UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

<drivel>

Moreover, considering the attributes of a blimp (overall shape, fins, gondola, noisy engines, large colourful advertising logo emblazoned on both sides), it would be totally implausible for the witnesses (all five of them!) to have missed a “blimp” for precisely what it was.

Blimps.

 

[Correa Neto]

Apologies for snipping the rest of your post – but we need to cut to the chase – that is your primary contention in the Rogue River case:



Okay – so then on what grounds IS it being challenged?

OK, let's cut down to the chase- here's whats being challenged:

1. Your alleged scientific training
2. Your statement about skeptics claiming witnesses are 100% wrong
3. Regarding Rogue River, the interpreted (not the perceived) shape of the object (check, for example, posts 6284 and 6286 and many others from other posters for the reasons) an the reported absence of sound (for reasons stated at post 6570).

I must say that further discussions on (3) -as well as other issues such as those mistaken claims of yours dealt at post 6285-depend on addressing (1) and (2) on the proper way. I have no intention on wasting time debating with poseurs. Once these issues are settled, note that endless repetitions of the same flawed claims, as in post 6575 will be useless.

 

[AWPrime]

I am sorry, but you do not provide enough information in your "reports" for any reasonable assessment to be made. A fireball could be a meteor ... and I am sorry again, but "three green lights" does not make a "classic triangle formation". We need more information here.

Irony

 

[Limbo]

Yes, thank you, you are correct - we do have the advantage of knowing rather than being reliant on belief. However, science also gives us a way of "knowing" without needing to have direct experience - and that is by a rational presentation and analysis of evidence - and it is the evidence that the UFO debunkers ignore in order to maintain their beliefs.

Yeah, there is science but on the other hand there is also pop-culture, sociological forces, etc which can get to people early on and influence them. Don't be too hard on skeptics because you never know where you would be had you not seen a UFO for yourself. That's something I need to work on, sometimes I am too hard on skeptics, I think. Maybe we would be here trying to debunk right along side them, if not for a lucky break that opened our eyes.

 

[Astrophotographer]

For example perceptual research tells us that distance estimates in a clear blue sky are error prone. Thus if we have five witnesses (as in Rogue River) reporting the distance similarly, then we would consider we might have a problem, because, according to research, they should not be able to be consistent. If they were, then we would suspect they were not independent and had somehow collaborated and this would throw the story into doubt. However, when the estimates vary – as they DO – then that adds veracity to their descriptions of events. Thus, far from claiming that the witnesses are “100% accurate” I note the research evidence that in fact, under certain conditions and in certain circumstances they most definitely should NOT be accurate (!) and more, we can positively USE that research to determine the veracity of the accounts..

So, if they did not agree on certain items, that makes other parts of their report accurate? People are going to discuss the case about what they saw and influence each other but not to the point they are not going to collaborate on the small details like distance and size. Also, you have to consider the influence of the "flying saucer" craze. If they all agree they saw a flying saucer, they are going to come up with a disc shaped object. Might I suggest you read Hartmann's work on ZOND IV again from the Condon study.

You have not shown one iota of research about how you can compensate for witness perception issues. You keep posting links about perception but you have not shown how you can compensate for them correctly every time. Everything you keep uttering has to be based on what you want to believe and not based on actual research.

You did not answer my question about the Japanese pilots and the Neosho. They should have been accurate in their observations by your claim. Using a real case history, I have shown that people do make errors despite making careful observations of an object. The pilots mistook a much smaller Oiler for an aircraft carrier simply because of a mistake in perception. This is not the only case. I can list dozens from Hendry's book where police officers as a group chased the setting moon, people as a group mistook stars as something else, etc. But you aren't listening.

A last question about Rogue River if you bother to even answer it. If this unidentified craft did actually exist, why is it this group is on the only ones who saw and reported it? It certainly came from somewhere and went somewhere. Presumably, others nearby also would have seen this strange craft and reported it. Perhaps it is like Bigfoot or ghosts, where only a few people get to see it and then it vanishes it the clear blue sky without a trace.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So you confirm the point I made that you need to assert the veracity of the assertion The eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time..

Wrong as usual. I am stating that the witnesses described an object that there is no evidence for existing. In THIS case, the witnesses have the potential for error because of this FACT (that being there is no evidence for the craft existing). If they had reported a flying dragon, I would state the same. If they say they saw a blimp, I would say they PROBABLY were right since we know that blimps exist and there was the evidence of one in the state of Oregon that month. The more exotic the claim, the more likely the witness is wrong. If they had reported seeing a flying dragon, would you have considered their report accurate?

You just don't get the concept of probabilities do you. We have three options:

1) The witnesses were mistaken and misperceived what they saw, which was some sort of airborne object (plane, blimp, balloon, etc). There is a wealth of information demonstrating this does happen quite often no matter who the witnesses are (i.e. astronauts, pilots, housewives, policemen, etc).

2) They accurately described an object that nobody has ever seen before or since.

3) The witnesses lied about what they saw for their own personal reasons.

