UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[jhunter1163]

I'll put up a full bag of Nutter Butters.

 

[carlitos]

"In Search Of..." best case and simple hypothesis

Girl Scout cookies - thin mints or samoas probably.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Rramjet, you're talking utter cobblers. What does the phrase "UFO debunker" even mean? Everyone here is totally happy to accept that UFOs exist. Where is this "UFO debunking" you speak of? The only debunking going on is of the unmitigated arse gravy that flows through your every post.

I don't think he can agree that no one here doesn't believe in ufo's, so he has to call everyone ufo debunker otherwise his head would explode.

 

[Puddle Duck]

What kind of cookies? You make a VERY COMPELLING argument.

Alice B. Toklas Brownies?

 

[Akhenaten]

It's up to you to make the claim that ufo's are alien not the other people on this thread, also you only mentioned Klass, Condon and Sheaffer in passing as you hand waved them off and you continued with the big M's report for all your information. Also I dig how you keep using Friedmen's big 4 rules with out any hint of irony.

Aaaaaargh!

 

[Sledge]

I don't think he can agree that no one here doesn't believe in ufo's, so he has to call everyone ufo debunker otherwise his head would explode.

I understand that, I'm just staggered at the level of pig-headed ignorance required to keep at that point after 150 pages of people explaining that they know UFOs exist, it's the whole "aliens" thing we want proof of. It's clear that Rramjet is getting nowhere with convincing anyone, so why does he keep posting the same tired drivel? It's not as if the 134th time he posts the same argument we're suddenly going to agree with it.

 

[Puddle Duck]

Rramjet says

I would say Ireland and Andrews effort simply reconfirms the old adage as applied to UFO debunkers[/b[: [
debunkers….
UFO debunkers….
UFO debunkers….
Debunkers….
Debunkers….
Etc….

Rramjet, you use this word as though it were a bad thing. I would think that correcting shams & falsehoods should be one of the prime avocations of all sciency types.


Mirriam-Webster

Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923

: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>

— de·bunk·er noun

And to recycle the Carroll quote

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty Rramjet said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I understand that, I'm just staggered at the level of pig-headed ignorance required to keep at that point after 150 pages of people explaining that they know UFOs exist, it's the whole "aliens" thing we want proof of. It's clear that Rramjet is getting nowhere with convincing anyone, so why does he keep posting the same tired drivel? It's not as if the 134th time he posts the same argument we're suddenly going to agree with it.

Who really knows?

 

[Astrophotographer]

So many generous offers to stop me from responding. I have a definite sweet tooth but I really have to watch my weight these days. I will TRY (must resist....temptation.....) to honor the forum's request pro bono.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Do you feel like you're gaining any ground?

Nope. I have been down this road before and I always find myself in the death spiral. You would think I would learn my lesson.

 

[Akhenaten]

Who really knows?

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men blimps squids ET? The Shadow knows!

 

[GeeMack]

I understand that, I'm just staggered at the level of pig-headed ignorance required to keep at that point after 150 pages of people explaining that they know UFOs exist, it's the whole "aliens" thing we want proof of. It's clear that Rramjet is getting nowhere with convincing anyone, so why does he keep posting the same tired drivel? It's not as if the 134th time he posts the same argument we're suddenly going to agree with it.

When all he has are arguments from incredulity, ignorance, lies, and trolling, well, he does what he has to do.

 

[Sledge]

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men blimps squids ET? The Shadow knows!

I might be the only person on Earth who liked the movie version.

 

[Rramjet]

More big snip of the same old arguments. Beyond what Dr. M. has written, you have added nothing new. Therefore, it is the same argument that Dr. M. has provided, which has not swayed the court of scientific opinion. As a result, your argument is a case of "rinse, lather, repeat". I suggest you rinse, get out of the shower and move onward. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck in the shower forever.

Here we have a “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”, coupled with the “hand-waving dismissal” (and that is just the first sentence”!) Then we have another ”handwaving dismissal” in conjunction with an ”unfounded assertion”. Then there is a ”false analogy” that is misdirected – the meaning of which actually applies to the writer of the above post!

