UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Locknar]

Just a general reminder...please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hmmm… all UFO reports can PROBABLY be identified as mundane? I can equally contend that there is a PROBABILITY that all UFO reports CANNOT be indentified as mundane.

However, you can not contend that they are probably extraordinary in nature (i.e. alien spaceships) without some sort of evidence, which you have failed to present to date. The reasons they could not be identified may have reasons other than "exotic" explanations.

I can equally wheel out academics who refute that statement. For example (from a favourite personage of yours I believe):

Ahhh...but you have completely deleted what the scientists actually stated about the evidence presented to date:


It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence (Sturrock The UFO Engima 121)

I guess that means what evidence you have from these old cases is not going to convince a panel of scientists and certainly not a bunch of "debunkers".

You also have ignored comments made by these scientists about these 'scientific' investigations of UFO reports:

It appears that most current UFO investigations are carried out at a level of rigor that is not consistent with prevailing standards of scientific research and It may therefore be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science. However, to be credible to the scientific community, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses. (Sturrock The UFO enigma 121)

I guess you can ignore the bold part since you completely dismiss any rival hypothesis with a simple wave of the hand.

Sure, but if there IS no star in the sky...? (and if there IS NO OTHER mundane explanation you can reasonably come up with…?) What do you “guess” then? AND I note the operative word “guess in your above position statement. We should NOT guess at explanations Astrophotographer…for guesses merely rely on a preconceived belief system… and THAT has been my point about your you’re your fellow debunker’s) approach all along!.

I wish you would attempt to understand the point I was trying to make. Maybe "guess" is the wrong word but hypothesize will better suit the scenario. If it was not dark, then I would not think of using a star but I could use Venus if it was in the general location. If no stars were visible or it was daytime, then you move on to the other potential scenarios. Balloons, aircraft, blimps, etc. There are so many potential avenues to travel down in pursuit of an answer, that you can not jump directly towards the ETH.

Eminent people disagree with you (for example see Sturrock above).

Well Sturrock himself is committed to the UFO phenomena and really can't be considered unbiased. However, the panel was independent and we know what they concluded about the UFO subject.

Here you seem to imply that the mere AGE of evidence rules it out as evidence. Perhaps you would like a Statute of Limitations? Perhaps you can ask the Holocaust survivors (or the families of the victims) to agree to sign such a document declaring that 30+ year old evidence is no longer evidence… Good luck with that!)

My point of the age of these cases is why are we discussing old cases? Aren't there any new ones where the information is fresher? Why is it all the "good" UFO cases come from the 1940-80 time frame and nothing really happened after that? That is my point. Using the Holocaust is a non-starter. There is evidence for that. If you can't see the difference, then you really are a lost cause.

Now don’t you worry too much about that. I will present more recent cases. But wasting your time… it DOES seem to matter to you Astrophotographer… and it is ultimately your choice…

I won't hold my breath because so far what you have presented is less than convincing.

 

[Cuddles]

There are a couple of obvious logical errors that need to be pointed out here.

Wow, that's one of the most impressive failures of reading comprehension I have yet to see. Tell me, do you even bother to read this stuff before you post it?

First, people do not ask for evidence of cats because the evidence is already established

That was the whole point of my post. That you actually think you are contradicting me here is just plain sad.

That is “Do cats exist?”. The evidence is that they do. The question is answered. That question is NO different to asking “Do UFOs exist?” The evidence is that they do. That question is therefore also answered.

Did my post mention UFOs? No. Has anyone ever denied UFOs exist? No. Please try to address things that have actually been said rather than the conversations you have with yourself within your own head.

The question is also NO different to asking “Do aliens exist”. Here the evidence is bitterly argued over. The question has not been satisfactorily answered – but the evidence required to satisfactorily answer each is the SAME in EACH instance. ALL of it ordinary!

And this is where your understanding, already poor, apparently jumps straight off a cliff. Of course the question of aliens is different. It is different precisely because the evidence for aliens does not actually exist. That you imagine that the evidence for aliens is of equal weight to the evidence of cats is just flat out insane, especially since you contradict that yourself in the same sentence.

