UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Interestingly UFO proponents have NEVER claimed eyewitnesses to be 100% reliable, yet to maintain the UFO debunker position, the eyewitnesses MUST be 100% unreliable!

False claim. Skeptics have always stated that eyewitnesses may be correct in reporting that something happened but their interpretation of what they saw may be inaccurate. Therefore, we are not claiming 100% inaccuracy/unreliability. We are only questioning the more extraordinary observations of the event, which could be do to with perception as case histories have shown us. However, to make UFOs sound extraordinary and defy the laws of physics, UFO proponents must accept that testimony as 100% reliable. So don't kid everyone trying to make it appear that skeptics are being unreasonable and proponents are being reasonable because it is a false claim.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You're kidding right? The newspaper reproduction is just that, a newspaper print reproduction! Anomalies, fading, washing out, and much more all occur in such a process.

I think I already made that point. Does it account for features in the repro being visible where they are not in your superior quality print "from the original negative"?

How do you know the shellbursts were not all at the same time?

Explain your proposition in a little more detail, please: What shutter speed do you suppose was used and what rate of fire do you estimate? By the way, what kind of camera was used? Is the "original negative" film or plate? Who was the photographer - amateur? Pro? Press?

BUT -There IS evidence of some retouching, but you just haven't seen it yet!

Evidence we haven't seen yet? Where have we heard that before?

 

[GeeMack]

Rramjet, where's your alleged scientific training?

He has none. His claim to have any scientific training is a lie. All evidence points to the fact that he's a high school kid, and not a very bright or successful student at that.

 

[Correa Neto]

Not sure on the kid part. A High school kid would, most likely, know about the way www forums work. I doubt one would make that blunder with the messages, exposing the "UFO conspiracy"...

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip... I am not about to divulge my identity in this forum.

No one is asking for you to do so. Following the propper methods of science would be enough to avoid this type of questioning. So far, you have not followed them. You have followed UFOlogy's pseudoscientific methods by the book, however.

I'll answer the rest of our post later. Got some pressing RL issues to care about right now.

A last comment- you should realy question yourself regarding the alleged lack of evidence for hoaxing at Trindade. You may be near a blunder similar to that of the Niterói spider UFO.

 

[SnidelyW]

Another perfect example of the UFOlogist mindset - they don't even want to play by science rules! LOL.

The concept of scientific speculation, even when no hard data is available, is commonly accepted as a valid science 'rule'.

I point to both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox as examples of this.

Taking speculation even further, two University of Hawaii scientists have even speculated on alien cryptography, advancing the theory that it is possible for aliens to communicate using beacons "which are difficult or impossible to locate from the signal alone."
http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/abst2004/simmons.pdf

So let's take the broad idea one step further- let's add photos, video, eyewitness testimony and damaged objects, and one has speculation with evidence.

How is that not playing by the 'rules' of science?

 

[GeeMack]

So let's take the broad idea one step further- let's add photos, video, eyewitness testimony and damaged objects, and one has speculation with evidence.

And this evidence of which you speak, does it objectively support the notion that these photos, videos, damaged things, etc. are or are caused by some particular thing?

How is that not playing by the 'rules' of science?

Science doesn't tend to accept arguments from incredulity and ignorance as evidence, whereas you and Rramjet clearly do.

 

[Akhenaten]

So let's take the broad idea one step further- let's add photos, video, eyewitness testimony and damaged objects, and one has speculation with evidence.

How is that not playing by the 'rules' of science?

I'll just speak to the photo question.

They may indeed be used as evidence, but they absolutely will not stand alone as such, especially these days. They're just too easy to fake.

 

[tsig]

Maybe not.

Consider the following train of thought:

There is NO such thing as “proof” or "truth".
The only certain things in life are death, and the tax man.
If I do not work, I avoid the latter (but can't buy books).
And by the way, "ALIENS" are real.

I think that train has missed a few stations

Shouda took the blimp. you can have a gay old time ...on a blimp.

 

[Paulhoff]

There is NO evidence to suggest ET might want to communicate with us as SETI supposes.

There is no evidence to suggest that SETI thinks ET might want to communicate with us. It would be no different then to think that we have tried to communicate with ET by using Radio and TV or with signals used to communicate with our satellites. SETI is only looking for any signals that may be used by any ET’s in their communications to each other.

Paul

 

[SnidelyW]

The scientific community is slowly beginning to perk up regarding the concept of extraterrestrials, and that is all good.

http://royalsociety.org/Is-there-anybody-out-there/

It seems that a serious look is being taken at the subject by the greater science community, and I truly hope this exchange of ideas will lead to a greater appreciation and subsequent exploration of all facets of the phenomena. I'll be quite eager to read whatever is published from this gathering.

 

[SnidelyW]

I'll just speak to the photo question.

They may indeed be used as evidence, but they absolutely will not stand alone as such, especially these days. They're just too easy to fake.

I agree with you. I think that a natural consequence of all the fake photos and videos on the subject of UFO/alien visitation has the public more skeptical than ever before, to the point of judging a photo as 'fake' as a first impression.
This evolution of photo and video acceptance/skepticism over say, the last 20 years is a good thing for all concerned, since I think we're all at the point where any photos of a UFO/alien are going to be subjected to the most rigourous tests available. Most people, especially those who shot the photos/video will welcome scrutiny with open arms.