So, it is the fear of ridicule that prevents them from examining the evidence objectively? Is that your contention? What kind of scientists would you want to examine such evidence if they fear ridicule? They are not very good ones IMO. If the UFO evidence was so compelling, why aren't more scientists picking up the banner? It is my opinion that their lack of interest is because they consider the evidence inadequate even when they are presented the evidence in a controlled setting (see Sturrock panel for a recent example).

No, it is fear of sanction leading to a potential (or the perceived potential) for a loss of standing, funding or even employment. This is an unfortunate consequence of a complex series of circumstances that has inappropriately made UFOs a topic of scorn and ridicule and anyone associated becomes tarred with that brush. It is not a matter of “lack of interest” (clearly there is a huge interest it the topic) but it IS a fact that many “scientists” DO consider the evidence inadequate. However this is NOT because they have examined the evidence and found it to be so, it is because the merely assume it is so given the general climate of scorn and ridicule that has built up around the subject.

The Sturrock panel made some very telling recommendations that the UFO debunkers seem to ignore (Journal of Scientific Exploration (1998) Vol. 12, NO. 2, pp. 179-229 - http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)

“The panel made the following observations:

The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any
simple universal 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 formal regular contact between the UFO community and
physical scientists could be productive.

It is desirable that there be institutional support for research in this area, The GEPANISEPRA project of CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales - the National Center for Space Research) in France (see Appendix I) has since 1977 provided a valuable model for a modest but effective organization for collecting and analyzing UFO observations and related data.

Reflecting on evidence presented at the workshop that some witnesses of UFO events have suffered radiation-type injuries, the panel draws the attention of the medical community to a possible health risk associated with UFO events.

The panel also reviewed some of the conclusions advanced in 1968 by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project. He asserted that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge," and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." While agreeing with the first conclusion and its extension to the present, the panel considers that there always exists the possibility that investigation of an unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific knowledge. The panel considers that the chances of such an advance are greater now than they were in 1967 because of the advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the GEPANISEPRA model for data acquisition.” ​

(pp. 184-185)

Later in the report we have:

“The UFO problem arises from the verified existence of a very large and coherent set of testimonies worldwide. Its approach is bound to be in three steps:

Step 1. Try by all means to identify the stimulus that has led to the report: the report may be due to inadequate information, misinterpretation of a familiar phenomenon or device, an unusual astronomical or atmospheric phenomenon, an unusual technological device, or a hoax (perpetrated by the reporter or on the reporter).

Step 2. If Step 1 has not yielded an explanation of the report, try to characterize the event that led to the report and compare it with other case descriptions.

Step 3. For any case that is strong in testimony and rich in detail, one should try to define a model. In this activity, we are clearly not dealing with a simple question with a Yes /No (one-bit) answer. Different cases require analyses with different levels of complexity.” ​

(pp. 225-226)

People should also read “Appendix 8. Scientific Inference” (p. 226) because here it is outlined HOW a scientific methodology might be applied to the study of UFOs and which concludes:

“It is highly unlikely that any research project that is in operation for only one or two years will solve the UFO problem. However, it could and should provide useful relevant evidence, and that evidence should lead to a measurable change in the assessments of an interested scientist. In an area such as that of UFO research, that is all that can be expected. On the other hand, several research projects, each lasting a reasonable length of time, should provide sufficient evidence that an hypothesis may be effectively definitely established or definitely rejected.

If these suggestions are considered to have merit, they could be developed into a more specific and more useful form by means of a workshop that brings together UFO investigators, professional investigators (of accidents, failures, etc.), physical scientists, and statisticians.” ​

(p.228)

More information on the Sturrock Panel can be found here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/sturrockpanel.htm) and an interview with Sturrock on the topic here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc541.htm)

It is also interesting that a survey of the American Astronomical Society conducted by Sturrock concluded in summary the following:

“This study leads to the following answers to the questions initially posed. To judge from this survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society, it appears that:

(a) scientists have thoughts and views but no answers concerning the UFO problem;

(b) Although there is no consensus, more scientists are of the opinion that the problem certainly or probably deserves scientific study than are of the opinion that it certainly or probably does not;

and (c) a small fraction (of order 5%) are likely to report varied and puzzling observations, not unlike so-called "UFO reports" made by the general public. As is the case with reports from the public, many may be unusual observations of familiar objects, but some seem to be definitely strange.

These results are consistent with the findings of an earlier but more limited survey of members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Sturrock, 1974b), except that the opinions of astronomers (expressed in 1975) concerning the significance of the UFO problem were more positive than were the views of aeronautical engineers (expressed in 1973).” ​

(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm)

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet says

Rramjet, you use this word as though it were a bad thing. I would think that correcting shams & falsehoods should be one of the prime avocations of all sciency types.


Mirriam-Webster

Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923

: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>

— de·bunk·er noun

And to recycle the Carroll quote

I've replied to this before. However, I use the term UFO debunker AND the term UFO proponent to describe people who seemingly maintain opposite views on the subject of UFOs.

If you object to the term "UFO debunker" then what alternative would you propose? (bearing in mind that BOTH sides claim to be "sceptics" and "scientists" - so those terms cannot be used as distinguishing descriptor terms)

If you have a negative connotation of the term - perhaps that it is the behaviour and methodology of the "UFO debunkers" that you should question - not the term itself.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I've replied to this before. However, I use the term UFO debunker AND the term UFO proponent to describe people who seemingly maintain opposite views on the subject of UFOs.

If you object to the term "UFO debunker" then what alternative would you propose? (bearing in mind that BOTH sides claim to be "sceptics" and "scientists" - so those terms cannot be used as distinguishing descriptor terms)

If you have a negative connotation of the term - perhaps that it is the behaviour and methodology of the "UFO debunkers" that you should question - not the term itself.

WRONG, you are the only using it as a negative connotation. So you can make strew men out of people's arguments who you disagree with, also that wall of text says nothing about ufo's being alien.

 

[wollery]

It's up to you to make the claim that ufo's are alien not the other people on this thread, also you only mentioned Klass, Condon and Sheaffer in passing as you hand waved them off and you continued with the big M's report for all your information. Also I dig how you keep using Friedmen's big 4 rules with out any hint of irony.

And let's not forget that Rramjet doesn't have time to discuss Freidman.

He does, however, have time to write long rambling posts that are simply restatements of someone else's arguments.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is not a matter of “lack of interest” (clearly there is a huge interest it the topic) but it IS a fact that many “scientists” DO consider the evidence inadequate. However this is NOT because they have examined the evidence and found it to be so, it is because the merely assume it is so given the general climate of scorn and ridicule that has built up around the subject.

Funny, the only time I have seen the word "scientist" in quotes is when it is in relation to you and now here you are using it to refer to real scientists. Weird.

Anyway, you should present that compelling evidence to a real scientist so that they would no longer labor under false apprehensions about the quality of evidence lacking.

If you would like to run that compelling evidence by the people on this board first, that would be fine. It would be a refreshing break from your endless stream of anecdotes.

 

[wollery]

Funny, the only time I have seen the word "scientist" in quotes is when it is in relation to you and now here you are using it to refer to real scientists. Weird.

Anyway, you should present that compelling evidence to a real scientist so that they would no longer labor under false apprehensions about the quality of evidence lacking.

If you would like to run that compelling evidence by the people on this board first, that would be fine. It would be a refreshing break from your endless stream of anecdotes.

He's already run it past at least two professional scientists, and neither of them has been in the least bit impressed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

He's already run it past at least two professional scientists, and neither of them has been in the least bit impressed.

Rramjet seemed to be intimating that there is actual evidence that could be shown to scientists that would be persuasive. Naturally, I assumed that he wasn't referring to these same retold anecdotes of hoaxes and misperceptions.