I list 3 simply because it is an option. I don't think this was the case but one has to consider ALL probabilities. In order to show that option 2 is correct or more probable, you have to do one of the following:

1) PROVE that there were no airborne objects in the vicinity of the observers that day at the time described.

OR

2) PROVE that the witnesses were 100% accurate in their description. Find the witnesses and run experiments on them under the exact same conditions and see if they can recognize various aircraft/airborne objects.

Until you can demonstrate one or two, then option one is the most likely hypothesis. You have yet to PROVE anything other than your belief that the witnesses were accurate in their description.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Why should it be (paraphrasing) the end of the story? What IS it that prevents your curiosity from wondering what that "ring" might have been? Is it simply a matter of a belief that It is impossible, therefore it cannot be...?". As you state, no man-made craft is "ring shaped" so what was it?

Aren't you the least but curious?
And what are you doing in THIS thread?
Could it be that you ARE looking for answers...?

Nothing to do with curiosity, Rramjet. Both of us are extremely curious, but neither of us had the slightest possibility to find out what it was, to this day and probably forever. To this day we both wonder "what was it?", and the simple answer is "we don't know", "we can't tell", "we don't have enough data to tell". I see that many people , including yourself, have trouble with that kind of answer. Carl Sagan called it "Intolerance for Ambiguity".

Granted, it could've been an alien ship from a distant star, but it also could've been an earthly craft seen under the exact perspective that made it impossible for us to identify it. If I'm forced to decide for one option, I'll decide for the latter, not because of a mindset, but because I rationalize it's by far the most probable one.

 

[Correa Neto]

Many UFOlogists and woos in general seem to hate the unknown, the mysteries. They have an urge to fill the gaps, even if with crap. This is not real curiosity; this sounds more like fear. A belief is then created or adopted to handle this fear.

"I don't know" is a very good and honest answer; its way better than holding a false belief, but some people just can't handle that.

Many also hold beliefs because these beliefs make them feel better than others- "I know something you don't, I'm better than you". This of course, is a great mechanism to deal with the fear of the unknown. Better a fantasy than the harsh reality of the unknowns.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Many UFOlogists and woos in general seem to hate the unknown, the mysteries. They have an urge to fill the gaps, even if with crap. This is not real curiosity; this sounds like fear. A belief is then created or adopted to handle this fear.

Yep. "Curiosity" is an evolutionary trait that propell us to investigate, to find out, to look for answers. Most UFO enthusiasts seem content with the idea of perpetuating the mystery, or just fill in with simple answers, namely aliens, which is a mystery on itself.

Skeptics say: "we don't know", "there's every reason to think it's mundane, but let's try to find out", "you say it's alien, but I don't believe you, let's examine the evidence you have", etc.

 

[Jocce]

You “agree” that UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane objects) exist, not UFOs.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I agree that some things people see can't be identified. They can be mundane, or exotic.

Heat haze is a localised ground effect that does not apply when looking up at any appreciable angle and also does not apply over water – both of which circumstances were apparent in the Rogue River case. So no heat haze. Next…

Complete bullcrap. Do you ever get out? I've been a birdwatcher for over 35 years so don't try to lecture me about observing problems related to warm weather and binoculars. Especially when you're so completely and utterly wrong. You're making lies up as you go aren't you?.

Their statements would have been more consistent in things like size and distance for a start. That these were NOT consistent among the witnesses adds veracity to the assertion that they did not collaborate.

Excellent, so when witness statements disagree, that's proof they all made very accurate observations? You constantly amaze me with your logic.

So the claim here is that 60 years ago the Navy could not employ contractors to grind lenses accurately for their binoculars. Rubbish! Pure and simple…

Also, why did the Navy ever issue binoculars if no useful observations could be made through them from boats. Again, your contention is pure and simple rubbish.

I notice you have a certain lack of real life experience. Strawman also noted.

The presentation of the object was an ellipse. Yes, they interpreted it as “circular” (analogous to a coin) because in all the changes of direction it made, the aspect remained the same - elliptical! This most definitely would NOT have occurred if the object was a blimp. The witnesses meant to represent a circular object in their drawings – just as they described it.

You're guessing. What's the angular size of the object they saw again? What happens to to the sillhouette of small objects, far away on a warm day again? I've seen eagles look like round blobs in May.

Moreover, the witnesses described and drew the object in detail – your claim of “sillouette” (sic) is simply incorrect - in my opinion a deliberate attempt at misinformation.

In my opinion you grossly exaggerate the amount of detail they drew. And, you still don't know it's an acurate depiction.

Sure, but you CAN provide “ball park” estimates based on previous experience. If they had stated a particular speed, then we might be concerned, but they gave a “ball park” estimate of jet plane speeds. …and again, the very fact that perhaps the speed estimates might vary again adds weight to the contention that there was no appreciable collaboration, thus adding another tick in the veracity column.

Again you claim that variations in witness statements add weight to one of the reported extremes, jet plane speed. One can only wonder why...

Leave Rouge river, it was likely a blimp. Present something new and exciting instead.

