any way about it, as easy as it would be to answer that simple yes/no question, there will not be a succinct yes/no response forthcoming. These kids are almost too easy to figure.

Infraction reversed. Post reinstated.

Posted By: Tricky

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, no, because the object wasn't measured, which is why we call it observation, no?

Exactly!

 

[GeeMack]

To me, hovering motionless in exactly the same spot for hours, noiselessly, defies the laws of physics as I know them. (Sure, helicopters can, but they make noise and move around a bit and aren't glowing, flashing, smooth objects either, and they need to refuel.)
I have no idea if any research has been carried out regarding observers being able to differentiate between properties of physics and properties which were physically impossible, as defined by our laws of physics. It might be interesting to know, though.

So you admit being unaware of the laws of physics and of the research regarding the powers of observation. Well why didn't you say so a long time ago? Then you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself so by pretending you have a clue.