UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Astrophotographer, I believe you like to cite the Sturrock Panel as a worthy source…The Sturrock panel commented:

“The Cash-Landrum case seems to be unique in that there is detailed documentation of the injuries (photographs, etc.), and of the subsequent medical treatment.”​
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)

I am also reliably informed that the military offered $10,000 to settle the case, but given that did not cover the medical expenses, they (and Gersten) thought they had a good enough case to proceed to court. Unwise move as it turned out - had they accepted the 10K they would have at least established that the government believed there was a case.

I think also you need to go back to the first-hand accounts, rather than relying on the second (third and fourth) hand accounts of your supposed UFO proponents (Brad Sparks, Jerome Clark, etc). In the official interview conducted by the USAF Cash clearly states:

CJC: OK, and ah... how long did this sighting last, how long were you exposed to it?
BC:Well, I'd say about 15 to 16, 17 minutes, it seemed like hours to me, but it couldn't have been that long because when I got home it was ten minutes till ten, which is approximately a twenty minute drive from where this happened.​
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)

You also asked if death or injury were unique to the Landrum case. I noted there were several other cases, but one that predates the modern UFO era (and so this account could not have been affected by popular culture) can be found here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

On the CAA radar study I can only reiterate:
Rramjet said:
Interestingly the investigation did NOT rule out “hard” targets:

3. (…) At its worst, it forms a nuisance by cluttering the scope display and by requiring that additional traffic information or heading instructions be issued in order to protect other traffic against the possibility that such a target might be a helicopter.” (pp.14-15)

If, according to the investigation things as substantial as “helicopters” cannot be ruled out then “UFO”s cannot be ruled out either!
Click to expand...
No matter what other statements you bring, you cannot simply ignore the above!
 
Sorry. Am I being a bit blonde? I don't understand why they changed WTF to The ****Wit !!

The autocensor will change the forbidden words itself. Please don't try to help it along. Thanks!
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I stated:
Rramjet said:
A1: UFO sightings exist that are not the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes.

B1: UFO sightings exist for which there is no plausible mundane solution.

All I have to do then is present cases that support the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

You replied:
Paul2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I replied to that:
Rramjet said:
Perhaps you simply need to learn some basic science::cool:

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​
HA: parameter ≠ some value​
​
(http://www.public.iastate.edu/~shirley/stat104/Chap8-handout-A.pdf)
Click to expand...

You then stated:
Paul2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have emphasised the “LEARN” in my statement “Perhaps you simply need to learn some basic science:” I gave you a link to a website that you may do just that… I am sorry that you did not take advantage of the opportunity offered. Your contention was that it was “inappropriate” to state a “negative” hypothesis (and “A hypothesis must be stated in the positive”). I was merely pointing out that this was an erroneous assessment:

HA: parameter ≠ some value
(http://www.public.iastate.edu/~shirley/stat104/Chap8-handout-A.pdf)

My hypotheses:

UFO sightings exist (parameter) that are not (≠) the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes (some value).

UFO sightings exist (parameter) for which there is no (≠) plausible mundane solution (some value).

I hope this is now ”clear, unambiguous, exacting, and precise” enough for you?
 
Rramjet said:
My hypotheses:

UFO sightings exist (parameter) that are not (≠) the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes (some value).

UFO sightings exist (parameter) for which there is no (≠) plausible mundane solution (some value).

I hope this is now ”clear, unambiguous, exacting, and precise” enough for you?
Click to expand...

please check "unambiguous" in your dictionary, it obviously has a different meaning to what you think it does
:rolleyes:
 
Rramjet, I see your point, I over-stated my position.

There's still a problem, though. How do you establish the truth of your hypothesis A1? How do eliminate the possibility of misperception? Rather than having to prove that something didn't happen, we're asking for (positive) evidence that something *did* happen. A piece of an alien craft would conclusively put to rest the possibility of a misperception, a hoax, etc.
 
Rramjet said:
Perhaps I should have emphasised the “LEARN” in my statement “Perhaps you simply need to learn some basic science:”
Click to expand...
Project much, Rramjet?

You should have taken the advice Paul2 tried to give you…

Rramjet said:
UFO sightings exist (parameter) that are not (≠) the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes (some value).
Click to expand...
I believe that’s a testable prediction… now all you need to do is present some incontrovertible evidence that what somebody saw is something previously unknown to science.

Surely fame and fortune awaits for whomever rmakes this monumental discovery…. why are you still here and not out there trying to capture some real data?

Rramjet said:
UFO sightings exist (parameter) for which there is no (≠) plausible mundane solution (some value).
Click to expand...
Invalid… there’s no way to objectively rule out misperceptions, delusion, lies, or hoaxes in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and even if you could, it would still be a UFO so nothing is gained.

