Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
- Status
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
We suggest plausible mundane explanations which you handwave away. You make extraordinary claims and provide anecdotal evidence to support it. Do you really not see any problems inherent in your approach? Really? The only compelling evidence you have provided in this thread it evidence against your claim of being a scientist.
Nope. For everyone else it is highly plausible. For you, it has to be impossible or it destroys your whole belief system.
Funnily enough, the above post by Stray Cat shows a blimp that appears circular. See how you try to handwave away things?
Point out the fins and the engines and the gondola in Stray Cat's pic above. See how you try to handwave away things?
How loud do you think the blimp is in Stray Cat's pic above? See how you try to handwave away thing?
And yet you've acknowledged that witnesses can be mistaken. See how you try to handwave away things?
Point out the Gay Rodeo logo on Stray Cat's pic above. See how you try to handwave away things?
Your continual lying is also noted.
According to Rrogic, it can't have been, that doesn't match the evidence. So, what's your explanation? Aliens? Gods? All hypotheses are a priori equal to you remember.
If you are claiming that gods aren't likely, you'll have to disprove them and then provide evidence for aliens.
Ball is still in your court, evidence-wise.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
How long would it take a vehicle traveling at jet plane speeds to cross the relatively limited amount of sky in a river estuary surrounded by hills if it was at 5,000 feet altitude?
Got some calculations there?
LibraryLady
Emeritus
Post 5970:
I have moved about 30 posts to AAH, most of them from after the above mod box. If it is not possible for everyone to remain on topic and address the OP, as well as be civil, we will close the thread. Anyone can then feel free to start a new thread and try again.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LibraryLady
UFOs: The Research, The Evidence (Mk II)
Unfortunately, due to the bad behaviour of a few posters, the moderators have seen fit to close the previous thread of this name down. In my opinion this was premature and I have appealed the decision.
I open this new chapter in the hope that perhaps now the forum RULES will be applied consistently and that sanctions against posters who break the rules will be applied.
I am hoping therefore that a proper debate can be conducted in the spirit of logical and rational scientific exploration of the evidence and the research surrounding UFOs and the quest for knowledge of what they might mean.
I will therefore post a few links up front that may act as initial resource material to kick the debate off and I will follow that with a reply to a poster from the previous thread to get the ball rolling.
RESEARCH REPORTS AND COMMITTEES
1. Project Sign (1948)
1.1 Estimate of the Situation
(http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/sign.htm)
2. Project Grudge (1948 to 1952)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Grudge)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/grudge_dir.htm)
3. The Robertson Panel (14-17 Jan 1953)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)
4. Project Blue Book (1952 to 30 Jan 1970)
4.1 The Blue Book Unknowns
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)
4.2 The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
5. The O’Brien Committee (1996)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/obrien.htm)
6. The Condon Report (1968)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
6.1. General Articles and Documents on Condon Report
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
6.2 Project Coordinator Low’s Infamous “Trick Memo”
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm)
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_condonreport04.htm)
6.3 Hoyt – History and rationale behind Condon exposed
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
7. The 1968 US Congressional Hearings (plus various other government studies)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/governmentstudies.htm)
8. GEPAN / SEPRA / GEIPAN (France) (1997 – present)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)
9. The Sturrock Panel Workshop (30 Sep – 3 Oct 1997) [/B]
9.1 Report (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc535.htm)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)
9.2 Related Documents (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm)
9.3 Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: (Parts 1 and 2)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf) and (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_2_sturrock.pdf)
10. COMETA (1999)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)
11. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region (Mar 2000)
(http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/f...aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm)
UFO CASES:
Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo Analysis: (http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)
The Kaikoura UFO sightings (30 Dec 1978)
The following articles can be seen on Dr Maccabee’s website: (http://brumac.8k.com/)
1. Challenging the Paradigm!’
(http://brumac.8k.com/ChallengeParadigm/Challenging the Paradigm.htm)
