UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Correa Neto]

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.

First of all I already knew that one as well as some other images of spiked or spider-shaped UFOs from Brazil. When you mentioned Brazillian footage of an UFO similar to Iran case, all I had to do was wait and see which one you were talking about.

I would not say "it could be a baloon"; even "it most likely was a baloon" would not be a good evaluation, since the (qualitative) odds of it being a baloon are just overwhelming. It was a baloon.

Rramjet, it was just one of the many errors you made so far. It was not a minor one, since you, without making a detailed investigation, posted it as evidence to corroborate the Iran UFO case. You also affirmed it shape shifted without even considering perspective and image artifacts. Looks like a text-book case of faith reinforcement.

Now suppose there was no video from that baloon- just reports from one or more eyewitness. Judging from your posts here you would not accept a mundane explanation. Without the images, you would stick to the eyewitness' descriptions and deny the baloon explanation. Just like you don't acept mundane explanations for Rogue River and Father Gill's cases, for example. The only difference here is the presence of imagery which allowed us to identify propperly a misdentified object.

Your methods (UFOlogy's methods actually) are flawed; where are your alleged research skills and scientific formation? Let me present another example of an error of yours:

I have always maintained that definitive “proof” cannot be found in ANY discipline, let alone the study of UFOs. ALL disciplines operate on a preponderance of evidence.

That's simply BS. Yes you may find some philosophical positions similar to this, but we are talking about science here. In biology, for example, a specimen is proof of the existence of a species, not to mention mathematical proofs and other similar cases. All the proof you need for the existence of a rock is to let it drop over your toe.

 

[AWPrime]

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.

You are putting a cart before the horse. First there must be solid evidence to be investigated. But what we have seen so far, falls far below that.

Lets take your Nellis case. The authenticity is questionable. The image quality is horrible. The measuring equipment generated poor inconsistent data, which makes it worthless. Also there is no sign of shock waves (audio or visual) to indicate transsonic or supersonic movement.

The data can be explained if it was four weather-balloons stuck together with a partial reflector.

 

[Rramjet]

I think you are twisting Cuddle's argument here. His statement is: "I have a pet cat". Since we already have the extraordinary evidence of the existence of cats, that claim is nothing but an ordinary one. Therefore no extraordinary evidence is needed to believe that he actually has a pet cat.

Okay…but what IS the “extraordinary evidence” you have of the existence of cats? No-one has been able to tell me that yet. Nobody has been able to define “extraordinary evidence”. People keep saying that they have (or do not have) it, or that it has (or has not) been presented… but NO-ONE can tell me what it IS.

On the other hand, if you say "an alien ship has landed in my backyard", then it's a completely different story. That's an extraordinary claim, not because of the landing aspect, or because you'd claim to have an extraterrestrial craft in your house, but because the extraordinary evidence of the existence of aliens is not available.

Perhaps “aliens” IS an extraordinary claim… perhaps “cats” is ALSO an extraordinary claim… THAT is a value judgement… but exactly WHAT might constitute the “extraordinary evidence” for either…? No-one – repeat NO-ONE - has been able to define it…

As I've said before (on this thread, I think), Sagan's formulation is best understood not as saying whether one type of evidence (a photo, eyewitness testimony, etc.) is better than another, but, rather, as saying something about the accumulation of all the evidence for a specific claim, …

So the accumulation of UFO case reports that have no mundane explanation does not count?

…to wit: an extraordinary claim is one that goes against a great weight of evidence (presumably of many types of evidence, from independent sources, and a great amount, etc.); …

Yes, an extraordinary claim! But we need to define extraordinary evidence… and THAT is a different thing altogether.

…so that in order to overturn the existing evidence for its contrary, the extraordinary claim must marshall more and better evidence, …

You mean more as in a greater number of UFO reports…? And what is “better” evidence… does “better” evidence make it “extraordinary? No, it is merely “better” …

…in sum, than what exists for its contrary. This is because prudence requires we accept the conclusion for which more and better evidence exists.

Okay..better evidence. I agree, it would be nice if we had “better” evidence for “aliens”, it would be nice if we had “better” evidence for many of our hypotheses, but just because we want “better” evidence does NOT mean that we want “extraordinary” evidence because no-one knows what that IS!