Furthermore, I find your use of the subjective modifier “plausible” in the formulation of logical expression inappropriate and disingenuous to the extreme. Well all know your game here is simply to declare any proposed solution as “implausible” but guess what? Science doesn’t care what you think…
 
As for the Sturrock panel comment, it is a statement of fact that they were injured and treated. However, these were physcial scieintists and not doctors. They saw paperwork about medical injuries and treatment. I did not see any discussion of a presentation of medical records in the book (which had most, if not all, of the papers presented). I am sure they saw a paper about the injuries and treatment, which is not the same thing. Edit: It was John Schuessler who presented the case to the panel. His paper was not in the book but it seems to have been the same paper he presented at the CUFOS/MUFON symposiums. Most of that came from the articles he wrote in the MUFON journal, which I have already quoted.
Rramjet said:
I am also reliably informed that the military offered $10,000 to settle the case, but given that did not cover the medical expenses, they (and Gersten) thought they had a good enough case to proceed to court. Unwise move as it turned out - had they accepted the 10K they would have at least established that the government believed there was a case.
Click to expand...

Reliably informed? Hmmmm.....feel free to quote an actual source or is this just hearsay evidence?

Settling out of court is not unusual in such cases. They probably were going to spend more than 10K to present their case. They made the offer probably to save money/avoid publicity (the military always comes out on the short end in these cases even if they are untrue) and not because they felt their case was factual.

Rramjet said:
I think also you need to go back to the first-hand accounts, rather than relying on the second (third and fourth) hand accounts of your supposed UFO proponents (Brad Sparks, Jerome Clark, etc).
Click to expand...

Look, if you don't want to consider Scheussler the primary source of information on this (he DID the interviews), that is fine with me. What you are saying here is "don't trust any of the writings of the UFOlogists because they are wrong". If that is it, then let's reject all the details about the event, because almost all of them can be traced back to what Scuessler wrote on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Rramjet, I see your point, I over-stated my position.

There's still a problem, though. How do you establish the truth of your hypothesis A1? How do eliminate the possibility of misperception?
Click to expand...


Huh? You need to ask? All evidence suggests he'll do exactly the same thing he's been doing for the past several thousand posts. He'll ignore everything that doesn't fit his tiny convoluted view of reality. He'll habitually lie. He'll spout inane arguments from incredulity and ignorance. And he'll assume he's correct about his interpretation of the sources even though there is much evidence that his reading comprehension skills are deplorable. That's how he'll do it, of course. Now eliminating the possibility of misperception in the minds of sane intelligent people, it's reasonably certain that he's incapable of doing that.
 
Akhenaten said:
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.
Click to expand...

[delurk]

Roger Ramjet's wall o' text posts have convinced me of absolutely nothing.

[/delurk]

Norm
 
Why on earth, would aliens not go right to the top of the food chain.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
wollery said:
SETI is hardly a belief system, it's a serious research project based on sound science. If there are intelligent civilisations in the Solar neighbourhood and they use EM waves for communication, we could pick up those signals. So we look for them.

Please explain what's wrong with that.
Click to expand...


UFO guru Stanton Friedman once called the SETI project Silly Effort To Investigate :eek:, probably as a criticism of the scientific project for diverting funds away from the "real" and "more fruitful" investigation, namely UFOs :p.

Probably Rramjet thinks along these lines too? :rolleyes:
 
Astrophotographer said:
As for the Sturrock panel comment, it is a statement of fact that they were injured and treated. However, these were physcial scieintists and not doctors. They saw paperwork about medical injuries and treatment. I did not see any discussion of a presentation of medical records in the book (which had most, if not all, of the papers presented). I am sure they saw a paper about the injuries and treatment, which is not the same thing. Edit: It was John Schuessler who presented the case to the panel. His paper was not in the book but it seems to have been the same paper he presented at the CUFOS/MUFON symposiums. Most of that came from the articles he wrote in the MUFON journal, which I have already quoted.
Click to expand...
Lets just begin with what we KNOW and skip the unfounded speculations shall we? That is, we have verification from the Sturrock Panel that they were satisfied that Cash’s (and other’s) injuries were real and they were treated for those injuries.

You have often claimed that the conclusions of the Sturrock Panel supported your position on UFOs (and have cited concluding passages in support of that claim). IF you are NOW claiming that the Sturrock Panel was in ERROR when investigating its UFO cases (judging by the above speculation, presumably by not exercising due diligence) then YOU can no longer use the Panel’s conclusions to support your case!

This is the type of thing I mean when I contend that UFO debunkers will say anything (no matter what the logical – or otherwise – consequences of that action might be) if it seems to support their case. Here we have an example of a person who has often claimed (and cited) the Sturrock Panel’s conclusions to support his case, yet here can turn around to attempt to trash the very same Panel’s research methods when it suits him!