2. New Zealand Sightings (of December 31 1978).
3. New Zealand Radar Sighting.
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc
4. Flashing Light Film from New Zealand! (the so-called ‘squid boat!’)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
5. Squid Boat
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)
The Kaikoura UFO sighting continues to baffle, 30 years on Monday, 20 October 2008, 8:46pm (Source: TV3)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
Original footage
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3iq4R8MgM)
UFO probably a squid fleet off New Zealand, pilot says (http://news.google.com/newspapers?n..._3MRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4378,441171)
Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)
The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlandir.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html)
Transcript interview
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/cashlandrum.htm)
JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm)
Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html) (late Jul 1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)
O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7th Nov. 2006)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting)
NARCAP Report
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
The following reply to the original post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5660232#post5660232) references The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).
Astrophotographer stated:
”I also would like to direct the reader towards several points. One was raised by Allan Hendry concerning BBSR14:
But look at the amount of cases, both "known" and "unknown" that had unstated parameters:
Unstated IFOs UFOs
Shape 23% 27%
Duration 25% 24%
Color 12% 14%
Brightness 65% 68%
Speed 39% 31%
Number 2% 1%
In my own reports, I would never have dreamed of making an IFO/UFO judgement without important parameters like shape and duration. Instead of dumping these reports into the "insufficient information" pile where they belong (or better yet, seeking out the additional data) they saw fit to make commitments on them. To judge reports like these as "UFOs" and "IFOs" and to include them in the chi-square tests is sloppy investigative and statistical process...No wonder the study could find only 12 UFO descriptions out of the 434 that were complete enough to sketch. (Hendry The UFO Handbook p.267)
Based on Hendry's comments it appears that at least 1/4th of the "unknowns" was using very poor data. ”
Rramjet replies:
As Hendry points out, this sword cuts both ways. Either there was sufficient information to make an assessment, or there was not. However, to cite the raw percentages in such a table is disingenuous and misleading. For example a report might have 5/6 characteristics present, but on Hendry’s criteria they would be classified as “insufficient information”. This is clearly absolute nonsense!
Clearly the researchers and scientists evaluated the reports available to them (some 4000 of them) and threw out fully ¼ of them as useless even for evaluation purposes (leaving about 3000 – and even then, for specific analyses, they threw another 800 or so out because they were not “object” sightings). Then of the remaining sightings that they did analyse, around 10% were STILL considered to contain insufficient information to make a judgement (KNOWN v. UNKNOWN)! If we take just the “object” sightings, there were 20% UNKOWN, 22% Astronomical, 21% Aircraft, 15% balloon and 10% “Other”. (p.18)
Hendry does (perhaps) have a minor point about the application of Chi-square analyses given the subjective nature of the data – but it must also be considered that the Chi-square test is a non-parametric test and is suited to its application in this research.
Astrophotographer stated:
Additionally, you are not using the ENTIRE 316 pages because you ignore what is stated in the pagess outside the one statistic you find compelling. For instance read pages 93-94:
It is pointed out that some of the cases of KNOWNS, before identification, appeared fully as bizarre as any of the 12 cases of good UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the class of good UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establish their identity.
This is, of course, contrary to the bulk of the publicity that has been given to this problem.--The reason for the nature of this publicity was clearly brought out during the re-evaluation study. It is a definite fact that upon reading a few reports, the reader becomes convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance. This reaction is independent of the training of the reader or of his attitude toward the problem prior to the initial contact. It is unfortunate that practically all of the articles, books, and news stories dealing with the phenomenon of the "flying saucer" were written by men who were in this category, that is, men who had read only a few selected reports. This is accentuated by the fact that, as a rule, only the more lurid - sounding reports are cited in these publications. Were it not for this common psychological tendency to be captivated by the mysterious, it is possible that no problem of this nature would exist.
The reaction, mentioned above, that after reading a few reports,, the reader is convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance, is very misleading. As more and more of the reports are read, the feeling that "saucers" are real fades, and is replaced by a feeling of skepticism regarding their existence. The reader eventually reaches a point of saturation, after which the reports contain no new information at all and are no longer of any interest. This feeling of surfeit was universal among the personnel who worked on this project, and continually necessitated a conscious effort on their part to remain objective.”
