UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

If you are now contending that unless a mundane explanation is confirmed, then “UFO” is the conclusion that we must reach and so the reported objects in all the cases I have presented so far are then, according to you, UFOs! That is they remain “unidentified” because no mundane explanation has been confirmed.

That is almost correct. No mundane or alien explanation has been confirmed

So then what are these “unidentified flying objects”? Certainly no plausible mundane explanations can be found for them. So where DO they come from? What IS their explanation?

We don't know what they are, that's why they are unidentified.

Perhaps it IS plausible that the cause is ETI. However you are deliberately obfuscating terms here. I know you mean by “alien” ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence)

I have said nothing about ETI. Do you now claim to read my mind?

but you also know that I DO NOT mean ETI when I state “alien”. I mean by “alien” that UFOs are foreign to our concept of the natural and technological world.

Yes, I know what you mean.

So you simply ignore the evidence to make things up to support your belief system (shrugs). I am not surprised because that is what UFO debunkers DO. Patently the object did NOT have “the outline of a blimp”... etc

Very very similar to a blimp. With regards to the witness inability to see if the object had multiple fins, gondola, engine etc. I saw a UFO yesterday. Looked like a shining sausage. No wings, no fins, no engines. Am I to assume that it didn't have any or am I to assume that it might have been an airplane and that the observation conditions didn't allow me to see those things?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have NEVER claimed the research “backs me up”! I claim that we can USE the research to inform us in our assessments of the cases in question.

Just a couple of your statements recently can demonstrate you do make such claims:

According to research, fallibility occurs under very specific conditions, so we note what research has informed us about those conditions and look to see if they might be applicable in the case. (Post 7008 27 March)

No source is given but you do make the claim that some sort of research has been done. Do you care to present this reserach you speak of here?

Simply, we must understand the context and circumstances of each UFO sighting to determine if there are ANY conditions apparent that are KNOWN to cause perceptual illusion or misinterpretation. If those conditions are NOT manifest, then we are more likely to credit the veracity of the report. We can also USE conditions that ARE present to determine veracity in reports… (post 6767 9 March)

There is no reference to research here but to make such a claim, one must have some sort of case studies to establish this procedure as valid. Once again, you have yet to provide anything that supports this claim.


It is only once we have e a firm understanding of all this perceptual research and theory may we accurately asses UFO reports for conditions that might lead to misperceptions. In cases like Rogue River we search the perceptual research literature and theory to see if there is ANYTHING about the case which could have lead to misperceptions and if we find any, then we must account for them. If we find none that apply then we can discount them as a source of error. (post 6625 March 4)

Again, we have references to "Perceptual research and theory" and "Perceptual research literature" without any sources or where this information can be obtained.

Since you refuse to present where you have obtained this information (even though you have made references to an ambiguous source), I can only assume that there is no such research. You can not say on one hand that you can determine if a witness is potentially right or wrong based on the "perceptual literature" and then state that you have no research that backs your claim. Therefore, any reference you make to "research" and "the perceptual literature" is a false claim simply because you have not presented anything to support it. As a result, this forum can not accept any statement by you about researching perception as factual.

Please go do some research on the principles of perception. If there are parts you do not understand I am willing to help.

I have done some research and I do not find any of the references about vaildating eyewitness testimony based on conditions under which an event is observed. Feel free to present your source material with relevant quotes. That is all I am asking. How hard is this?

I do not misrepresent the UFO debunker’s position at all. To maintain their position they must maintain that the witnesses are wrong in 100% of the cases. Moreover, they are in error 100% of the time except where an observation might fit a mundane explanation. That IS the UFO debunker (and your) position. No misrepresentation required. That you claim it is “more probable” than not that the witnesses are in error does not change this.

To quote Sagan:

"No anecdotal claim - no matter how sincere, no matter how deeply felt, no matter how exemplary the lives of the attesting citizens - carries much weight on so important a question. As in the older UFO cases, anecdotal accounts are subject to irreducible error." (Sagan - "The Demon Haunted World" p. 180)

Can you present a scientist OUTSIDE the paranormal (i.e. UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, etc) field that has a different opinion?

No relevant source material concerning perceptual errors relevant to the cases I have been presenting has been cited...

