UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[W.D.Clinger]

logic, validity of arguments, and rational debate

Let's consider whether Rramjet has a valid argument here:

Again I make the point - if the actions and methodology of the UFO debunkers posting in this thread were NOT negative, then I would be unable to describe them in negative terms. It is up to the UFO debunkers - if they act and debate positively, then negative descriptors would no longer be applicable.

Valid arguments have the interesting property that they apply equally to their proponents and to their opponents. If Rramjet's point were valid, then his point would apply equally to himself:

If the actions and methodology of Rramjet were NOT negative, then his debunkers would be unable to describe them in negative terms.

If Rramjet objects to the above sentence, then his argument must have been invalid.

It's simple really, behave positively and debate rationally I and will have no grounds for the use of negative descriptors in association with UFO debunkers.

It's simple really: If Rramjet will behave positively and debate rationally, then we will have no grounds for referring to his posts in negative terms.

Once again: If Rramjet objects to my previous sentence, then he was not debating rationally.

 

[Akhenaten]

Best case, Mr Ramjet? <--- Ideal length for a post in this thread.

 

[Alley Cat]

Again I make the point - if the actions and methodology of the UFO debunkers posting in this thread were NOT negative, then I would be unable to describe them in negative terms. It is up to the UFO debunkers - if they act and debate positively, then negative descriptors would no longer be applicable.

As for UFOs and aliens - perhaps you missed the following small section in my previous post:

Oh please! It's bad enough reading your points once, let alone having you repeat them just in case we missed them first time...

 

[Rramjet]

More big snip of useless nonsense and the usual pasting of the UFO propoganda websites (who try desperately to spin the story their way). I suggest you read what the actual scientists stated (I posted them previously in another post - they were unimpressed). We have seen your version of the "facts". They don't influence the scientific community and you have not established any facts beyond the fact that people see things they can not identify.

Again we begin with “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” (“More big snip…”), this time followed by a “handwaving dismissal” (“…useless nonsense…”), and an “unfounded assertion” coupled with a “negatively emotive language” (“propaganda”, “desperately”, “spin”).

My “version of the facts”?
First you say that I paste “nonsense” from “UFO propaganda” sites when I actually quoted from the Sturrock Panel report (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf) and I merely referenced the “UFO evidence” site (as follows: “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)”) - and thus you contend that the quotes I provided from Sturrock are “My” version of the “facts” – which is obvious nonsense!

- and you claim Sturrock is not an “actual scientist”?
“Peter Andrew Sturrock … An emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University[1], much of Sturrock's career has been devoted to astrophysics, plasma physics, and solar physics, but Sturrock is interested in other fields, including ufology, scientific inference and in the history of science and philosophy of science. Sturrock has been awarded many prizes and honors, and has written or co-authored many scientific articles and textbooks.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Sturrock) See also here (http://www.stanford.edu/group/Sturrock/Peter/)

Then you finish with another “unfounded assertion”. Your complaint is that “people see things they cannot identify” – yet when I present you a case where there is a conjunction of radar and video evidence to support the visual observation – you completely ignore that evidence? This is as blatant a case of UFO debunker mentality as encapsulated in the truism “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” as I have seen!

In the NZ case – it is the conjunction of visual, radar and film evidence that are the FACTS in the case. Your ignorance - and handwaving dismissal - of those FACTS does not make those facts somehow disappear.

You do realize that the survey was "loaded" (3 of the 5 questions asking for a positive response) and that almost half did not bother responding to the survey. Most important was that only 2% stated they had sightings they could not explain (One of which Klass presented in UFOs: The public deceived. It was a Titan rocket launch.). A rate significantly lower than those produced by the general public. A similar survey was conducted with Amateur astronomers resulting in roughly 5% UFO sightings. Again, this is a rate much lower than the general public. The best sightings listed were not very compelling. One appeared to be the observation of a spy satellite making a course correction. Others were just irregular clouds and such. There was no "prize cases" in either survey.

The above paragraph from you is FULL of misinformation and untruths! Talk about “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” - you OBVIOUSLY have NOT looked at the “survey”! In the first questionnaire there were 13 questions, THEN follow-up questionnaires were mailed out to participants depending on how they responded to certain questions (in order to obtain more information) (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf) and (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_2_sturrock.pdf). You would do well Astrophotographer to apprise yourself of the facts before spouting such errant nonsense again. …and WHERE is this survey of “Amateur astronomers” you cite? Again you provide NO references to support your (unfounded) assertions. Given your just demonstrated propensity to simply make things up without looking at the evidence, then how do we know you have not just made up the information about the “Amateur astronomer” survey as well?