The question of exactly what is more or better evidence is a separate and more difficult question.

Actually, requiring more evidence and better evidence is the easy part. What you – and others – cannot do – and have not done - is define “extraordinary evidence”!

EDITED: Need I say that aliens is an extraordinary claim, and blimps aren't.

Blimps ARE an extraordinary claim if the evidence makes that claim implausible/unlikely/not rational under the circumstances, etc, etc.

No-one has yet been able to define extraordinary evidence. If they cannot, then the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is bunk!

 

[Stray Cat]

 

[Sledge]

Does anyone else get a horrible sinking feeling when they see Rramjet has replied to this thread?

Oh, and do post your evidence, Rramjet old bean. There's a good chap.

 

[Paul2]

No-one has yet been able to define extraordinary evidence. If they cannot, then the claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is bunk!

In my formulation (which I think is the most workable one), there is no such thing as a specific, particular, absolute definition of extraordinary evidence. It is a relative concept. It merely needs to be enough to overwhelm some other accumulated mass of evidence for a very well accepted, current, contrary claim. Depending on the specific claim and counter-claim, the amount and type of evidence will likely change for what will be "enough."

It's not an absolute formulation: it is relative to the claim. But it still works, is logical, and is prudent.

Actually, it's only another way of saying "we draw the conclusion with the best/most evidence." An argument about what exactly constitutes best and most evidence does nothing to refute the basic principle. That's another argument.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Just because you have a faith-based belief that I have presented no evidence for my claims does NOT make that belief a correct one.

Your faith-based belief that all UFOs cannot be identified other than as mundane is just that – a faith-based belief.

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)

But this is just garbage! Let us examine what was stated a little more skeptically shall we…

“ … a few reported incidents might have…”? THAT is not a statement of research finding. That is mere speculative opinion!

”…not convinced…” (that the evidence did not involve) ”…currently unknown physical processes…” An appeal to unknown physical processes as an explanation? I ask you, WHAT sort of explanation is THAT?

Actually, the Sturrock quote you cite above is a mere statement of speculative opinion designed solely to appease the dubunkers. What the panel actually concluded and recommended is the key to their actual thinking on the topic. That was:

”In 1997, in Tarrytown New York, Dr. Peter Sturrock held a workshop on UFOs. Now known in ufology as the Pocantico Workshop, 161 funded by Laurance S. Rockefeller, the workshop began on September 30, and ended on November 3, 1997. A panel of nine scientists, lead by Dr. Sturrock, concluded the following:

• The UFO problem is not a simple one and it is unlikely that there is a simple answer;
• Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying those observations;
• Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony;
• Some form of regular contact between the UFO community and the physical science community could be productive;
• It is desirable that there be institutional support for research in this area;
• The GEPAN/SERPA project of CNES provided a valuable model;
• There may be a possible health risk associated with UFO events.

Acknowledging that UFO research is not a laboratory science, Sturrock also recommended that there should be the following distinct activities in UFO research:

• Field investigations leading to case documentation and the measurement or retrieval of physical evidence;
• Laboratory analysis of physical evidence;
• The systematic compilation of evidence into catalogues;
• The analysis of compilations of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extract significant facts;
• The development of theories and the evaluation of these theories on the basis of the facts.”​

(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)

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".

But YOU merely wave away (totally ignore) the actual conclusions and recommendations of the panel itself (see above)! I don’t much care for mere opinion… No matter WHAT else was written or stated, the conclusions and recommendations are what we need to take note of here.

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.

Actually, I completely agree with Sturrock here. It is merely your faith-based belief system leads you into yet another erroneous belief – that I might disagree with the statement you just presented!

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.

“Hypothesise” would do nicely. But if NONE of those explanations is plausible? What then? What if NONE of the imaginable mundane explanations has ANY evidential support? What if the reported object positively defies mundane explanation? Then I “jump” toward UFO! I state that the object is “Unidentified”. I THEN explore the evidence as to what it SHOWS… if there is intelligent control and there are “beings” involved… then, having exhausted ALL plausible and rational mundane explanations, I can then legitimately hypothesise about “aliens”.

Oh, and I have consistently and repeatedly denied that we have direct evidence for the ETH.

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

Well, at last, you have managed to elicit a good, old fashioned belly laugh from me! Thank you, I was in need of that!