You claim that “extraordinary evidence” might consist of a photo with your T-Rex and yourself… but THAT is ordinary evidence! It is ORDINARY evidence of an extraordinary thing, but nevertheless ordinary evidence!

And now you're just mindlessly babbling. Far from claiming a photo of a T. Rex would be extraordinary, I explicitly said that that was the ordinary part. The extraordinary part is all the additional evidence for the existence of T. Rex that would be required, that is not required in the case of cats. It really is incredibly how you can imagine yourself to be cleverer than others when you demonstrate your utter incompetence for all to see. Once again you repeat my exact point, but somehow hallucinate that you are making some kind of witty counter to it.

You then claim that “extraordinary evidence” means evidence that can be taken as “given” in one case, but not in another… I will resist pointing out the glaring logical error in your statement but I presume you actually mean that “extraordinary evidence” is evidence that is NOT taken as “given” (at least that is the only logical interpretation I can come up with…).

It may well be the only interpretation you can come up with, but I doubt anyone is surprised that there is no logic involved with it. Unfortunately "extraordinary" has more than one syllable, so I can't spell it out quite as simply as may be required, but I'll give it a go anyway. The extraordinary evidence is the evidence that only needs to be required for extraordinary claims, but already exists in abundance for ordinary ones. In my example, you do not need to provide evidence that cats exist, but you would need to provide evidence that dinosaurs currently do. A pet dinosaur is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence in support. A pet cat is not an extraordinary claim precisely because the evidence that would be considered extraordinary already exists, so no sane person would demand evidence for the existence of cats.

But just because the evidence is debatable, does not mean it is “extraordinary”.

No, but the evidence failing to exist at all suggests that any such evidence coming to light would be pretty extraordinary. Given that you created this thread for the sole purpose of providing this evidence, yet you admit yourself that you don't actually have any tends to support that view.

Ughh, your logical fallacy is doing my head in, trying to argue with logical fallacies is like trying to swim in the desert sands, practically impossible, though trying is half the fun!

If logical fallacies cause your head problems, I can only suggest you stop making them yourself, and stop imagining they exist everywhere you look.

Thus I better requote your last sentence so I can follow it through precicely…
So this refutes your earlier claim of “extraordinary” meaning a photo of you and your dinosaur constituting “extraordinary evidence…

No, it refutes nothing more than the imaginary voices in your head. Once again, the entire point was that the photo would be ordinary evidence, the extraordinary evidence is all the other stuff that would be required in addition to that photo. It's no wonder your head is swimming with all the nonsense that keeps falling out of it.

But I thought photos of cats WERE “ordinary”? You now claim them to be “extraordinary”? More, the existence of cats may well BE “extraordinary” but that mere fact does NOT make evidence of them extraordinary. You are all over the place on this one Cuddles!

Seriously, do you always struggle this much with basic English? Does the part you just quoted say anything at all about photos? No. Did you even bother to read any of my post before you started randomly mashing your keyboard? It certainly doesn't appear that way.

But that assumption has NOTHING to do with the evidence of existence…

It's not an assumption, it's one of the points that would require evidence to support it. There really aren't enough "fail" pictures on the internet to deal with your ramblings here.

I tried to break this sentence into its constituent parts… (premises, conclusions) but the exercise rendered it totally meaningless…

I will try again…

I look forward to the amusement.

WHAT “extraordinary evidence”? You seem to have changed “ordinary evidence” (a photo of a cat and yourself) into “extraordinary evidence”. Precisely HOW is a photo of you and your cat “extraordinary”?

No, I have changed nothing, you have simply failed to read or understand a single word of my post. Once again, the photo was always ordinary evidence. The extraordinary evidence, as I said throughout the entire post, is the evidence required to show that cats exist and can be kept as pets in the first place. Once again, a pet cat is not an extraordinary claim because the evidence that would be considered extraordinary already exists.

I am confused…

No, really? I'd never have guessed.

making WHICH claim? The cat or the dinosaur?

Well let's see. There are two cases being discussed. The ordinary claim of a pet cat was addressed in the previous part of the sentence. Amazingly enough, even you managed to grasp that. The sentence then continues "in the other". Now, we started with two claims. We addressed one of them. I wonder what "the other" could possibly refer to. No, I'm not going to give the answer, I'll just have to leave you in suspense.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a joke. How do you keep an idiot in suspense? I'll tell you next week.

Provide WHAT exactly? The photo?

Once again, let's try thinking this through, as might be done by a 6 year old child in a reading comprehension lesson. The subject of this sentence is "the extraordinary evidence". The structure of the sentence is "In one case, {subject} is not required, while in the other case the person making a claim must provide {subject}". Given that we now know the subject of the sentence and have certain gaps left in it in which to insert the subject, what do we think the subject of the sentence might be?

Ummm… what precisely WAS your “ordinary” evidence again?

That would be the photo. You know, the thing I said several times was the ordinary evidence, as opposed to the extraordinary evidence that consists of the extra evidence that would be required to suggest that the photo should be taken seriously at all. You never know, if this is repeated enough times it may end up in your brain by some kind of osmosis or something. Kind of like the idea of sleeping in a room full of books, where you don't actually need to read or understand anything for you to learn it.

No, Sorry but I am completely lost now…

If you hadn't include the word "now" I would agree entirely.

You will have to explain the whole thing in CLEAR terms, outlining precisely WHAT you mean by “extraordinary evidence”

I did. The simple fact is that you lack the basic reading comprehension ability of a high school child.

(you seem to shift back and forth here between the content itself and the photo as being constituent – please clarify for me WHICH it IS you claim as extraordinary evidence and WHY you believe it to be so.

It's as clear as it could possibly be. The only person who ever said anything about the photo being extraordinary was you. This is presumably because you didn't bother actually reading my post, but I'm open to the idea that you're simply not capable of understanding it.

Certainly NOTHING in the above has provided a clear definition of “extraordinary evidence”

And you just couldn't resist throwing this last little bit of abject failure into your post. I never claimed to be providing a definition of anything, I was providing an explanation. Of course, the explanation was never aimed at you in the first place, since you would never accept anything that disagrees with your religious belief in aliens, even if you were capable of understanding it.

and I defy ANYONE to point out WHERE it is located in Cuddle's statements if they disagree with this assessment of mine.

Your "assessment"? That's a rather optimistic word to be using there. "Mindless drivel highlighting a fundamental lack of understanding of both the concepts involved and the English language itself" would have been a more accurate way of putting it.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

Are aliens particular things?

{delurk}

No; they don't really care.

{/delurk}

 

[Jack by the hedge]

While Rramjet composes his next 5,000 word rebuttal, I would like to say that I was not confused by Cuddles post (#4143), despite Rr's claimed bewilderment.

I am slightly curious to know whether anyone else was unable to understand it.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

*re-reads Cuddles' post*

No; t'is an excellent post. If only I knew what a cat was...

 

[Patricio Elicer]

A pet dinosaur is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence in support. A pet cat is not an extraordinary claim precisely because the evidence that would be considered extraordinary already exists, ......

.... namely, the cats themselves for all of us to see, touch and examine. Now, let's wait for Rramjet to provide us with the similar extraordinary evidence of the existence of aliens .

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm not too keen on the idea of stroking aliens, and I absolutely draw the line at dealing with their litter trays.

 

[Sledge]

{delurk}

No; they don't really care.

{/delurk}

[Spike Milligan]
"Two bottles of wine, waiter"
"Any particular wine, sir?"
"Yes, any particular wine"
[/Spike Milligan]

Is Rramjet really back to claiming we're denying UFOs exist? I'm going to need you to quote someone saying that, Rramjet, or you're just plain lying to try and undermine people you disagree with.

 

[Marduk]

While Rramjet composes his next 5,000 word rebuttal, I would like to say that I was not confused by Cuddles post (#4143), despite Rr's claimed bewilderment.

I am slightly curious to know whether anyone else was unable to understand it.