What that leaves us with is a public seemingly more willing to believe in the concept of UFO/Aliens, but increasingly jaded by fake photos/video.

 

[Jocce]

What must a scientist do with data supposed of being hoaxed?

Determine if the evidence really does show a hoax or not.

Then why don't you do that before presenting it? Why do you try to force people here to do it for you? If you claim that the cases you present are evidence of alien technology, you then have the responsibility to make sure that the data you base your conclusion on is accurate. You are not doing this in any of the cases you present. You just post links to webarticles you find amazing. Not very scientific.

I stated:
”UFO debunkers also seem to insist that evidence somehow deteriorates with age. There is of course no scientific or logical basis for this. I guess it is just a faith-based part of the overall UFO debunker belief system.”

Jocce stated ” It's a story about something that is supposed to have happened to some family 125 years ago.” and ” Stop posting century old rubbish then…”. The clear implication is that we should discount “old” evidence.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it's not possible for us to verify the accuracy in the SciAm letter to the Editor because the actual evidence is not available any longer.

You statement is simply untrue. Many of the cases I present were from reliable sources and were thoroughly investigated at the time and some even have the witnesses alive and talking today! Do you throw out Darwin’s observations merely because he is no longer alive?

The species Darwin collected are still available today together with his original labnotes for anyone to verify the findings. And he presented a scientific study, he did not write a Letter to the editor of a popular science mag.

The eyewitnesses must be 100% unreliable because the debunker position maintains that what is seen are misperceptions, delusions or hoaxes.

It is so disingenious and outright stupid of you to misrepresent the position others are taking. Noone is claiming that it IS misperceptions, delusions or hoaxes, just that it COULD BE. You have done this on numerous occasions now despite being corrected and I can only conclude that you deliberately do it do decieve the casual reader. You spread lies.

 

[tsig]

The concept of scientific speculation, even when no hard data is available, is commonly accepted as a valid science 'rule'.

I point to both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox as examples of this.

Taking speculation even further, two University of Hawaii scientists have even speculated on alien cryptography, advancing the theory that it is possible for aliens to communicate using beacons "which are difficult or impossible to locate from the signal alone."
http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/abst2004/simmons.pdf

So let's take the broad idea one step further- let's add photos, video, eyewitness testimony and damaged objects, and one has speculation with evidence.

How is that not playing by the 'rules' of science?

It's playing fast and loose with the " 'rules' of science".

 

[tsig]

And this evidence of which you speak, does it objectively support the notion that these photos, videos, damaged things, etc. are or are caused by some particular thing?




Science doesn't tend to accept arguments from incredulity and ignorance as evidence, whereas you and Rramjet clearly do.

Same thing all woos do "What I do is science. If we change the rules of science".

 

[tsig]

The scientific community is slowly beginning to perk up regarding the concept of extraterrestrials, and that is all good.

http://royalsociety.org/Is-there-anybody-out-there/

It seems that a serious look is being taken at the subject by the greater science community, and I truly hope this exchange of ideas will lead to a greater appreciation and subsequent exploration of all facets of the phenomena. I'll be quite eager to read whatever is published from this gathering.

Ah, the breakthru is just around the corner? My bet is that it stays there.

Claiming "It's just around the corner" is intellectually dishonest.

It's irrefutable since no one can say for an absolute certainly what will happen and for that very reason it is a dishonest statement because the speaker is making a claim to know what will happen.

 

[GeeMack]

Same thing all woos do "What I do is science. If we change the rules of science".

Indeed. And it's quite telling that the UFOlien believer kids here are so willfully ignorant. What can possibly be so difficult about answering this simple question...

And this evidence of which you speak, does it objectively support the notion that these photos, videos, damaged things, etc. are or are caused by some particular thing?

Rramjet ignores it. SnidelyW ignores it. You'd think that if they were actually interested in pursuing the matter scientifically they'd have the balls to address it head on.

 

[GeeMack]

Ah, the breakthru is just around the corner? My bet is that it stays there.

Claiming "It's just around the corner" is intellectually dishonest.

But totally predictable, since dishonesty is a mainstay of their arguments.

 

[Correa Neto]

You reference a comment of mine about SETI. I posted a link to SETI and quoted relevant passages to support my contentions. Your merely stating that I do not check my material before posting does NOT make the statement correct. If you supported the assertion with evidence then you might have a point… but of course you do not.

Nice diversion via edit. The evidence is right here at your posts for whoever wants to see it. The Niterói spiked UFO is just one of many other examples.

That is your merely opinion of the evidence, many disagree with you on that.

Tell me, who are these many scientists who disagree with me on the nature of the evidence you presented? Friedman? Who are the scientists who would consider available UFO evidence as reliable? Those who publish at the Journal for Scientific Exploration? Jacques Valée?

No. There is NO evidence on ET communication methodology. There is NO evidence to suggest ET might want to communicate with us as SETI supposes. The evidence we DO have suggests that ET is actually extraordinarily indifferent to our sensibilities. They simply act and we continue to argue over whether they even exist! Yes, ET may “want” something… but communication does NOT seem to be one of those “somethings”.