So now Sturrock is biased?! I thought he was one of your “golden” sources! …And yes, we DO know what they concluded (LOL, see above conclusions and recommendations).

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.

Why are we discussing old cases? Two reasons: Evidence is evidence, no matter its’ age and second, I have not yet got around to presenting more recent cases. Patience Astrophotographer, patience…

Moreover, your belief that “nothing really happened” after 1980 is simply a belief. Just because you believe nothing happened does NOT mean that nothing actually happened. Patience Astrophotographer, patience…

My reference to the Holocaust was in relation to your (directly implied) claim that “old” evidence should be ignored – struck out – merely because it is old…

…but I must thank you for the belly-laugh.

 

[wollery]

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.




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".



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.


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%.


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.

If you're going to edit my post, rearrange it to take different parts out of context and ignore over half of it, then what's the point?

That response took 3 days? Really?

 

[Rramjet]

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?

Tell me, do you find attacking the arguer rather than the argument gratifying?

I stated:
” 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.

...but you did not explain whether it was established via “ordinary” or “extraordinary” evidential process. So I ask again… according to you, which “process” established the existence of cats?

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.

We are positively discussing UFOs in this thread. My providing an example relating the “arguments” you made back to UFOs is precisely the whole point of the exercise. That you pretend to deny UFOs, even in argument, is telling.

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.

Ahhh… so you fall back on your faith-based belief system. Just because YOU believe evidence for aliens does not exist, does NOT mean that the evidence is not out there.

…and I “imagine” that evidence is evidence. If we have evidence for the existence of cats, then my contention is that precisely the same type of evidence can be sought for the existence of “aliens”. We don’t need (indeed can never obtain) “extraordinary” evidence for either cats or aliens. Can you PLEASE tell me what you consider “extraordinary evidence” might be.

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.

So, we agree then, a photo of you and T-Rex is ordinary evidence. I merely stated that the content was extraordinary, NOT the photo.

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.

So then what is it about the “additional” evidence that makes it different from the evidence that would be required to establish the existence of a cat? That is, WHAT is it about the “additional evidence” for T-Rex that makes it “extraordinary”?

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.

So HOW do I “repeat your exact point”?

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.

Please do!

The extraordinary evidence is the evidence that only needs to be required for extraordinary claims…

So…what constitutes this “extraordinary evidence”?

…but already exists in abundance for ordinary ones.

So, according to you “extraordinary evidence” is evidence that already exists for ordinary claims? How does that make sense? Please provide examples.

In my example, you do not need to provide evidence that cats exist, but you would need to provide evidence that dinosaurs currently do.

But what if I had NEVER seen a cat and you did not have a physical example that you could show me. HOW would you convince me that cats currently existed? You would NEED to provide EXACTLY the same evidence as you would to convince me of the current existence of T-Rex. That would be ordinary evidence... would it not?

A pet dinosaur is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence in support.

…but you are merely making a claim here USING the very term we require a definition of. You have NOT defined “extraordinary evidence”!

I stated:
”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.

Just because you believe the evidence does not exist, does NOT mean that there is no existing evidence.

Just because you believe that “evidence coming to light” might be “extraordinary”, does NOT mean that the evidence itself will be extraordinary. I ask again… please define “extraordinary evidence”.

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.

Only a person who has never encountered cats before would… but perhaps, according to you, ALL people who do not hold YOUR particular set of beliefs and who have not had YOUR particular set of experiences is insane?

Moreover, WHAT on earth would “extraordinary” evidence for a cat consist of? You keep saying that it exists, therefore you MUST be able to define it …or at the VERY LEAST provide examples of it…

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

So please tell me where I have committed a logical fallacy… your mere unfounded assertion that I have done so, does NOT mean that I have.

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.

…yessss… the photo is “ordinary” we got that far before… but ”all the other stuff”? PLEASE tell me what it is about “all the other stuff” that would make it “extraordinary” stuff?

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.

I decided not to snip the rant… I think it says more about you than I.

But I have snipped the meaningless comments that came after…

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.

…! Yes, I agree, the PHOTO IS ORDINARY EVIDENCE. Can we PLEASE move on …

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.