I've got an 8 year old here who got it first time

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I'm not too keen on the idea of stroking aliens, ....

Well, if the alien is Dejah Thoris, princess of Helium, I'd volunteer...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, if the alien is Dejah Thoris, princess of Helium, I'd volunteer...

Do you suppose she has a really squeaky voice?

ETA The litter tray is still a no-no.

 

[SnidelyW]

I believe I asked you before about the alleged pattern in UFO sightings.

As I recall you didn't respond.



No, "evidence" is "dismissed" when it fails to show anything other than the sort of thing you might expect from user error, misperception of common objects and observer error or bias.

I don't suppose you have a link to somewhere that supports with numbers with anything more than just stating the numbers do you?.

I require some clarification here. In the quote above you want numbers, but in the quote below you don't want numbers. Please let me know what it is you require.

The point isn't the number of cases - that's a red herring. If no individual case can stand on its own merits then it doesn't matter how many cases there are. There's another little mantra that you might want to learn, largely because it's very true - the plural of anecdote is not data. Lumping large numbers of unreliable data points together doesn't somehow make them reliable. The data as a whole is just as unreliable as the individual points.

I think J Allen Hynek explained this better than I could;

"When, however, in the course of UFO investigations one encounters
many cases , the probability that a new phenomenon was not
observed becomes very small, and it gets smaller still as the number of
cases increases. The chances, then, that something really new is involved
are very great, and any gambler given such odds would not hesitate for a
moment to place a large bet. This point bears emphasis. Any one UFO case,
if taken by itself without regard to the accumulated worldwide data
(assuming that these have already been passed through the "UFO filter"),
can almost always be dismissed by assuming that in that particular case a
very unusual set of circumstances occurred, of low probability (but strange
things and coincidences of extremely low probability do sometimes occur).
But when cases of this sort accumulate in noticeable numbers, it no longer
is scientifically correct to apply the reasoning one applies to a single
isolated case Thus, the chance that a thoroughly investigated UFO case
with excellent witnesses can be ascribed to a misperception is certainly
very small, but it is finite. However, to apply the same argument to a
sizable collection of similar cases is not logical since the compounded
probability of their all having been due to misperceptions is comparable to
the probability that if in one throw of a coin it stands on edge, it will
stand on edge every time it is thrown".

That's all well and good, but it entirely misses the point. Firstly, anything which lies outside the normal everyday experience naturally requires good evidence. If I told you that I went to the supermarket this morning and saw 5 people out walking dogs you wouldn't question it, but if instead I said that I saw 5 people walking dragons you'd think I'd lost my mind. Okay, maybe that's too far fetched, let's say I said that I saw someone walking a Komodo dragon. We both know that Komodo dragons exist, but how many people do you know that keep them as pets? You'd still think I was lying, or at least mistaken, and I would rightfully be expected to provide some evidence, such as a cell phone photo, before you believed me.
And that's the point of the Sagan quote. Someone walking a Komodo dragon is an extraordinary claim, and must be backed up by evidence before anyone would believe me. Perhaps the use of the phrase "extraordinary evidence" is misleading. it should probably just be "good evidence".

I still think we really need a standard for evidence embraced by both the scientific and the UFO community.
The main issue I have regarding applying science standards to all this is that mainstream science seemingly has shown it doesn't want to allocate research dollars to tackle the point. If scientists really wanted to get involved in all this then allocate some grant money to set up a study, (or studies) on various aspects of the situation.
We have lots of science grads jumping all over our views on this thread as failing to meet generally accepted scientific standards, but why aren't those same critics knocking on doors to get money for research? Armchair science quarterbacking only takes one so far.
The scientific community has to accept at least some of the burden to provide proof. Just because the science may be difficult or unpalatable doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I wish they would begin doing so.

Secondly, nobody is saying that millions of people are delusional (although it's certainly a possibility), but that millions of people could be mistaken, or just plain wrong. After all, thousands of people believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, thousands more believe that the moon landings were a hoax, huge numbers believe that the holocaust never happened. To suggest that millions of people can't all be wrong is to commit the fallacy of appeal to numbers.