Rramjet replies:
But this is pure and unadulterated unfounded assertion. It is mere OPINION. Perhaps the author of this section is generalising from a sample of one - his own situation and his own reaction), but certainly his assertions do not apply to everyone and it certainly is NOT the case that he has conducted any research into whether his assertion IS true in a general sense. In other words, the author is stating an OPINION – not the results of research. It is commendable that he reminds himself to “remain objective” – but clearly he has failed to heed his own advice!
Astrophotographer stated:
A critical examination of the distributions of the important characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally the reported maneuvers of the objects and the unavailability of supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon-launching records, resulted in the failure to identify as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS.
....Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends. Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.
Rramjet replies:
Again this is mere OPINION! Not only that – the author of these statements is speculating on a very narrow section of the research – the spurious attempt to define a “model flying saucer”. As I have pointed out already, this is like coming to earth and attempting to define a “model transport vehicle” based merely on 12 sightings of planes, trains, ships, automobiles, helicopters, scooters, bicycles, tanks, dinghies, etc)… the attempt was futile and doomed from the start. To then draw conclusions based on the failure of such an attempt is the height of absolute nonsense.
Astrophotographer stated:
”Points to gather from these comments is that:
1) The data to indentify the unknowns was insufficient. They could have been aircraft or balloons but without the records, it was hard to verify. This is why they reevaluated the 434 UNKNOWNS to see if they had probable explanations.
2) The data for even classifying an object as KNOWN or UNKNOWN was not good enough for many of the reports according to Hendry. Many reports lacked specific data that was important to determine the classification of the report.
3) The evaluators of the data began to feel skeptical about the reports after reading them.
4) Most important was the last highlighted statement. The probability of any of these UFO reports being something exotic/"alien" was very low.
Rramjet replies:
Actually I think you should read the section titled “evaluation of Individual Reports” (pp.10-13) to gain an idea of the methodology utilised.
The evaluation was “entrusted only to selected, specially qualified scientists and engineers”. “Evaluation consisted of a standardized procedure…”. “Care was taken … to ensure against the deduction of discrete facts not warranted by the original data.” Observer ratings were based on “ experience … consistency … quality and completeness … fact reporting ability”. “In cases in which insufficient information was available to make a judgement of the observer or report, none was made…”. The identification (categorisation) was “done twice”, first by an individual researcher, then independently by a “panel” of experts. No “previous” identification of a sighting was “referred to in any way”. “In the coding system, the choices provided for final identifications were based on ATIC’s previous experience in analysis of the data. They found that the majority of sightings could be classified as misinterpretations…” (emphasis mine, Rr. Which means of course they had THAT mindset when classifying the reports – and STILL ended up with 20% + unknowns!) … and so on… in short, it is outlined how stringent the methodology actually was – particularly in the identification/categorisation of the sighting reports – which is comprehensively explained on page 13 The authors spent so much effort in explanation of procedure and methodology because “The procedure followed in making final identifications deserves explanation because of the importance assumed by the identification as a basis for statistical treatment.” In other words, the authors take great pains to factually point out how scientifically VALID their procedure was!
As always with UFO reports and research conducted in the era, one MUST look at the substance of the report (the data, the analysis, the results of analysis, etc) to realise that often the “conclusions” (and summary “initial and concluding” opinions as cited by Astrophotographer above) are actually at odds with what the report actually contains in the way of data, analysis and results of analysis (and this fact has also been amply demonstrated in the Condon Report).
Certainly the vast BULK of the report defies such “cherry picked” passages and external opinion as cited by Astrophotographer. Thus when Astrophotographer stated in conclusion:
”I suggest you learn to read the entire report and stop cherry picking what you want. This is completely UNSCIENTIFIC for a "man of science". Did you get that degree out of a cracker jack box?”