But WHAT precisely IS it about the evidence for the existence of cats (and that they can be kept as pets) that MAKES it “extraordinary” evidence? You keep defining your terms using the same term that needs definition in the first place. Again. PLEASE define “extraordinary evidence”… or at the very least provide us with concrete examples of it.

Once again, a pet cat is not an extraordinary claim because the evidence that would be considered extraordinary already exists.

…oh… WHAT “extraordinary” evidence is that then? PLEASE tell us. You claim it exists therefore you MUST be able to give us examples of it.

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.

No… it actually would have worked better if you had stated “I’ll just have to leave you in susp…” LOL.

Then I look forward with anticip…

…

…

…ation to your reply.

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?

Something that you will not or cannot define?

I stated:
”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.

…so… according to you, “extraordinary evidence” consists of (in this example at least) ”the extra evidence that would be required to suggest that the photo should be taken seriously at all”.

So, therefore you MUST be able (if unwilling) to tell us precisely WHAT this ”extra evidence” consists of. And WHAT it is about it that makes it “extraordinary”.

I have snipped the abusive rants this time …

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.

Oh I see... I ask for a definition and you provide an explanation! It is all clear to me now! LOL. But your “explanation” is of the type:

Q: What is a ball?
A: It is a ball.
Q: But you haven’t defined “ball”.
A: Then I will explain it as a thing used to play games with.
Q: What games?
A: Those games that require a ball for them to be played!

So Cuddles… failing a definition of “extraordinary evidence” I think we can safely say that Sagan’s claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is poppycock until ANYONE can define WHAT “extraordinary evidence” actually IS.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually, the Sturrock quote you cite above is a mere statement of speculative opinion designed solely to appease the dubunkers. What the panel actually concluded and recommended is the key to their actual thinking on the topic. That was:

Actually, you should be reading the book. Sturrock states there was quite the argument about what the panel would write and it took much longer than expected. Some of the scientists almost walked out on the first day! In the book "Here be Dragons:the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life", Dr. Eshleman (who was co-chair on the panel) is quoted as saying:

"UFOs remain unidentified because there isn't enough evidence to go beyond the unidentified category," Eshleman says. "unfortunately many people, when you say UFO, think that that means a vistation of aliens or a government coverup or something like that..." p. 190

Sound familiar?

Dr. Holzer stated on a Voice of America broadcast:

OF COURSE, YOU CAN NEVER RULE ANYTHING OUT, BUT WE
DIDN'T SEE ANY CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR EITHER OF THOSE.
ALTHOUGH WE DID SEE EVIDENCE OF INTERESTING AND FAIRLY
RARE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA, SUCH AS ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY
ABOVE THUNDERSTORMS AND ALSO SOME (CON)DUCTING OF RADAR
WAVES, WHICH GIVES YOU RADAR ECHOES WHICH ARE DISPLACED
FROM WHERE YOU WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT THEM.

Why would he say this since those presenting the cases felt they were real UFOs? Was the reserch concerning these cases less than adequate? Apparently, they thought so and that is why the wrote the statements I gave.

BTW, what you wrote was not the panels recommendations/conclusions.

The panel concluded that further analysis of the evidence presented at the workshop is unlikely to elucidate the cause or causes of these reports. However, the panel considers that new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed (especially of well documented, rcurrent events), could yield useful information. In this case, physcial scientists would have an opportunity to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem.
The panel made the following OBSERVATIONS (my emphasis)

They then go on to make the observations you listed. They were not conclusions or recommendations.

I don’t much care for mere opinion… No matter WHAT else was written or stated, the conclusions and recommendations are what we need to take note of here.

Again, these were not conclusions at all but "observations". The final section was written by Sturrock himself and is not what the panel wrote. Finally, Sturrock did not "lead" the panel. It was co-chaired by Eshleman and Holzer. Your source seems to be biased in how they are presenting what the panel wrote.

“Hypothesise” would do nicely. But if NONE of those explanations is plausible? What then? What if NONE of the imaginable mundane explanations has ANY evidential support? What if the reported object positively defies mundane explanation? Then I “jump” toward UFO! I state that the object is “Unidentified”. I THEN explore the evidence as to what it SHOWS… if there is intelligent control and there are “beings” involved… then, having exhausted ALL plausible and rational mundane explanations, I can then legitimately hypothesise about “aliens”.

