UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

So then the claim that the medical records were not presented to support the plaintiffs case and therefore this was "suspicious" is a RED HERRING!

Nope, it's a RED FLAG!

 

[Stray Cat]

So then the claim that the medical records were not presented to support the plaintiffs case and therefore this was "suspicious" is a RED HERRING! If the plaintiffs never got the CHANCE to present that evidence then any conclusions drawn from the lack of presentation are entirely spurious!

The claim has to my knowledge never been specifically applied to presenting the med records in court, but more a general murmur of potential foul play by Schuessler/Gersten who had the records in their possession and yet refused to verify the claims made about radiation poisoning.

 

[Rramjet]

When you state your hypothesis in the negative, you are shifting the burden of proof inappropriately.

Paul2's first rule of hypotheses: "A hypothesis must be stated in the positive grammatically", otherwise we are left trying to disprove whether it's a teapot, a frying pan, or a chainsaw that is in orbit.

Perhaps you simply need to learn some basic science:

We have two types of alternative hypothesis, one-sided and two-sided alternatives.

1. Equal hypothesis versus not equal hypothesis (two-sided test)

H₀: parameter = some value​

H_A: parameter ≠ some value​

​

(http://www.public.iastate.edu/~shirley/stat104/Chap8-handout-A.pdf)

 

[Paul2]

Perhaps you simply need to learn some basic science:

We have two types of alternative hypothesis, one-sided and two-sided alternatives.

1. Equal hypothesis versus not equal hypothesis (two-sided test)

H₀: parameter = some value​

H_A: parameter ≠ some value​

​

(http://www.public.iastate.edu/~shirley/stat104/Chap8-handout-A.pdf)

Well, that makes everything perfectly clear!

You clearly addressed my point, right on point, because the main ideas of your response,

alternative hypothesis
one-sided alternatives
two-sided alternative,
equal hypothesis
not-equal hypothesis
etc.

clearly and unambiguously are exactly the terms of my previous point. Of course it's not necessary for you to define your terms, nor do you have to lay out explicitly how your terms relate to the terms I used. To do so would be to reduce yourself to being clear, unambiguous, exacting, and precise. These are qualities that we obviously don't want in a discussion about UFOs.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, that makes everything perfectly clear!

You clearly addressed my point, right on point, because the main ideas of your response,

alternative hypothesis
one-sided alternatives
two-sided alternative,
equal hypothesis
not-equal hypothesis
etc.

clearly and unambiguously are exactly the terms of my previous point. Of course it's not necessary for you to define your terms, nor do you have to lay out explicitly how your terms relate to the terms I used. To do so would be to reduce yourself to being clear, unambiguous, exacting, and precise. These are qualities that we obviously don't want in a discussion about UFOs.

Whew. Good. Because they are qualities which Rramjet and his minions have proven themselves incapable of applying to such a discussion.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oh dear, about as likely as… say… a blimp perchance? I’ll tell you what… based on this form of argument, I’ll concede no helicopters if you concede no blimp. Deal?

There is a difference. In one case, we have the Blimp, which was in Oregon in May of 1949. In the other, we have a ship that is on the other coast with little to no chance of making it to the east coast in time for the event in question. If the blimp were in southern California that month, you might have a case.

The consensus seems to be that the blood results did NOT show radiation poisoning. Thus there is a GOOD reason WHY the plaintiffs would not have wanted to enter this into evidence – even if the medical evidence POSITIVELY showed that the witnesses received the injuries at the time they stated they did. The fact that the blood results were negative would have immediately closed the case on military negligence… ANYTHING the military could plausibly have been shown to have operating to cause such injuries as claimed WOULD also have affected the blood. No question. So that is reason enough for the plaintiffs not to enter the medical evidence.

So, basically, the lawyers withheld critical evidence that indicated the cause of the injuries was not due to radiation poisoning. Hmm...does this mean they were being dishonest?

But what about the defence? I find it interesting that the military did NOT subpoena the medical records for themselves (or if they did THEY did not enter them into the record) to show that the injuries were NOT caused at the time stated. THIS is a telling point in the OTHER direction. The military would not have been so negligent as to NOT have looked into the medical records. If they felt that their case was strengthened by those records, then they would MOST definitely have entered them. They did not! Why not…presumably the blood results supported their defence? It can only mean that other parts of the record supported the plaintiffs case!