Of course, the $1000 question is are you going to settle on a best case for use to discuss and are you going to do as you originally claimed, give us proof that "aliens" are involved? This was your original post:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

Note the term "aliens". It was not "alien" as in exotic but a plural noun indicating you have evidence that "aliens" were the cause of these UFO reports. Feel free to present the evidence with your best case. So far what you have presented has not shown evidence of "aliens".

There is no single “best case” that demonstrates all the evidence needed to support my contentions. Rather there are a series of cases that support various aspects of my contentions. However, to establish “aliens” we must have cases that provide evidence of “beings” associated with UFOs. To THAT end I presented the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora and Travis Walton cases. Here we have UFOs associated with “beings”. However, we STILL cannot conclude “alien” = ETI! (which is what YOU want me to conclude). All we CAN say is that if UFOs are “alien” (as defined by operating outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural (and technological) world) , then the beings associated with them are, by definition, “alien” also – hence “aliens”.

 

[carlitos]

Best case and hypothesis, please.

 

[Belgian thought]

There is no single “best case” that demonstrates all the evidence needed to support my contentions. Rather there are a series of cases that support various aspects of my contentions. However, to establish “aliens” we must have cases that provide evidence of “beings” associated with UFOs. To THAT end I presented the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora and Travis Walton cases. Here we have UFOs associated with “beings”. However, we STILL cannot conclude “alien” = ETI! (which is what YOU want me to conclude). All we CAN say is that if UFOs are “alien” (as defined by operating outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural (and technological) world) , then the beings associated with them are, by definition, “alien” also – hence “aliens”.

Pure bunkum, sophistry and trolling. I vote that this complete thread be moved to AAH, since none of the above or Rramjet's ealier post have been evidence to support his opening post.

 

[Rramjet]

Can you demonstrate how any scientists have lost standing, employment, or funding because they chose to investigate UFOs? If not, this is a bogus argument designed by UFOlogists as an excuse for not getting scientists interested in the subject. Not one of the Sturrock panel scientists found the evidence the least bit compelling. NONE dropped their current projects in order to pursue UFOs. That says a lot about the evidence.

Actually it says a more about the cultural atmosphere that such scientists find themselves in. Perhaps the following will help illuminate and highlight the basic problem…

“The fact that 34 respondents completed and returned Q1 but declined to identify themselves provides some confirmation of the expectation that the subject is a sensitive one.” (p.6) ​

“The reasons that respondents declined to give their names would be interesting but they are not clear. The perceptive reader may be able to draw some inference from the only three comments which bear on this issue. Concerning the request for a signature, one anonymous respondent wrote "Still reluctant to sign with the present atmosphere". Another wrote "... I am too close to the UFO cross fire to (reveal my identity)". The third pointed out that he is "very senior and potentially influential". (p.7) ​

…but there IS another comment…

“C10.l find it tough to make a living as an astronomer these days. It would be professionally suicidal to devote significant time to UFO's. However, I am quite interested in your survey. (p.43) ​

(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf)

There is also this:

“Despite the abundance of such reports, and despite great public interest, the scientific community has shown remarkably little interest in this topic. This may be due in part (…) to the perception that the topic is in some sense "not respectable." (p. 185) ​

(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)

…and this

“The basic reason why no adequate funding is available is that only a tiny minority of professional scientists and academics consider UFOs to be a legitimate topic for scientific study. Most are convinced that UFO reports are only a miscellany of mistaken observations of prosaic objects or phenomena, and all the controversy that surrounds them is based on nothing but a popular myth. At bottom, the pervasive problem is the failure of important opinion makers in society to recognize that the skeptical position on UFOs is not well founded; in fact, it is strongly contradicted by a large body of well-established facts (see the white paper on skepticism).

As a consequence, all those who study UFOs seriously do so as an avocation—an unpaid activity we pursue as professionally as possible, given the lack of resources. UFO investigators come from all walks of life, and people with a wide variety of backgrounds have made important contributions. However, their UFO work did not advance their careers, especially for those academics who have become involved.” ​

(http://www.cufos.org/YOU_WANT_TO_BE_A_UFOLOGIST.pdf)

I had already posted this:

Ed Komorak:

"I recently asked theoretical physicist Dr. Jack Sarfatti http://www.stardrive.org/ for suggestions as to how Ray Stanford might get his excellent scientific research on Anomalous Aerial Objects published in academic peer reviewed publications.
exopolitics.blogspot.com

Jack's response was forthright and to the point. Jack said, " No mainstream physics journal will accept a UFO article. It's too non-PC. Taboo topic in mainstream academia. That's a fact. He should put his data on the WEB and be done with it. It ain't gonna happen. Tell him not to waste his time and simply put all out there and hope for the best."
(...)

... For example, Physical Review has an explicit policy forbidding any such topic ..."(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0809/ufo-research.php)

And the very beginnings of the problem can be noted here:

“Initially, press accounts were neutral. Reporters stated literally what people said they had seen. But as the reports of sightings continued to pour in, and no physical evidence surfaced as proof, the press began to ridicule the phenomena. By the end of July 1947, newspaper reporters generally automatically placed anyone who had seen something strange in the sky in the crackpot category (Jacobs 1975, p. 32). Arnold himself became the subject of public ridicule. “If I saw a ten-story building flying through the air,” he said later of his experiences, “I would never say a word about it.” (Jacobs 1975, p. 35) An Air Force investigator privately noted in mid-July that Arnold was “practically a moron in the eyes of the majority of the population of the United States.” (Bloecher 1967, pp. 1–11)” ​

(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf - p.6)

 

[carlitos]

Best case and hypothesis to explain it, please.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is also this:

“Despite the abundance of such reports, and despite great public interest, the scientific community has shown remarkably little interest in this topic. This may be due in part (…) to the perception that the topic is in some sense "not respectable." (p. 185) ​

(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)

…and this

“The basic reason why no adequate funding is available is that only a tiny minority of professional scientists and academics consider UFOs to be a legitimate topic for scientific study. Most are convinced that UFO reports are only a miscellany of mistaken observations of prosaic objects or phenomena, and all the controversy that surrounds them is based on nothing but a popular myth. At bottom, the pervasive problem is the failure of important opinion makers in society to recognize that the skeptical position on UFOs is not well founded; in fact, it is strongly contradicted by a large body of well-established facts (see the white paper on skepticism).​

So all you have to do as a scientist is present this same evidence that you've presented here to us and that will put them firmly in the UFO believer camp and make the subject respectable, won't it?

It is compelling stuff to a scientist, isn't it?

 

[Stray Cat]

<insert picture>A movie poster with the title Quatermass and the Bottomless Pit of Anecdote. Which shows a horrified scientist being expelled from his office whilst carrying a copy of UFO magazine in one hand and Squid Fishing Monthly in the other</insert picture>

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip of more wasted space.

and you claim Sturrock is not an “actual scientist”?

I am not sure why you think I said he wasn't. If you are trying to suggest I ignored Sturrocks study with UFOs, you should read what I wrote:


Not one of the Sturrock panel scientists found the evidence the least bit compelling. NONE dropped their current projects in order to pursue UFOs.


Sturrock was not a member of the panel that reviewed the evidence. He was a presenter. He does not count as a scientist who dropped his present line of work to pursue UFOs. He has been chasing UFOs since the 1970s.

As for the presentation of the evidence, I notice that in all the cases you presented here, I could only find one (Cash-Landrum) was presented to the panel. There must have been a reason that those cases were omitted.

- The above paragraph from you is FULL of misinformation and untruths! Talk about “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” - you OBVIOUSLY have NOT looked at the “survey”!

I was addressing the one question that was considered to be the most important and was the cause of Sturrock's bold press release. That being :

Do you think the UFO problem:

a) Certainly deserves scienitific study
b) Probably deserves scientific study
c) Possibly deserves scientific study
d) Probably does not deserve scientific study
e) Certainly does not deserve scientific study

The results were as expected giving an affirmative answer to studying UFOs. However, I wonder why Sturrock did not ask for these astronomers to assign how important it was to study UFOs. Sturrock is a liked a good lawyer. You NEVER ask a question that will give an answer you won't like.

WHERE is this survey of “Amateur astronomers” you cite? Again you provide NO references to support your (unfounded) assertions. Given your just demonstrated propensity to simply make things up without looking at the evidence, then how do we know you have not just made up the information about the “Amateur astronomer” survey as well?