However, you take too great a leap. Exactly how can you eliminate problems with the witness testimony? What if he/she is a good liar? Frank Kaufmann lied to a great number of UFO investigators for over a decade and many believed him. When he died, they discovered he had been lying all along when faced with the evidence in his garage. I can list Ed Walters, Billy Meier, contactees, abductees,etc.etc. All tell a convincing story but after close examination their stories turn out to be false. However, not all can be explained this way. I point to Hendry's astute observation that what if the report is simply distorted to the point that no identification can be made? How can one tell what goes on in the human mind at the moment they see something they do not understand? I know you proclaim that this is simple but you have yet to present actual papers and sources of how it is done.

If it can not be identified, it simply remains "unidentified". You can not make the leap to anything else. One can suggest possible solutions. In that case, one has to determine which is more likely. Using the ETH as a solution is the same as using a flying dragon because the evidence for each existence is the same.

Oh, and I have consistently and repeatedly denied that we have direct evidence for the ETH.

Then all UFOs are "unidentified" and we have absolutely no evidence they are aliens. Why are you wasting time here?

So now Sturrock is biased?! I thought he was one of your “golden” sources! …And yes, we DO know what they concluded (LOL, see above conclusions and recommendations).

Yes, Sturrock is biased because he is involved in the subject (he is the president of the Society for Scientific Exploration) and supports the ETH. This is why you have to read what the panel wrote and not what Sturrock wants you to read (for that matter the paper by Hoyt, who apparently could not get her facts correct on this issue).

Why are we discussing old cases? Two reasons: Evidence is evidence, no matter its’ age and second, I have not yet got around to presenting more recent cases. Patience Astrophotographer, patience…

Moreover, your belief that “nothing really happened” after 1980 is simply a belief. Just because you believe nothing happened does NOT mean that nothing actually happened. Patience Astrophotographer, patience…

No. I am not stating "nothing" happened. I am questioning why you feel that these older cases are so appealing when most of the principles are dead. If the evidence was never thoroughly examined in the first place, what good is it? There are numerous cases of UFO events that were closely examined by UFO proponents only to discover that years later the stories were not as told in the UFO literature (Lakenheath, Trindade Island, Big Sur, Malmstrom, Roswell, etc. etc.). I find it intesting that when UFOlogists are asked to list their best cases, they always go back to the older ones.

 

[RoboTimbo]

perhaps “cats” is ALSO an extraordinary claim… THAT is a value judgement…

You think that the existence of cats is a value judgement?

If an object is unidentified, HOW can it BE a particular thing?

Do you have any UFO reports that aren't unidentified so that we can attribute them to a particular thing, like aliens?

 

[Rramjet]

In my formulation (which I think is the most workable one), there is no such thing as a specific, particular, absolute definition of extraordinary evidence. It is a relative concept. It merely needs to be enough to overwhelm some other accumulated mass of evidence for a very well accepted, current, contrary claim. Depending on the specific claim and counter-claim, the amount and type of evidence will likely change for what will be "enough."

It's not an absolute formulation: it is relative to the claim. But it still works, is logical, and is prudent.

So according to you, “extraordinary evidence” is relative concept… that is to be based on the claim that is made… So that would mean… that… extraordinary claims… would require … hmmm…. extraordinary evidence?

Yes, I suppose circular arguments are at least logically consistent. LOL. So you are correct in that your “formulation” is “logical”, but I sincerely doubt it is a “prudent” way to make an argument or discover knowledge.

Actually, it's only another way of saying "we draw the conclusion with the best/most evidence." An argument about what exactly constitutes best and most evidence does nothing to refute the basic principle. That's another argument.

Ahhh… NOW we get to it. Extraordinary evidence is really just “the best/most evidence”… But of course the “best/most” evidence is not extraordinary, it is simply “better” (in quality) or “more” (presumably in quantity) evidence. THIS does not make it “extraordinary evidence”.

Thus my contention remains. Sagan’s claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is rubbish. And it will remain so until ANYONE can define “extraordinary evidence”.

Isn't it time that the UFO debunkers just cut their losses and realised that Sagan simply made a mistake here?

 

[Paul2]

So according to you, “extraordinary evidence” is relative concept… that is to be based on the claim that is made… So that would mean… that… extraordinary claims… would require … hmmm…. extraordinary evidence?