Astrophotographer said:
Reliably informed? Hmmmm.....feel free to quote an actual source or is this just hearsay evidence?
Click to expand...
Yes… perhaps like Woodward and Bernstein (coughs politely…;)) I find myself in a difficult position in that regard… I know the source to be accurate, but need to use my own resources to find independent verification in order to satisfy the public record. Like them, in my eagerness, I may at times over-reach …

Astrophotographer said:
Settling out of court is not unusual in such cases. They probably were going to spend more than 10K to present their case. They made the offer probably to save money/avoid publicity (the military always comes out on the short end in these cases even if they are untrue) and not because they felt their case was factual.
Click to expand...
Maybe… maybe not …. But I’ll just have to have to acquiesce for now…

Astrophotographer said:
Look, if you don't want to consider Scheussler the primary source of information on this (he DID the interviews), that is fine with me. What you are saying here is "don't trust any of the writings of the UFOlogists because they are wrong". If that is it, then let's reject all the details about the event, because almost all of them can be traced back to what Scuessler wrote on the subject.
Click to expand...
I am contending – and as I have reiterated many times in response to you – that we must, as far as possible, get our information from first-hand sources. As far as I am concerned the USAF interview with Cash, Landrum and Colby constitutes such a source (http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html).

I am extremely wary of ANYONE drawing conclusions based on sources other than that type of first-hand source (That is; eyewitness testimony, official documents, etc). Thus while I may take under consideration John Schuessler’s account to be accurate - because he has investigated and has cited first-hand sources (documents, etc), I am wary of others’ comments such as (to use your example) Jerome Clark (whom you claim stated) "The whole incident lasted a total of 20 minutes" (The UFO book p.74) - when according to the witness statements (first-hand source), this is incorrect.

Oh… and you have not commented on the following case. You made an assertion that if the Cash/Landrum case was unique in terms of injuries then that reflected negatively on the whole field of UFO research.
Rramjet said:
You also asked if death or injury were unique to the Landrum case. I noted there were several other cases, but one that predates the modern UFO era (and so this account could not have been affected by popular culture) can be found here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
Click to expand...
Here is a case where the reporter sees that Scientific American is talking about unusual electrical/meteorological phenomena and reports a UFO as if it were simply another of the unusual electrical phenomena that were of interest to the journal. There is no mention of UFOs and it is patently obvious that such a thing was never (even remotely) conceptualised by the reporter. He simply reports the facts of a case, assuming that it related to what Scientific American was expounding upon. However, the injuries are so remarkably similar to the Cash/Landrum case that I simply draw it to your attention for comment in light of your original assertion. While I can consider no case to be a “best case” – this is a pretty darn good one nevertheless!
 
Patricio Elicer said:
UFO guru Stanton Friedman once called the SETI project Silly Effort To Investigate :eek:, probably as a criticism of the scientific project for diverting funds away from the "real" and "more fruitful" investigation, namely UFOs :p.

Probably Rramjet thinks along these lines too? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

While I disagree with Friedman on a number of issues, it is perhaps instructional to look at his "UFOs: Challenge to SETI Specialists" article (http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfufovsseti.html). Perhaps you would like to discuss (without pulling silly faces) the 16 specific criticisms he draws our attention to in relation to SETI?
 
Paul2 said:
Rramjet, I see your point, I over-stated my position.

There's still a problem, though. How do you establish the truth of your hypothesis A1? How do eliminate the possibility of misperception? Rather than having to prove that something didn't happen, we're asking for (positive) evidence that something *did* happen. A piece of an alien craft would conclusively put to rest the possibility of a misperception, a hoax, etc.
Click to expand...

Thank you Paul2, you are a gentleman.

Yes, you are correct, the problem does come when trying to "prove" the hypotheses - and not as the debunkers claim that the hypotheses are impossible to correctly formulate in the first place.

We are, in this thread, engaged in a (very lengthy :)) discussion concerning whether you can "prove" my hypotheses.

Unfortunately, the first thing that happens in such discussions (as launched by my OP) is that the debunkers invariably throw in half baked myths like the "no testable hypotheses are possible" claim - that then have to be dispelled before we can move on...

On your point directly, I claim, as does science, that there is no such thing as proof - merely a preponderance of evidence. Anyway... your comments on the matter are appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Perhaps you would like to discuss (without pulling silly faces) the 16 specific criticisms he draws our attention to in relation to SETI?
Click to expand...
Well, I had trouble getting past the byline…

“Nuclear Physicist / Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman”

He doesn’t have a PhD and he hasn’t worked in the field in over 30 years because, as he said in his own words…

"As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking, and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all, I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse…"

That said, I couldn’t get past his first “point” demonstrating a willful ignorance of the rocket equation. Sure, we’ve known we could use Nuclear pulse propulsion to travel to the stars for over 50 years now if we were willing to dedicate a significant portion of our civilization’s resources towards accomplishing it, but what he doesn’t tell you is how long it would take to get to just the nearest star… on the order of 50 years assuming the maximum theoretical efficiency can be reached... not likely in practice.

Friedman profits by exploiting the ignorance and “will to believe” of his audience.

Caveat emptor

I could easily debunk the rest but I suspect it might be over your head and even if it wasn’t, you’d just ignore it like you have with every single point that anybody has made here.

Now, let’s see you debunk this…

http://www.roswellfiles.com/storytellers/Friedman.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom