UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

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.

Sorry, but with over 900 of his posts showing otherwise, the evidence is against you on this one, Astrophotographer.

 

[Sledge]

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.
<SNIP>

Snidely, I've explained this to you before. If you're not going to pay attention to what people say, is there any point in anyone responding to you?

Right, let's see if you can read this time: no one has a problem with speculation. This thread is not about speculation, it is about evidence. Any and all speculation about alien life is irrelevant and unwelcome as off topic in this thread until such time as Rramjet presents evidence that such life exists. Any questions?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

The old 'Hide them in the last place they'd look' trick.

/Maxwell Smart

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry, but with over 900 of his posts showing otherwise, the evidence is against you on this one, Astrophotographer.

Chortle.

 

[tsig]

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...




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.

Belief creates blind spots.

 

[Marcus]

I'm a little behind on this question but- I don't get it. Shouldn't the UFO nuts LIKE SETI? They are, after all, searching for extraterrestrial intelligence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It isn't polite to refer to them as UFOnuts.

The proper terms are UFO challenged or differently UFOed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm a little behind on this question but- I don't get it. Shouldn't the UFO nuts LIKE SETI? They are, after all, searching for extraterrestrial intelligence.

The scientists at SETI have been very vocal about their opinions about UFOs and consider it to be unlikely they represent alien spaceships. This includes Frank Drake, Jill Tartar, and Seth Shostak. Because of their anti-UFO stance, they are made fun of by UFO proponents. Stanton Friedman refers to them as the "silly effort to investigate".

Seth Shostak in an interview with Patrick Hugyghe once stated:

If aliens have been visiting the Earth for 50 years, you would think that it would not be so hard to convince a lot of people that that was true. It's convinced 50 percent of the American public, but it's convinced very few academics. As an astronomer friend said to me, if I thought there was a one percent chance any of that was true, I'd spend 100 percent of my time on it. In other words, if the evidence were the least bit compelling, you'd have lots of academics working on it because it's very interesting. To me that says that the evidence is weak from the scientist's perspective.

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/ufo_seti_000619.html

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, either you missed this post or you're ignoring it, but it contains some important questions, so I'll edit it down for you to just leave those questions.

Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate at 1G for 1 year?

More to the point, how much energy is required to accelerate a reasonably sized probe at 1G for 1 year? Let's assume a 100kg probe, and you can feel free to look up the most energy efficient means of propelling it. Then find out how long it would take to reach Alpha Centauri accelerating at 1G for 1 year, and the decelerating at 1G for 1 year at the other end. You might also want to examine the cost of such a probe. Then examine how much it would cost to do the same for every star within 10 light years. Okay, let's make it simpler, every Solar type star in that distance.

Just go with the energy required to accelerate a 100kg mass for 1 year. If you want to you can ignore relativity and stick to high school level physics. That will give you the absolute minimum energy required. This is a calculation that could be done by 14/15 year old high school students.

Do you know how narrow the TV and radio signals we use are? Do you know why we use them like that?

Can a radio station tell who has received their Radio broadcast?

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look because we haven't seen any evidence so far?

Do you know how searches for extra-solar planets might identify signs of life? More importantly, how would they identify signs of intelligent life?

Before our leaders can deal with aliens our leaders need to know that the aliens are there. Who's going to find these aliens and open the channels of communication?

Do you think that a belief that UFOs are alien craft is incompatible with support for SETI?

It's a reasonable question to ask. If they should already be here then where are they? Have they made direct contact yet?

You claim to be a scientist, and to understand the scientific process. So, in your own words, please explain what's wrong with the SETI project from a scientific perspective.

I will take failure to respond to this post as evidence that you don't have any answers, because you don't understand the science.

 

[Akhenaten]

It isn't polite to refer to them as UFOnuts.

The proper terms are UFO challenged or differently UFOed.

Differently nominated.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

UFO debunkers ask for evidence of my claims. I present the UFO reports and photos which I contend support my claims. I don’t “force” the UFO debunkers to do anything at all. If you can find inaccuracies in the evidence I present, then please feel free to point them out – however, merely stating that there are inaccuracies in that evidence does not make that statement true. I post links to web articles because I want the evidence I present to be accessible to anyone who cares to examine it. What would you propose I do otherwise – post references to documents not available publically (or written in another language) so that you could NOT examine my evidence? Besides, this latter claim of yours is rather hypocritical don’t you think? As many of the “rebuttals” to my claims that the UFO debunkers put forward are also done via website links!

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.