Yes, I suppose circular arguments are at least logically consistent. LOL. So you are correct in that your “formulation” is “logical”, but I sincerely doubt it is a “prudent” way to make an argument or discover knowledge.


Ahhh… NOW we get to it. Extraordinary evidence is really just “the best/most evidence”… But of course the “best/most” evidence is not extraordinary, it is simply “better” (in quality) or “more” (presumably in quantity) evidence. THIS does not make it “extraordinary evidence”.

Thus my contention remains. Sagan’s claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is rubbish. And it will remain so until ANYONE can define “extraordinary evidence”.

Isn't it time that the UFO debunkers just cut their losses and realised that Sagan simply made a mistake here?

Look at it this way: to jump (physically) a miniscule amount requires a minimal effort; to jump a moderate amount requires a moderate amount of effort; to jump an extraordinary amount requires an extraordinary amount of effort. Not only is the amount of effort defined in relative terms here, but anyone can understand the concept. Do you get it? Also, perhaps this is a way (via analogy) to understand how it is not circular in the sense of a logical fallacy. It is a physical fact that jumping further requires more effort (all things being the same), and that is not a logical fallacy.

The way I've phrased it above may seem obvious, but its obviousness makes it no less true.

P.S. It appears that you're still looking for an absolute definition of extraordinary evidence. Why set up that straw man? I'm not advocating an absolute definition of extraordinary evidence.

 

[Access Denied]

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?

[Rramjet]

Umm….

Wait, what was the question?

[/Rramjet]

We seem to have a dilemma here… if late Kindergarten level reading comprehension skills are beyond Rramjet’s grasp, where do we go from here? That’s a little advanced for Preschool isn’t it?

[by the way, I was able to clean the soda spray off my monitor but you still owe me a new keyboard]

 

[Access Denied]

So Cuddles… failing a definition of “extraordinary evidence” I think we can safely say that Sagan’s claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is poppycock until ANYONE can define WHAT “extraordinary evidence” actually IS.

What’s with all the shouting? How’s this for a working definition of “extraordinary evidence”…

1) Evidence obtained by (preferably multiple forms of) instrumentation (e.g. radar/optical tracking) of an unknown object entering and/or leaving the Earth’s atmosphere (to/from space) under artificial or intelligent control.

2) Physical (e.g. material) evidence of an artificial object, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

3) Biological (e.g. DNA) evidence of a life form, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

OPTIONAL: Multiple independently obtained and unambiguous (e.g. clear) photographs and/or video of a Zetan spaceship in action and/or on the ground, preferably while landing on the White House lawn or witnessed during a major sporting, or other, event with thousands present and broadcast on live TV.

Got anything like that?

If not, why not?

 

[Stray Cat]

Ahhh… NOW we get to it. Extraordinary evidence is really just “the best/most evidence”… But of course the “best/most” evidence is not extraordinary, it is simply “better” (in quality) or “more” (presumably in quantity) evidence. THIS does not make it “extraordinary evidence”.

How many times does it need explaining before you admit to understanding it?
Its 'extraordinary' status is not in its content at all, but in its effect in being enough to overturn commonly accepted physics.
Your refusal to accept the word 'extraordinary' in this context, relying instead on a strawman of your own construction is getting even more boring than your failure to provide any of the evidence (extraordinary or even just ordinary) you promised in your OP.

 

[Access Denied]

Then all UFOs are "unidentified" and we have absolutely no evidence they are aliens. Why are you wasting time here?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein

That or it may be Rramjet’s sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

This is your brain…

This is your brain on “aliens”…

 

[Rramjet]

Look at it this way: to jump (physically) a miniscule amount requires a minimal effort; to jump a moderate amount requires a moderate amount of effort; to jump an extraordinary amount requires an extraordinary amount of effort. Not only is the amount of effort defined in relative terms here, but anyone can understand the concept. Do you get it? Also, perhaps this is a way (via analogy) to understand how it is not circular in the sense of a logical fallacy. It is a physical fact that jumping further requires more effort (all things being the same), and that is not a logical fallacy.

The way I've phrased it above may seem obvious, but its obviousness makes it no less true.

P.S. It appears that you're still looking for an absolute definition of extraordinary evidence. Why set up that straw man? I'm not advocating an absolute definition of extraordinary evidence.