Mea culpa. I definitely am guilty of the argumentum ad populi, and I realize that with 90% of all sightings generally accepted as being explainable by most sources, plain numbers are not acceptable. However, I still maintain that there are a lot of cases in that 10%.

Everyone is wrong about something (usually lots of things) and on a planet with 6.5 billion people it's just a matter of statistics that we will share our wrongness with a lot of other people

The issue I have here is that UFO's and their attendant shards of evidence have nothing in common as regards to sighting location, viewing conditions, length of time, etc. To paint everyone as simply wrong does a great disservice to the accurate ones.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip.
I am slightly curious to know whether anyone else was unable to understand it.

No problem to understand Cuddles post.
On the other hand if I start to understand Rramjet I would quit drinking alcoholic beverages immediately.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip.
To paint everyone as simply wrong does a great disservice to the accurate ones.

The accurate ones, which would be?
Please elaborate.

 

[SnidelyW]

Two severe problems with this.
First off secret technologies don't have to be alien, also the average person knows little of what the limits are.
Secondly, did the person really observe what he or she thought they observed?

I believe the observer was Marduk. It might be best to ask him if he was mistaken. He sort of admitted it might have been a meteor, but didn't seem convinced, as I read his post.

I understand what you are saying.

At an early age, I loved UFO shows and books, but then I noticed that the route that Rramjet has chosen doesn't actually lead to results, its a dead end. And while true science is merciless and hard, it does lead to results.
I even picked space as my main educational direction. I would have loved to have got a masters degree in astronomy, but I got only got so far as a bachelors degree in aerospace engineering. But still I am trying to make sure that someday I will get a job in the space industry.

Perfect. You are the ideal candidate to begin hustling research money to investigate this issue from an aerospace engineering viewpoint. I bet if you can initiate a study that finds 'extraordinary' evidence that accelleration of UFO's consistently tops 100g's as an example, that space job will be waiting.

 

[Marduk]

if you want some extra detail, it was around the 13th december, in Wantage, Oxfordshire and I was looking North at the time.

This was in the pre internet days of 1995 and I knew nothing about astronomy at the time, so to me it was a UFO. I've looked at some meteors on youtube and it was identical to what I saw. But wether there were any known at that date and location I have no idea, so if I had reported it at the time I would have called it a UFO, this kind of sighting is your 10% Snideley, not because the object is unidentifiable, but just because it is unidentifiable to the observer who then doesn't have enough facts/details for a positive identification to me made.

 

[SnidelyW]

The accurate ones, which would be?
Please elaborate.

The various military weapons range operators at Nellis A.F.B, in early November, 1994 using all their high-tech gear probably could be called accurate ones.

I'm going to post this link now to substantiate the premise that the Nellis techs were accurate in their observations.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_discussion.html

The rest of the information I shall let you draw your own conclusions on.

 

[Blackwell]

The various military weapons range operators at Nellis A.F.B, in early November, 1994 using all their high-tech gear probably could be called accurate ones.

I'm going to post this link now to substantiate the premise that the Nellis techs were accurate in their observations.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_discussion.html

The rest of the information I shall let you draw your own conclusions on.

A few items:
1. From your link, the source of the video is unknown.
2. Even if it truly is unedited video with accurately overlaid audio from AFB techs, I'm not sure how accurate we can determine their observations to be, considering the radar and video data comes from a single source (rather than multiple camara/radar sites that could be used to confirm readings and triangulate the object.)
3. The author calls the radar range data "erroneous"
4. What do you think of the conclusions made by the author of this article:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Nellis/Part3/Part3.htm

 

[GeeMack]

The various military weapons range operators at Nellis A.F.B, in early November, 1994 using all their high-tech gear probably could be called accurate ones.

I'm going to post this link now to substantiate the premise that the Nellis techs were accurate in their observations.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_discussion.html

The rest of the information I shall let you draw your own conclusions on.

Yes or no, if you have the capability to answer such a simple question, did those various military weapons range operators determine that what they saw was some particular thing?

Or you may choose to remain ignorant as usual, of course.