..such a “statement” can now be seen for what it actually is, an erroneous, uncivil attempt to project his own sins onto myself.
Unfortunately, due to the bad behaviour of a few posters, the moderators have seen fit to close the previous thread of this name down. In my opinion this was premature and I have appealed the decision.
I open this new chapter in the hope that perhaps now the forum RULES will be applied consistently and that sanctions against posters who break the rules will be applied.
I am hoping therefore that a proper debate can be conducted in the spirit of logical and rational scientific exploration of the evidence and the research surrounding UFOs and the quest for knowledge of what they might mean.
I will therefore post a few links up front that may act as initial resource material to kick the debate off and I will follow that with a reply to a poster from the previous thread to get the ball rolling.
RESEARCH REPORTS AND COMMITTEES
1. Project Sign (1948)
1.1 Estimate of the Situation
(http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/sign.htm)
2. Project Grudge (1948 to 1952)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Grudge)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/grudge_dir.htm)
3. The Robertson Panel (14-17 Jan 1953)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)
4. Project Blue Book (1952 to 30 Jan 1970)
4.1 The Blue Book Unknowns
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)
4.2 The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
5. The O’Brien Committee (1996)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/obrien.htm)
6. The Condon Report (1968)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
6.1. General Articles and Documents on Condon Report
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
6.2 Project Coordinator Low’s Infamous “Trick Memo”
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm)
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_condonreport04.htm)
6.3 Hoyt – History and rationale behind Condon exposed
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
7. The 1968 US Congressional Hearings (plus various other government studies)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/governmentstudies.htm)
8. GEPAN / SEPRA / GEIPAN (France) (1997 – present)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)
9. The Sturrock Panel Workshop (30 Sep – 3 Oct 1997) [/B]
9.1 Report (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc535.htm)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)
9.2 Related Documents (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm)
9.3 Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: (Parts 1 and 2)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf) and (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_2_sturrock.pdf)
10. COMETA (1999)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)
11. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region (Mar 2000)
(http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/f...aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm)
UFO CASES:
Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo Analysis: (http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)
The Kaikoura UFO sightings (30 Dec 1978)
The following articles can be seen on Dr Maccabee’s website: (http://brumac.8k.com/)
1. Challenging the Paradigm!’
(http://brumac.8k.com/ChallengeParadigm/Challenging the Paradigm.htm)
2. New Zealand Sightings (of December 31 1978).
3. New Zealand Radar Sighting.
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc
4. Flashing Light Film from New Zealand! (the so-called ‘squid boat!’)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
5. Squid Boat
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)
The Kaikoura UFO sighting continues to baffle, 30 years on Monday, 20 October 2008, 8:46pm (Source: TV3)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
Original footage
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3iq4R8MgM)
UFO probably a squid fleet off New Zealand, pilot says (http://news.google.com/newspapers?n..._3MRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4378,441171)
Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)
The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlandir.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html)
Transcript interview
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/cashlandrum.htm)
JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm)
Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html) (late Jul 1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)
O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7th Nov. 2006)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting)
NARCAP Report
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
The following reply to the original post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5660232#post5660232) references The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).
Astrophotographer stated:
”I also would like to direct the reader towards several points. One was raised by Allan Hendry concerning BBSR14:
But look at the amount of cases, both "known" and "unknown" that had unstated parameters:
Unstated IFOs UFOs
Shape 23% 27%
Duration 25% 24%
Color 12% 14%
Brightness 65% 68%
Speed 39% 31%
Number 2% 1%
In my own reports, I would never have dreamed of making an IFO/UFO judgement without important parameters like shape and duration. Instead of dumping these reports into the "insufficient information" pile where they belong (or better yet, seeking out the additional data) they saw fit to make commitments on them. To judge reports like these as "UFOs" and "IFOs" and to include them in the chi-square tests is sloppy investigative and statistical process...No wonder the study could find only 12 UFO descriptions out of the 434 that were complete enough to sketch. (Hendry The UFO Handbook p.267)
Based on Hendry's comments it appears that at least 1/4th of the "unknowns" was using very poor data. ”
Rramjet replies:
As Hendry points out, this sword cuts both ways. Either there was sufficient information to make an assessment, or there was not. However, to cite the raw percentages in such a table is disingenuous and misleading. For example a report might have 5/6 characteristics present, but on Hendry’s criteria they would be classified as “insufficient information”. This is clearly absolute nonsense!
Clearly the researchers and scientists evaluated the reports available to them (some 4000 of them) and threw out fully ¼ of them as useless even for evaluation purposes (leaving about 3000 – and even then, for specific analyses, they threw another 800 or so out because they were not “object” sightings). Then of the remaining sightings that they did analyse, around 10% were STILL considered to contain insufficient information to make a judgement (KNOWN v. UNKNOWN)! If we take just the “object” sightings, there were 20% UNKOWN, 22% Astronomical, 21% Aircraft, 15% balloon and 10% “Other”. (p.18)
Hendry does (perhaps) have a minor point about the application of Chi-square analyses given the subjective nature of the data – but it must also be considered that the Chi-square test is a non-parametric test and is suited to its application in this research.
Astrophotographer stated:
Additionally, you are not using the ENTIRE 316 pages because you ignore what is stated in the pagess outside the one statistic you find compelling. For instance read pages 93-94:
It is pointed out that some of the cases of KNOWNS, before identification, appeared fully as bizarre as any of the 12 cases of good UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the class of good UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establish their identity.
This is, of course, contrary to the bulk of the publicity that has been given to this problem.--The reason for the nature of this publicity was clearly brought out during the re-evaluation study. It is a definite fact that upon reading a few reports, the reader becomes convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance. This reaction is independent of the training of the reader or of his attitude toward the problem prior to the initial contact. It is unfortunate that practically all of the articles, books, and news stories dealing with the phenomenon of the "flying saucer" were written by men who were in this category, that is, men who had read only a few selected reports. This is accentuated by the fact that, as a rule, only the more lurid - sounding reports are cited in these publications. Were it not for this common psychological tendency to be captivated by the mysterious, it is possible that no problem of this nature would exist.
The reaction, mentioned above, that after reading a few reports,, the reader is convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance, is very misleading. As more and more of the reports are read, the feeling that "saucers" are real fades, and is replaced by a feeling of skepticism regarding their existence. The reader eventually reaches a point of saturation, after which the reports contain no new information at all and are no longer of any interest. This feeling of surfeit was universal among the personnel who worked on this project, and continually necessitated a conscious effort on their part to remain objective.”
Rramjet replies:
But this is pure and unadulterated unfounded assertion. It is mere OPINION. Perhaps the author of this section is generalising from a sample of one - his own situation and his own reaction), but certainly his assertions do not apply to everyone and it certainly is NOT the case that he has conducted any research into whether his assertion IS true in a general sense. In other words, the author is stating an OPINION – not the results of research. It is commendable that he reminds himself to “remain objective” – but clearly he has failed to heed his own advice!
Astrophotographer stated:
A critical examination of the distributions of the important characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally the reported maneuvers of the objects and the unavailability of supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon-launching records, resulted in the failure to identify as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS.
....Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends. Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.
Rramjet replies:
Again this is mere OPINION! Not only that – the author of these statements is speculating on a very narrow section of the research – the spurious attempt to define a “model flying saucer”. As I have pointed out already, this is like coming to earth and attempting to define a “model transport vehicle” based merely on 12 sightings of planes, trains, ships, automobiles, helicopters, scooters, bicycles, tanks, dinghies, etc)… the attempt was futile and doomed from the start. To then draw conclusions based on the failure of such an attempt is the height of absolute nonsense.
Astrophotographer stated:
”Points to gather from these comments is that:
1) The data to indentify the unknowns was insufficient. They could have been aircraft or balloons but without the records, it was hard to verify. This is why they reevaluated the 434 UNKNOWNS to see if they had probable explanations.