The “SciAm” letter is a matter of fact account of what occurred at the time and place. Just because it describes something extraordinary that defies mundane explanation does NOT mean that the account itself is questionable. You merely assume it is questionable because of your belief that “It’s impossible, therefore it cannot be”!

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.

So now SciAm merely a “popular science mag”? In the Tehran case for example we have the original reports and the eyewitnesses. The O’Hare case has all that PLUS a scientific study. These are not the only such cases. So for you to make out that we do not have that type of evidence for UFO reports is disingenuous.

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.

Oh… right… it COULD be. However, just because something is possible does not make that possibility likely or even plausible. In an (ostensibly) infinite universe ANYTHING becomes “possible”. But for you to rely on that to support your explanations in the face of the evidence is not a reasonable position to take. Most people would like to rule out implausible scenarios and instead base their explanations on the evidence, rather than wild speculation about mere “possibilities”. For example, just because blimps exist makes it “possible” for a blimp to have been at Rogue River at the time. However, that mere possibility does not make it likely or even plausible that this was the case. Especially since the evidence in the form of the official historical record coupled with the eyewitness descriptions make “blimp” an extremely unlikely and implausible explanation. You spread something else altogether.

Correa Neto
I stated:
” 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.

“Diversion via edit”? What does that mean? Why do I suppose you won’t explain what you mean by your terms here… Sure, I am human. I occasionally make mistakes. However, I do admit my mistakes when the evidence is presented to show that I have been mistaken. However, just because I admit my mistakes does NOT mean that I don’t check things over before I post them. Despite possible evidence to the contrary, I am not “all seeing, all knowing”. LOL.

Oh…and while we’re on SETI… (which supposes ET will communicate not only with us, but between themselves in such a way that we can determine that it IS a communication and then we can trace it back to a location) …there is an interesting article here: (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823941.900). These scientist have speculated on a method of communication that IS untraceable and that outside observers would never know it was a communication in the first place. Uh oh…scientists involved in speculation and getting recognition from their peers for doing so? That’s not very “scientific” is it? LOL.

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?

(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1744.htm) That took about 2 seconds of RESEARCH to dig that up… and YOU complain about ME not doing the basic research!

I stated:
” 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?

I think you misconstrue the nature of the “contact” between “ET” and humans. It is VERY one sided. They act, we “cop it sweet”. Moreover, whatever purported “communication” via message delivered to “contactees” or “abductees” has never turned out to be “correct” information. Simply the “ETs” do NOT communicate with us in any meaningful fashion. THAT is what the evidence shows. So why would SETI suppose that ETs DO want to communicate with us in any interactive and meaningful way? Especially considering from a human logical perspective that to risk (via communication) “alien” technology getting into the hands of an obviously irrationally hostile race (such as ourselves) would seem to be the height of foolhardiness.

I stated:
”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?
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/prototypeandfinalproduct.jpg[/qimg]
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?

So here YOU are now posting a “link to a website” as evidence of your assertions. LOL. Unfortunately I do not speak Spanish so I cannot verify your contentions here. Perhaps you can translate for us to show that it really IS the same person and that HE had the opportunity to “fake” the Trindade photos.

I most certainly am aware of those “issues”. See here for a comprehensive discussion of those “issues”. (http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/printy-details.htm).

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.

I have never claimed the evidence I am presenting to be “scientifically conclusive”. However, your contention that my evidence is sufficient to demonstrate hoaxes, gullible people, etc means that it is also sufficient to demonstrate precisely the opposite!

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

”Replicability in research, along with other ideas like the principle of falsification, constitutes the core of the positivist attempt to construct the uiniversal and self-sufficient method of the discovery of truth in science. As discussed in the book the replicability principle is based on the assumptions that (1) the researcher and the studied phenomenon can be separated; (2) the phenomenon has a stable and unchanging character in the world; and (3) like the phenomenon, the researcher can be duplicated and also has a stable and unchanging character. In the social sciences there is an increasing awareness that these assumptions are problematic.”​

(http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/6/3/545)

And from a completely different source:

”A major purpose of this book is to show that the differences between the quantitative and qualitative traditions are only stylistic and are methodologically and substantively unimportant. All good research can be understood - indeed, is best understood - to derive from the same underlying logic of inference. Both quantitative and qualitative research can be systematic and scientific. Historical research can be analytical, seeking to evaluate alternative explanations through a process of valid causal inference.

(…)

The lessons of these efforts should be clear: neither quantitative nor qualitative research is superior to the other, regardless of the research problem being addressed.”​

(http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5458.html)

I could go on, but I think this should be enough to demonstrate the point that the study of UFO reports, photos, physical trace evidence, etc, is and can be scientific in nature, aims and methodology.