This is a rather idiotic approach to this. It is up to the plantiffs to prove they were injured by producing evidence of the injuries. The military only had to demonstrate that they looked for said UFO/helicopters and could not produce any evidence of their existence. It is a political move. They win their case without making it appear the witnesses were crazy/lying/whatever. Congressmen get upset and make life miserable for the pentagon when these sort of things happen.

Precisely, he is NO expert! Just because he is a UFO proponent does not make him correct. Please point to the chemicals that CAN do as Sparks suggests. Cuddles had a go… rocket fuel no less! But of course rocket fuel IS just lying around the countryside waiting for anyone to accidently expose themselves to it!

I suggest you look up pesticides. Many of the symptoms described are produced by exposure to pesticides.

So this is pretty categorical. There are a number of experts arguing over the injuries and symptoms AS IF THEY WERE REAL! So we if we assume that the injuries WERE real, then HOW did the witnesses come by them?

Good question but it does not mean their story about a diamond shape UFO and fleet of helicopters is true or accurate. They had injuries (the actual extent of which is hard to determine since we have no records) but these injuries can be caused by things other than ionizing radiation.

Well…obviously the helicopters COULD possibly have come from the USS New Orleans…

I suggest you figure out how long it would take the New Orleans to go from San Diego and back (make sure you include a replenshment of supplies and fuel before leaving). Also, perhaps if you contact some crew members you will discover none recall ever going to the east coast immediately after returning from westpac that year. TRUST ME, if you just finished a deployment away from homeport for over many months, you would remember having to go back out to sea. You would also have heard a lot of families screaming to their congressmen. The Navy doesn't work that way. It is not only unlikely but highly improbable.

Except that no other cause has been identified and multiple types of radiation might have been involved.

A claim not supported by what we know about the blood tests.

You do NOT discuss this in your post… it is a mere restatement of unfounded, generalised assertion.

I thought it was common knowledge that the road had been "covered-up" and none of the surrounding terrain exhibited any sign of damage. Additionally, I thought it was common knowledge that the car was undamaged. Even though the car was "hot to the touch" none of the plastic had deformed or melted. The car was not activiated in any way indicating there was no significant radiation that struck the car. This is a lack of evidence to the terrain and vehicle. If you have evidence, feel free to present it.

UFOs tend to do that in case you had not noticed…

Do you mean "magically" appear and disappear out of the ether like elves, fairies, ghosts,etc.... I thought we were talking about actual physical craft.

…And they DO NOT claim it was visible for over 20 minutes!

Tell Jerome Clark:

"The whole incident lasted a total of 20 minutes" (The UFO book p.74).


I read it in several of the MUFON journal articles as well. In November 1981 MUFON Journal, John Schuessler gave a total time of 18-23 minutes. In the September 1983 MUFON Journal, he repeats the timeline and then states, "The UFO was in sight for more than 20 minutes total." I suggest you try and go beyond the typical websites for your information.

…
I have already stated there is NO “best case”. This is just a case that either stands or falls on the evidence.

And this case has very little evidence to support the story. The injuries are it and they could have been caused by something other than radiation.

 

[Astrophotographer]

What “exceptions”? What issue?

Just because a case can be found that has no explanation does not mean that it is not possibly something mundane. Maybe the witness lied. Maybe the witness grossly exaggerated what he/she saw. Maybe it was a hoax that fooled the witness or the witness was part of the hoax. Maybe the witness had a hallucination of some kind. There are plenty of possibilities to prevent the positive identification of an event.

The issue is the reliability of human testimony. If you actually read any of those eyewitness documents you listed, you would discover that this is a big problem in the court of law.

 

[Astrophotographer]

If the plaintiffs never got the CHANCE to present that evidence then any conclusions drawn from the lack of presentation are entirely spurious!

If the plantiffs had presented their evidence correctly, the Judge would not have thrown it out. If the medical records indicated radiation exposure, then they probably would have some sort of case since it would be next to impossible that they could have been exposed to such a source. The desire not to present the records indicated there was reason to hide them. Blame Gerstein et. al. for not presenting the evidence. Do not blame the military.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Interestingly the investigation did NOT rule out “hard” targets:

However it did demonstrate the problems with radar and how the atmosphere affects the returns. The Condon study agreed with this assessment.