 

[Astrophotographer]

No, don't put words in my mouth. I agree that some things people see can't be identified. They can be mundane, or exotic..

Rramjet sees it as black and white. If you state it is "unidentified" it must be exotic since nobody can identify it. I think most skeptics see it as gray. It could be exotic but it is more likely to be something that we know exists. In the case of the RR (Rogue River) case, it could have been a saucer or it could have been a blimp or it could have been an aircraft or it could have been a dragon. We don't know since we don't have enough data. Given what WE DO KNOW about eyewitnesses making the occasional error in observation, it probably was something mundane. It has to be shown to be something exotic with more evidence to alter that conclusion.

 

[tsig]

So, after 164 pages and hundreds of posts, we are back to square one?

Take square 1, inscribe a circle inside it. We have been going around and around that circle.

blimps blimps blimps blimps blimps blimpsblimps

 

[tsig]

I believe that first assertion is similar to what AP is attempting to uphold but the precise assertion is ” The eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time”. I didn't think there was any ambiguity about that and THIS post describes my reasoning surrounding that.

.



Please enlighten us then on precisely HOW a "blimp" fits "circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane."

Moreover, considering the attributes of a blimp (overall shape, fins, gondola, noisy engines, large colourful advertising logo emblazoned on both sides), it would be totally implausible for the witnesses (all five of them!) to have missed a “blimp” for precisely what it was.

Blimps are round in cross section and have fins. Not all blimps have advertising. From a distance you do not hear the engines because sound decreases with the square of the distance.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, there is science but on the other hand there is also pop-culture, sociological forces, etc which can get to people early on and influence them. Don't be too hard on skeptics because you never know where you would be had you not seen a UFO for yourself. That's something I need to work on, sometimes I am too hard on skeptics, I think. Maybe we would be here trying to debunk right along side them, if not for a lucky break that opened our eyes.

my bolding


Are the posts declaring that everyone has seen UFOs as invisible to you as they are to Rramjet?

 

[tsig]

Because you've been shown to be lying through your teeth so often that nothing you say will ever give your garbage the slightest bit of creedence.

Your case isn't just dead, Rramjet, it's stinking the place up.





Tempting, but I think I'll leave that one alone, and instead, I'll ask you for the fourth time, why did you lie about the thread being closed?





A squid ring of course. Geeze Louise, keep up will you?





I am. Do you write this nonsense yourself, or do you have a team of five-year-olds working for you?





Pointing and laughing.





Blimps are the only answer, Rramjet. And squids.

Our two only answers are blimps, squids and oil wells . . .

dammit​

Our three only answers . . .

Those three and a fanatical loyalty to the facts.

 

[tsig]

my bolding


"Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
Yeah, there is science but on the other hand there is also pop-culture, sociological forces, etc which can get to people early on and influence them. Don't be too hard on skeptics because you never know where you would be had you not seen a UFO for yourself. That's something I need to work on, sometimes I am too hard on skeptics, I think. Maybe we would be here trying to debunk right along side them, if not for a lucky break that opened our eyes."


Are the posts declaring that everyone has seen UFOs as invisible to you as they are to Rramjet?

Notice the emphasis on personal experience "opening our eyes".

Sounds more like a religious experience than a scientific observation.

 

[Wolrab]

Yeah. But you and I are UFO eyewitnesses. We have an advantage - we know that at least one eyewitness is right.

If the geese I saw had not circled for a landing, I would, to this day, believe I saw a UFO that defied physics. I'm pretty sure my mind would would have embellished the details significantly over time. The other people with me (some with wooish tendencies) would probably believe they had seen an alien craft.

We would all be 100% wrong.
The mind is easily tricked.

 

[Akhenaten]

Notice the emphasis on personal experience "opening our eyes".

Sounds more like a religious experience than a scientific observation.

The similarity to the fundy fanaticism being displayed by another poster in a thread, far, far away, is quite striking, isn't it?

 

[tsig]

The similarity to the fundy fanaticism being displayed by another poster in a thread, far, far away, is quite striking, isn't it?

Yes, the same type of argument is used by all believers in "something beyond"

It has the form of:

Yes I know that some are mistaken about X but are all the reports mistaken.

This is often stated in the reverse:

Are all the witnesses lying about X?

And the related argument:

If you experienced X then you would know X.

Where X is UFOs, bigfoot, Jesus, crop circles, psi powers or homeopathy.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, the same type of argument is used by all believers in "something beyond"

It has the form of:

Yes I know that some are mistaken about X but are all the reports mistaken.

This is often stated in the reverse:

Are all the witnesses lying about X?

And the related argument:

If you experienced X then you would know X.

Where X is UFOs, bigfoot, Jesus, crop circles, psi powers or homeopathy.

The first mentioned is the one I find the most time consuming and potentially frustrating. One can easily find oneself facing the prospect of having to falsify every single instance of some ridiculously unlikely phenomenon, in order to demonstrate that there are no instances of X.

I have a tendency to adopt a reverse-troll posture in those cases. It probably won't de-woo the perp, but at least I get to have some fun with it for my trouble.

My bad, but I cope.