I reference to the Venezula case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

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 article is a matter of fact report providing the details of an extraordinary occurrence and that also relates the physical effects of that occurrence. There is no reason for us to take it for anything other than it is - a substantially accurate report of the incident and its effects. The reporter was obviously serious in his attempts and had clear and honest motives in making the report. That you wish to dismiss such reports with a lot of handwaving supposition is typical of UFO debunker “methodology”. You loudly proclaim “science”, yet demonstrably act unscientifically…

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.

Then you simply misunderstand what science actually is (see above quotes for example).

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

A specimen is NOT proof of a species.

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.

The UFO debunkers claimed there was no objective evidence for UFOs. I presented some photos to show this claim to be false. If you want to show that the photos do NOT support my claim, then it is UP TO YOU to do that.

 

[GeeMack]

UFO debunkers ask for evidence of my claims. I present the UFO reports and photos which I contend support my claims.

Well what you contend is quite obviously wrong then, eh? Arguments from incredulity and ignorance aren't evidence, no matter what you think. Did you ask that science teacher at your high school to teach you about the scientific process, burden of proof, logical fallacies, and objective evidence yet?

 

[RoboTimbo]

A specimen is NOT proof of a species.

How is lack of an alien proof of aliens for you then?

 

[Akhenaten]

A specimen is NOT proof of a species.

This'll be good.


ETA: Well done, SpeedyTimbo

 

[Astrophotographer]

The UFO debunkers claimed there was no objective evidence for UFOs. I presented some photos to show this claim to be false. If you want to show that the photos do NOT support my claim, then it is UP TO YOU to do that.

Define "objective". The dictionary describes this use as:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

So exactly how are these photographs "objective"? Have they been shown to be factual or without interpretation? We know the photographs exist but do they actually show what you proclaim they show? Is it possible these photographs can be hoaxed? There are factors in the Trindade and McMinnville that suggest a hoax. Until you can show they are not hoaxed, we have to consider it as a possibility. They are "open to interpretation". This means it is not "objective evidence" but "subjective evidence".

 

[Rramjet]

Just go with the energy required to accelerate a 100kg mass for 1 year. If you want to you can ignore relativity and stick to high school level physics. That will give you the absolute minimum energy required. This is a calculation that could be done by 14/15 year old high school students.

Perhaps you have not heard of the potential from (for example) ion drives? And why 100kg? Perhaps you have not heard of the discipline of “material science” and the potential of lightweight materials coming out of that? Perhaps you should advance your thinking beyond the 1950s.

Do you know how narrow the TV and radio signals we use are? Do you know why we use them like that?

As you provide no context and no means of linking back to the quote, then I have no idea what your point is here.

Can a radio station tell who has received their Radio broadcast?

As you provide no context and no means of linking back to the quote, then I have no idea what your point is here.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look because we haven't seen any evidence so far?

I presume you refer to SETI… I am merely stating that given the snowball’s chance in hell of success, then the resources could be better utilised. …and I thought that this was precisely the UFO debunker’s point against UFOs and the ability to research them…

Do you know how searches for extra-solar planets might identify signs of life? More importantly, how would they identify signs of intelligent life?

Yes I do – and picking up “radio” signals is not necessary for the process. So what is your point?

Before our leaders can deal with aliens our leaders need to know that the aliens are there. Who's going to find these aliens and open the channels of communication?

Given the objective data – it is highly unlikely to be SETI! And why WOULD the aliens want to communicate with SETI anyway? Surely “take me to your leader” would be more appropriate? LOL.

Do you think that a belief that UFOs are alien craft is incompatible with support for SETI?

I think logic is incompatible with an assumption that SETI can be successful.

It's a reasonable question to ask. If they should already be here then where are they? Have they made direct contact yet?

“They” are all around us! Just look at the reports, photos, radar, physical trace evidence, etc. Why haven’t they made “contact”? If you were an ET, would you want your technology available to US (humans)?

You claim to be a scientist, and to understand the scientific process. So, in your own words, please explain what's wrong with the SETI project from a scientific perspective.

It rests on the assumption that aliens WANT to communicate with us around the 1000 to 3000 MHz range. That is one gigantic leap of faith!

 

[Astrophotographer]

I most certainly am aware of those “issues”. See here for a comprehensive discussion of those “issues”. (http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/printy-details.htm).

It is funny that you link Shough's website. It is easy to make a case for the event being something authentic, which is what Shough attempts here.