In summary, the following statements appear to be correct:


1. The atmospheric conditions during the period 19-20 and 25-27 July, 1952, in the Washington, D. C., area, were conducive to anomalous propagation of radar signals;

2. The unidentified radar returns obtained during these incidents were most likely the result of anomalous propagation (AP);

3. The visual objects were, with one or two possible exceptions, identifiable as most probably meteors and scintillating stars.

You can make whatever you want about the "two exceptions". However, it does not mean that these unknowns were tracked on radar and they were alien spaceships.

http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap05.htm

 

[tsig]

So then the claim that the medical records were not presented to support the plaintiffs case and therefore this was "suspicious" is a RED HERRING! If the plaintiffs never got the CHANCE to present that evidence then any conclusions drawn from the lack of presentation are entirely spurious!

They had the CHANCE when they filed the case. Why would the military even have the medical records?

 

[chuck4842]

However it did demonstrate the problems with radar and how the atmosphere affects the returns. The Condon study agreed with this assessment.

In summary, the following statements appear to be correct:


1. The atmospheric conditions during the period 19-20 and 25-27 July, 1952, in the Washington, D. C., area, were conducive to anomalous propagation of radar signals;

2. The unidentified radar returns obtained during these incidents were most likely the result of anomalous propagation (AP);

3. The visual objects were, with one or two possible exceptions, identifiable as most probably meteors and scintillating stars.

You can make whatever you want about the "two exceptions". However, it does not mean that these unknowns were tracked on radar and they were alien spaceships.

http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap05.htm

Astro, you're suggestion is that the anomalous propagation seen on radar , and the ufos videotaped in the same area are seperate objects. You only say this because you kmow anomolous propagation isn't visible by the human eye. The video (you hate so much)of the incident clearly shows they weren't meteors, please tell me again that the video shows meteors in formation. I love it when you make these insane statements.

 

[Akhenaten]

How can you have one hypothesis on something unidentified and hasn't been categorized as singular yet? That maybe impossible. I'm with Astro and sorta see why he wants to just start with one, the best case , as he calls it. But even then what are we gonna do? Hunt it down, hold it still , and knock on it askin' "anybody in there?". When this threads over, may I suggest we get some fluid, meet somewhere and embalm ourselves.

Astro, you're suggestion is that the anomalous propagation seen on radar , and the ufos videotaped in the same area are seperate objects. You only say this because you kmow anomolous propagation isn't visible by the human eye. The video (you hate so much)of the incident clearly shows they weren't meteors, please tell me again that the video shows meteors in formation. I love it when you make these insane statements.

The change in style is a little obvious, don't you think?

 

[chuck4842]

The change in style is a little obvious, don't you think?

Well don't YOU think he started it off, with the 1,2,3 facts of different objects? His scientific method stops when it doesn't include his own hypothesis, it's so incredibly obvious. I would think he'd continue with the rest of one of his theories before just stating the next. For instance, after the anomalous propagation was spotted on radar, fighter jets were scrambled to intercept. The pilots stories of what they saw may be despised scientifical evidence, but the fact is they saw something. Then to the next theory which would be the pilots saw a meteor because they don't know one when they see one.

 

[GeeMack]

Well don't YOU think he started it off, with the 1,2,3 facts of different objects? His scientific method stops when it doesn't include his own hypothesis, it's so incredibly obvious. I would think he'd continue with the rest of one of his theories before just stating the next. For instance, after the anomalous propagation was spotted on radar, fighter jets were scrambled to intercept. The pilots stories of what they saw may be despised scientifical evidence, but the fact is they saw something. Then to the next theory which would be the pilots saw a meteor because they don't know one when they see one.

And you misunderstand the burden of proof thing, too, I see. I already suggested you ask one of the science teachers there at your high school to explain it to you. The least you could do is take the incentive to learn about these things if you're going to try to keep up with the discussion.

 

[Akhenaten]

The change in style is a little obvious, don't you think?

Well don't YOU think he started it off, with the 1,2,3 facts of different objects? His scientific method stops when it doesn't include his own hypothesis, it's so incredibly obvious. I would think he'd continue with the rest of one of his theories before just stating the next. For instance, after the anomalous propagation was spotted on radar, fighter jets were scrambled to intercept. The pilots stories of what they saw may be despised scientifical evidence, but the fact is they saw something. Then to the next theory which would be the pilots saw a meteor because they don't know one when they see one.

Are you under the impression that the response offered matches the question? You'd be Robinson Crusoe, I think.