Your example is simply not analogous. That is, what term in your “example” is analogous to “extraordinary evidence”?

Presumably it cannot be the verb “jump”, because, well, that is a verb. We CAN however make your example analogous if we use “provide evidence” in place of “jump physically” and we can then end up with something like …to provide an extraordinary amount of evidence requires and extraordinary effort BUT that does NOT mean the evidence is extraordinary.

Nothing in your example defines extraordinary evidence.

I am looking for ANY logical definition of the term “extraordinary evidence”. NONE has been forthcoming (though many have tried). ( and of course you cannot advocate an “absolute definition of extraordinary evidence” …primarily because there IS none!)

To ask for a definition of terms in a statement of claim is reasonable and indeed logical and prudent.

How’s this for a working definition of “extraordinary evidence”…

1) Evidence obtained by (preferably multiple forms of) instrumentation (e.g. radar/optical tracking) of an unknown object entering and/or leaving the Earth’s atmosphere (to/from space) under artificial or intelligent control.

2) Physical (e.g. material) evidence of an artificial object, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

3) Biological (e.g. DNA) evidence of a life form, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

OPTIONAL: Multiple independently obtained and unambiguous (e.g. clear) photographs and/or video of a Zetan spaceship in action and/or on the ground, preferably while landing on the White House lawn or witnessed during a major sporting, or other, event with thousands present and broadcast on live TV.

Instrumental evidence, physical evidence, biological evidence, independently sourced evidence… ALL constitute ordinary (mundane, everyday, garden variety) evidence! This is the same type of evidence that would be required to show the existence of anything.

So NO definition or example of extraordinary evidence here either!

How many times does it need explaining before you admit to understanding it?
Its 'extraordinary' status is not in its content at all, but in its effect in being enough to overturn commonly accepted physics.
Your refusal to accept the word 'extraordinary' in this context, relying instead on a strawman of your own construction is getting even more boring than your failure to provide any of the evidence (extraordinary or even just ordinary) you promised in your OP.

Now “extraordinary evidence” is “enough evidence”? But this just quantifies the term “evidence”, it does NOT define “extraordinary evidence”.

To ask for a definition of terms in a statement of claim (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) is reasonable and indeed logical and prudent.

Until ANYONE can define the term “extraordinary evidence”, Sagan’s claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” will REMAIN a nonsensical claim.

I am providing ordinary evidence in the form of UFO case reports. These constitute evidence in support of my own claims. You may believe that they do not constitute evidence, but merely stating that belief does not make the belief true!

 

[Access Denied]

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

What makes you think those are “Nellis techs” and the soundtrack hasn’t been overdubbed?

[the colloquial nomenclature is “range rats” by the way]

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

My conclusion is Rudiak is an incredulous hack and as usual his "analysis" is an EPIC FAIL…

 

[wollery]

Look at it this way: to jump (physically) a miniscule amount requires a minimal effort; to jump a moderate amount requires a moderate amount of effort; to jump an extraordinary amount requires an extraordinary amount of effort. Not only is the amount of effort defined in relative terms here, but anyone can understand the concept. Do you get it? Also, perhaps this is a way (via analogy) to understand how it is not circular in the sense of a logical fallacy. It is a physical fact that jumping further requires more effort (all things being the same), and that is not a logical fallacy.

The way I've phrased it above may seem obvious, but its obviousness makes it no less true.

P.S. It appears that you're still looking for an absolute definition of extraordinary evidence. Why set up that straw man? I'm not advocating an absolute definition of extraordinary evidence.

Your example is simply not analogous. That is, what term in your “example” is analogous to “extraordinary evidence”?

Presumably it cannot be the verb “jump”, because, well, that is a verb. We CAN however make your example analogous if we use “provide evidence” in place of “jump physically” and we can then end up with something like …to provide an extraordinary amount of evidence requires and extraordinary effort BUT that does NOT mean the evidence is extraordinary.

Nothing in your example defines extraordinary evidence.

It's an analogy, it isn't an example, and it makes perfect sense. In an analogy the terms that are analogous don't both have to be verbs, or nouns, or adjectives, or adverbs........

Seriously Rramjet, given your writing ability I find it hard to believe that you can actually have such poor reading comprehension as you continually seem to exhibit.