2) The data for even classifying an object as KNOWN or UNKNOWN was not good enough for many of the reports according to Hendry. Many reports lacked specific data that was important to determine the classification of the report.
3) The evaluators of the data began to feel skeptical about the reports after reading them.
4) Most important was the last highlighted statement. The probability of any of these UFO reports being something exotic/"alien" was very low.
Rramjet replies:
Actually I think you should read the section titled “evaluation of Individual Reports” (pp.10-13) to gain an idea of the methodology utilised.
The evaluation was “entrusted only to selected, specially qualified scientists and engineers”. “Evaluation consisted of a standardized procedure…”. “Care was taken … to ensure against the deduction of discrete facts not warranted by the original data.” Observer ratings were based on “ experience … consistency … quality and completeness … fact reporting ability”. “In cases in which insufficient information was available to make a judgement of the observer or report, none was made…”. The identification (categorisation) was “done twice”, first by an individual researcher, then independently by a “panel” of experts. No “previous” identification of a sighting was “referred to in any way”. “In the coding system, the choices provided for final identifications were based on ATIC’s previous experience in analysis of the data. They found that the majority of sightings could be classified as misinterpretations…” (emphasis mine, Rr. Which means of course they had THAT mindset when classifying the reports – and STILL ended up with 20% + unknowns!) … and so on… in short, it is outlined how stringent the methodology actually was – particularly in the identification/categorisation of the sighting reports – which is comprehensively explained on page 13 The authors spent so much effort in explanation of procedure and methodology because “The procedure followed in making final identifications deserves explanation because of the importance assumed by the identification as a basis for statistical treatment.” In other words, the authors take great pains to factually point out how scientifically VALID their procedure was!
As always with UFO reports and research conducted in the era, one MUST look at the substance of the report (the data, the analysis, the results of analysis, etc) to realise that often the “conclusions” (and summary “initial and concluding” opinions as cited by Astrophotographer above) are actually at odds with what the report actually contains in the way of data, analysis and results of analysis (and this fact has also been amply demonstrated in the Condon Report).
Certainly the vast BULK of the report defies such “cherry picked” passages and external opinion as cited by Astrophotographer. Thus when Astrophotographer stated in conclusion:
”I suggest you learn to read the entire report and stop cherry picking what you want. This is completely UNSCIENTIFIC for a "man of science". Did you get that degree out of a cracker jack box?”
..such a “statement” can now be seen for what it actually is, an erroneous, uncivil attempt to project his own sins onto myself.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Rramjet, you never did say what you thought was behind the mysterious Campeche UFO incident based on eyewitness testimony of the trained military observers and FLIR data. Now that's real evidence, wouldn't you agree?
It is highly implausible to be oil well fires, using your criteria. Oil well fires couldn't have surrounded the plane or chased it. Oil well fires don't fly at 3500 feet. Oil well fires don't disappear after military jets stop chasing them. So, do you believe the answer to be aliens?
It is highly implausible to be oil well fires, using your criteria. Oil well fires couldn't have surrounded the plane or chased it. Oil well fires don't fly at 3500 feet. Oil well fires don't disappear after military jets stop chasing them. So, do you believe the answer to be aliens?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
must.....resist.....to....eat....peanuts......
Nothing new here. Another failed argument based on "the will to believe".
Nothing new here. Another failed argument based on "the will to believe".
One Eyed Jack
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 70
tldr
New Internet Law: The number of people that will read a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.
OK, maybe not new. There's probably one out there already.
New Internet Law: The number of people that will read a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.
OK, maybe not new. There's probably one out there already.
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
Stop feeding the troll.
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
Give it up Rramjet, you’re an intellectual pygmy in a room full of giants…
You played a good game... but you lost.
You played a good game... but you lost.
Sunsneezer
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 159
I appreciate the effort you put into assembling a large quantity of information in a post, but it's not the right format to start off a discussion thread. Why not focus on one case at a time, beginning with the one you believe is the strongest?
- Status