 

[Tapio]

Just because a case can be found that has no explanation does not mean that it is not possibly something mundane.

(bolding and underlining mine)

Ha haa! This is quite hilarious. I wonder how many times the same statement has been made in this thread...and still it needs to be repeated.

I truly salute all of you still going at it!

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, in other areas of life, would you accept an argument made on purely eyewitness testimony with no supporting physical evidence? Say you were told that someone had been stabbed to death in your front room. You go into the room and there's no corpse on the floor. There's no trace of blood. No knife. All your home's door and windows are locked with no sign that anyone has entered and left your house. No one has been seen entering or leaving your house. Will you continue to believe that someone was stabbed to death in your front room above all other explanations for someone telling you this story?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astro, you're suggestion is that the anomalous propagation seen on radar , and the ufos videotaped in the same area are seperate objects. You only say this because you kmow anomolous propagation isn't visible by the human eye. The video (you hate so much)of the incident clearly shows they weren't meteors, please tell me again that the video shows meteors in formation. I love it when you make these insane statements.

This is all about the 1952 event. I did not state that AP can be seen with they eye. AP affects radar. The rest of the 1952 event can be explained as misperceived lights and meteors.

The video you saw was a computer generated animation based on a single photograph of the capital from the time period.

http://www.informantnews.com/brief/dc52flap.jpg

This photograph has been examined and determined the "UFOs" in the picture are actually internal relections in the lens from the bright ground lights at the bottom of the picture.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ha haa! This is quite hilarious. I wonder how many times the same statement has been made in this thread...and still it needs to be repeated.

I truly salute all of you still going at it!

What makes it fun and worthwhile is that posters such as Rramjet believe that the residents of Lurksville are somehow being totally convinced that little green men and such are flying about the place. This despite their arguments being being shredded mercilessly by their opponents.

It's a bit sad that Astrophotographer and the others have to keep repeating the same refutations, but they can only work with what they've got, and at least it still serves a purpose in assisting newer Forumites to identify and deal with logical fallacies.

Having so many obvious fallacies in one thread is actually a boon, similar to having a barrel full of ducks.

 

[Access Denied]

Catching up…

How on EARTH does your quotes make the author’s statement that they concealed the witnesses identity at the witnesses own request to safeguard their reputation and job security unfounded?

<snip>

HOW does this relate to witness anonymity?

<snip>

HOW does THIS relate to witness anonymity?

HOW do the two quotes together relate to witness anonymity?

If you think you’re going to get a different answer by asking me the exact same questions over and over again then I would suggest you may be hopelessly stuck in an endless loop.

HOW do you “infer” from the quotes you cited that the “promoters”… (whoever THEY are...Rr.) ”…likely had some ulterior motive for maintaining their anonymity”?!

Well, as much I would like to you believe I used magic, to be completely honest, I probably just used good old-fashioned common sense… then again, I’m not sure we can completely rule out dumb luck… life is just full of little mysteries isn’t it?

But you HAVE NOT “explained it… have you have lost all pretence to reason and logic?

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

You make a lot of unfounded, generalised assertion without providing EVIDENCE for such assertions in the form of a verifiable reference we can look up. I am entitled to dismiss out of hand your statements until you can provide the EVIDENCE that the quote you just provided – in it’s original context – actually supports your contentions. The quote actually seems quite vague and does NOT directly support your assertions… so please provide the reference link and we can go on from there… otherwise it is merely (again) hogwash!

You already have the reference link, the quote is from the NARCAP report you posted… you did read it didn’t you?

(So, now suddenly you are also a snake-oil swamp salesman and an expert in alien footwear and alien fashion? LOL)

Suddenly?

What is “WFT”?

I have no idea WTF “WFT” is… could it be an acronym or some kind of secret code?

You have the hearsay evidence of a single teenager … and you can think of NO reasons why “teenagers” might “hate” the “fuzz”!? (even IF it were true, which you have NO evidence for…)

It was a rhetorical question.

[as are all of my questions in this post by the way]

HOW do you get that Zamora had a “thing” about kids playing pranks from that????

<snip>

HOW do you get that he had a “thing” about kids playing pranks from that????

If you didn’t understand it the first N times I explained it then I would suggest perhaps you have a “thing” about reading between the lines and odds are you probably wouldn’t understand it the N+1 time either… probably best to just move along to a different thing.

Access Denied…? What has come over you?

A renewed appreciation for the more rational people on this planet thank you very much…