Backpeddaling and changing your original claim because you have not looked at the whole picture? OK, you are talking about SETI, ET communication methods and alleged evidence of no desire to communicate… I have then to ask- Why are you now excluding the evidence presented by UFOlogy regarding humans/ET interactions?
Let’s assume your collection of newspaper articles can be trusted. Now, can this lack of communication be inferred from Villas-Boas’s encounter of the sexual type? Or from Betty and Barney Hill? Or from the many alleged contactees? What about the many reports of contacts presented by UFOlogy where ETs sent messages? I thought ETs had waved at Father Gill… Why you exclude them? Based on which set of criteria?

There is no evidence for hoaxing in either the McMinnville or the Trindade photos.

Yes there are. Are you aware that the guy who took the pictures at Trindade wrote an article on how to fake “flying saucer” pics in 1954?
http://www.ceticismoaberto.com/ufologia/1116/como-forjar-fotos-ovni-por-almiro-barana
Check this:
Incredible ironic coincidence or prototype and final product?

Are you aware of the issues related to the alleged eyewitnesses, film development timeline, mismatches between the alleged time through which the UFO was seen and time lapses between the pictures?

And it seems you have forgotten what was written right here about the other picture you mentioned…

I stated:
”UFO debunkers also seem to insist that evidence somehow deteriorates with age. There is of course no scientific or logical basis for this. I guess it is just a faith-based part of the overall UFO debunker belief system.”
Jocce stated ” It's a story about something that is supposed to have happened to some family 125 years ago.” and ” Stop posting century old rubbish then…”. The clear implication is that we should discount “old” evidence. Astrophotographer tried more generally to impugn the evidence of the cases I was presenting because they were old cases. I had the same argument then as I do now with Jocce: Evidence is evidence , no matter how old.

No. There are several levels of reliability levels for evidence. UFO evidence presented so far are among lower ranks. Enough to back a belief but not a scientific conclusion other than “there are no conclusive pieces of evidence for ETs visiting our place”. The irony is that it is reliable when it comes down to demonstrate the existence of hoaxes and gullible people, among other things.

You statement is simply untrue. Many of the cases I present were from reliable sources and were thoroughly investigated at the time and some even have the witnesses alive and talking today! Do you throw out Darwin’s observations merely because he is no longer alive?

I will not throw away Darwin’s data because they were made following the scientific methodology and can be replicated by other independent people, even nowadays. Your collection of newspaper articles and links to UFO sites meets these parameters?

If your answer is “yes”, then I can’t help but formulating the following hypothesis:
-You have absolutely no scientific training
-Your scientific skills are very poor
-Your beliefs create a major blind spot in your critical reasoning

I stated in reference to the Venezuela case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/...0-h/SciAm2.JPG)
”What makes the report so compelling IS the fact that it predates ANY public UFO discussion and thus cannot be considered to be influenced in any way by a public zeitgeist.
The Venezuelan public (in that particular region of the country) was “scared of and looking for things in the sky”? Evidence?

Oh, look, another article with little if anything to back it. What a surprise… Where are the original sources? Where are the UFO connections? Bright light reported? That’s all? How can you expect me to accept this as reliable if there are so many unknowns? Even if the case actually happened as described, there’s not enough information to create any conclusion. But this is symptomatic- Your research methods are mostly composed of finding gaps hide intelligences from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means). This is not science. This may be belief, religion, cult, anything but science.
By the way, have you noticed the bit about the people being terror stricken and believing it was the end of the world?

The eyewitnesses must be 100% unreliable because the debunker position maintains that what is seen are misperceptions, delusions or hoaxes.

Strawman, circular reasoning…

That is why I am presenting the cases I do – to demonstrate those very things.

And failing spectacularly because you are not following the scientific methodology. Had you kept yourself within the field of belief, no problem. But when you claimed to be scientific regarding UFO evidence, you committed yourself with standards and methods you as well as UFOlogists as a whole are not managing to match.

No, a physical specimen demonstrates that platypus clearly exist. However, “platypus” is not a scientific concept and “species” is a debatable concept in itself.

A specimen of Ornithorhynchus anatinus is proof that this species exists. Bring whatever definition of species you want, this will not change. Happy now?

Currently we are discussing the McMinnville and the Trindade photos (and Los Angeles). I merely invited you to explore the site and the photos represented there. I will take your request on notice.

Diversion again, this time coupled with an inversion on the onus of burden. You are the one presenting the claim, you are the one who must prepare your cause properly.

And which photos demonstrate that then? (http://www.ufopicture.org/nasa_ufo_pictures.html)

Check Astro’s reply. It seems you understand as much about photography as you understand about F-4s… And the scientific method.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I was mistaken about the STS-51 video. It is not a glove but a water droplet. My friends at BAUT discussed it long ago:

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/85807-sts-51a-debunked.html

I really can't believe that Rramjet is that gullible to look at these NASA pics on the UFOpicture.org website and actually think they show exotic craft or whatever he wants to say they are.