IF you want to call me a liar, just say so. I guess assuming that you have a bit of knowledge beyond what is listed on these websites is too much to ask. I have a copy of the Reflector Newsletter (Published by the Astronomical League) of August 1979, which contains the article by Gert Herb.

 

[carlitos]

No cookie for you.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually it says a more about the cultural atmosphere that such scientists find themselves in. Perhaps the following will help illuminate and highlight the basic problem…

It still does not answer my question/request. Do you have ACTUAL evidence that scientists have lost standing/employment/funding because they chose to study UFOs?

 

[Astrophotographer]

No cookie for you.

could not resist.

 

[Correa Neto]

Seems Rramjet has learned a new word- methodology, and he/she says skeptics have none or flawed ones.

Well, now that you learned this new word, I challenge you once more- show us evidence that you are nothing but a poseur and expose the methodology you used to select your "best cases". Show us the methodology, the criteria you used. Show your cards.

Show us at least one case of a scientist, backed by proper evidence and methods, loosing standing/employment/funding because he/she has chosen to study UFOs. Show your cards.

“Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” Yeah, yeah, yeah... We already know it. If you cared about evidence, you would already know the many flaws in the material you presented to back your claim. If you had the scientific training you claim to have, you would know them.

There is no single “best case” that demonstrates all the evidence needed to support my contentions.

Yes. From the scientific POV, when it comes down to back "aliens operating outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural (and technological) world" (whatever that means), all these cases are crappy unreliable data. If you had the scientific training you claim to have, you would know this and the reasons why.

And "aliens operating outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural (and technological) world" is nothing but a loose crappy bundle of words pretending to sound scientific. If you had the scientific training you claim to have, you would know this and the reasons why.

Come on, present us with the UFO research project which would require the "extensive funding" diverted by the SETI you seem to hate so much. A world wide radar network with fighters in QRA? I bet you could get some cheap surplus Phantoms. I heard their rear radar warning systems can track down UFOs pretty well...

Come on, tell us why you UFOlogists do not have a project like the one quickly sketched here by astro & me! U$15K on hardware. Is that too hard to obtain?

Come one, tell us why your aliens which according to UFO lore (your "best cases" included) more than once communicate (and even fornicate) with humans just don't give SETI a call... SETI scientists don't turn them on but rednecks do?

By the way, you don't have a clue about the source of the "general climate of scorn and ridicule that has built up around the subject", have you? I'll give you a hint: the very behavior of UFO enthusiasts like you, when you, among other errors, demonstrate utter ignorance of the scientific method and appeal to countless worn-out fallacies and rants against mainstream scientists instead of dealing with the real issues which are the many flaws in UFOlogic evidence and methods. You can't also expect that short platinum blondes with red pubic and armpit hairs, squids as fish, methane as being exclusively originated by biologic activity as well as many other similar SNAFUs will help your case...

 

[dbilleaux]

WOW Excellent recourses

 

[Akhenaten]

could not resist.

That's the entire problem, isn't it? Geeze mate.

 

[Akhenaten]

No cookie for you.

I can sympathise with Astrophotographer though. Someone should start a thread on how genuine experts like Astro have helped to de-mystify the skies for us, and banished (mostly) the rubbish beliefs that people used to hold.

 

[Access Denied]

By the way, you don't have a clue about the source of the "general climate of scorn and ridicule that has built up around the subject", have you? I'll give you a hint: the very behavior of UFO enthusiasts like you, when you, among other errors, demonstrate utter ignorance of the scientific method and appeal to countless worn-out fallacies and rants against mainstream scientists instead of dealing with the real issues which are the many flaws in UFOlogic evidence and methods.

Couldn’t have said it better myself…

Rramjet doesn’t realize he’s UFOlogy’s own worst enemy… or maybe he does.

Now for something completely different…


Rramjet, are you afraid of the “aliens”?

If not, why not?

Have the “aliens” told you anything or have they completely ignored you?

Why do you think “they” are here?

I’m serious. Obviously you believe “aliens” are real so let’s pretend for the sake of argument they are... surely you’ve thought about these kind of things?

Please share and be honest… it may help some of us better understand where you’re coming from and why you think this is so important.


[I can’t guarantee some people won’t ridicule you for it but you have to realize some of that's your own fault]

 

[Belgian thought]

Hurrah! - more evidence of aliens for Rramjet to add to his faulty argument - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8520486.stm