Recent revelations by Kentaro Mori (by interviewing people who were there) indicate the story as told in the UFO literature is not quite accurate. Instead of dozens of people seeing the UFO, only a few actually said they saw it. Others seem to recall people claiming to see it but never saw it themselves even though they were present!

The clouds issue indicates the pictures were taken over a matter of minutes (this is based on what Shough and Sparks calculated - I think the time is greater than just a few minutes) and not a matter of seconds (which is what the witnesses and UFO literature claim). Until you can demonstrate they are not hoaxes (which Barauna did have a habit of doing), then the possibility of a hoax remains. As a result, they can not be considered "objective evidence".

 

[Astrophotographer]

Perhaps you have not heard of the potential from (for example) ion drives? And why 100kg? Perhaps you have not heard of the discipline of “material science” and the potential of lightweight materials coming out of that? Perhaps you should advance your thinking beyond the 1950s.

Hmmm...100kg is about 220 lbs. Are you really suggesting that we can build a spaceship and man it with a pilot that weighs <220lbs? Ion drives still require material/fuel to create the ions. I would think that a scientist would know that. You have to carry that fuel with you.

It rests on the assumption that aliens WANT to communicate with us around the 1000 to 3000 MHz range. That is one gigantic leap of faith!

There is a reason for this frequency band but you seemed to have missed it. From what I recall of my electronics school training, this is the kind of frequencies that are not affected by the earth's ionosphere/atmosphere. Lower frequencies tend to get attentuated by the ionospheric layers/atmosphere and are not useful for communicating into space. The band describes is basically the UHF band, which is used for various items including satellite communications.

EDIT: Actually, this image explains the choice of those frequencies better than I could:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TerrestrialMicrowaveWindow.jpg

This comes from this document:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-419/s2.4.htm


In a nutshell, it is the region with the least amount of noise and will produce the greatest possible result.

 

[Akhenaten]

As you provide no context and no means of linking back to the quote, then I have no idea what your point is here.


As you provide no context and no means of linking back to the quote, then I have no idea what your point is here.

Dodgiest dodging since the Dodgy Brothers dodged into Dodge City in their dodg'em cars.

Why not just risk an answer without context and see how it pans out?

 

[wollery]

A fantastic sequence of non-answers.

Perhaps you have not heard of the potential from (for example) ion drives? And why 100kg? Perhaps you have not heard of the discipline of “material science” and the potential of lightweight materials coming out of that? Perhaps you should advance your thinking beyond the 1950s.

Can you answer the question? Yes or no? Make it 10kg if you want. I even said you could use the most efficient propulsion method you could find, so that crap about my not considering ion drives is a complete red herring. The real question is, do you know enough physics to do it?

As you provide no context and no means of linking back to the quote, then I have no idea what your point is here.

The link is in the first quote box. Are you really that inept at using the forum's functions? Moreover the question is a stand alone question and requires no context.

As you provide no context and no means of linking back to the quote, then I have no idea what your point is here.

See response above.

I presume you refer to SETI… I am merely stating that given the snowball’s chance in hell of success, then the resources could be better utilised. …and I thought that this was precisely the UFO debunker’s point against UFOs and the ability to research them…

I have nothing against researching UFOs. I think it's a very good idea. Know anyone who actually conducts scientific research into the subject?

Yes I do – and picking up “radio” signals is not necessary for the process. So what is your point?

Then please enlighten us, what are the signs of extraterrestrial life and how do we detect them? Just saying that you understand something doesn't show that you do.

Given the objective data – it is highly unlikely to be SETI! And why WOULD the aliens want to communicate with SETI anyway? Surely “take me to your leader” would be more appropriate? LOL.

Does that mean that SETI shouldn't look on the off-chance? If that's your argument then it's a pretty poor argument. Someone should tell those medical researchers to stop looking for a cure for the common cold.

I think logic is incompatible with an assumption that SETI can be successful.

Total non-answer. Was it really that difficult a question?

“They” are all around us! Just look at the reports, photos, radar, physical trace evidence, etc. Why haven’t they made “contact”? If you were an ET, would you want your technology available to US (humans)?

We've been looking at your "evidence" for months. So far it all boils down to anecdotes.

It rests on the assumption that aliens WANT to communicate with us around the 1000 to 3000 MHz range. That is one gigantic leap of faith!

Well, we're trying to contact other intelligent civilizations, so what's wrong with the assumption that they might try to contact us? And again, try answering the question about why we would use those frequencies in a narrow band range and you might answer your own question.