So you have no sources. That makes your statements regarding the "perceptual literature" invalid until you can present such material.

If you believe that relevant research on the principles of perception does not exist then that is your loss I am afraid.

I can only assume this means you have no source material and that is the reason you refuse to present it. This makes any argument you have made regarding perceptual research completely invalid.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You find Father Gill’s testimony “unbelievable”, but that is your opinion and it in no way accounts for the evidence.

Gill's account is the evidence. I think he spun a yarn. What more is there to say?

Parts of his account suggest “Helicopter”? Then once again you simply have not taken the evidence into account. Precisely what “parts” suggest “helicopter”?

The picture which resembles the profile of a helicopter from the front (as I thought had been mentioned before, somewhere in this monster thread). I told you I don't know what he experienced. I don't expect to have a dazzling revellation of what it was by studying the same evidence as everyone else who's already looked at the case. If I had to take every single word of the account as irrefutable fact, then I'd find it hard to conceive of a likely mundane explanation. I'm under no such obligation, though. So I don't know what he saw.

I don't see any smoking gun in the Johnsone case. I read the link you posted and I still think a sleepy cop ran his car off the road.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oh, a clear day, the sun was at their backs…hmmm, nothing there.

Do we have actual weather observations from that day? Was it really "clear"? There is a difference between what the layman calls "clear" and what a weather observer refers to as "clear". What were the humidity levels, temperature, wind, etc?

Of course, in your discusion about this, you ignore the issues with the observation from a boat (never mentioned), the brief nature of the observation (only a minute or two), the small angular size of the object (few details without binculars) and the binoculars were hand held (not a stable platform even if the boat was perfectly still). Those are conditions that CAN lead to mistakes (See Hendry). We also have no real knowledge concerning what the witnesses knew about "flying discs" prior to this observation. Such a preconception could result in them misperceiving something mundane (i.e. plane, aircraft, balloon, kite, etc) seen from the right angle as a "flying disc". So, you have not thoroughly examined the potential for misperception contrary to what you claim. Of course, none of your statements made regarding misperception is based on any research that you can cite. It is merely your opinion.

 

[Jocce]

I have provided the information that you need to explore research surrounding the principles of perception. I have even outlined some of the relevant principles that you should be looking for. If you cannot find any research on this then you are simply not looking.

I asked you to present references to the research you are talking about because I am unable to find it. You claim to have scientific training. You should be used to cite relevant sources.

You simply ignore the post where I outlined the process of elimination. It IS mundane. It consists of asking relevant questions, like: “Is it a bird”? Well…Is it? No? then we move on. “Is it a meteorite”? Well… IS it? No? Then we move on. THAT is the process of elimination.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I know that you ask the questions "Was it a meteorite. Was it a secret experiment" etc. What I want to know is what steps you took to reach the answer "No". If that's all it takes I can easily prove that it's not alien. Look:

"Is it alien? Well... IS it?. No?"

Besides, I have NEVER claimed “therefore it is alien”. I claim therefore it is a UFO and I have an opinion that ETI is a plausible explanation, but that does NOT mean that ETI IS the explanation.

You're confused. I haven't talked about ETI's. You on the other hand has on several occasions said that UFO=alien.

I have NEVER taken “witness statements at face value”.

Oh really? But, that is exactly what you do in f ex the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora and other cases. You choose to believe them without any other evidence availabe that backs up their claim.

I have pointed out time and time again that the witnesses can be mistaken and that these mistakes can even help us in our cogitations on the matter. Once again, if there are plausible problems with the observations, then they need to be accounted for.

Several plausible problems has been mentioned but you just dismiss them. A boat is not as stable as land. Therefore it degrades the observation f ex.

For example you claim the binoculars were faulty and I note that when the binoculars were used that details of the object “resolved”

Noone has claimed that the binoculars were faulty. We have claimed that they might not be top quality and that several mechanical problems could exist that degrades the observation. Furthermore, details wasn't resolved. The outline was resolved according to witness statements. That's different.

– meaning of course that the binoculars were useful aids in the observation.

That's not a conclusion that follow from the evidence. That they didn't see fins, engines etc. is not proof of good binoculars (or that the object didn't have any).

That is I use the evidence to refute your claim. You claim that binoculars are useless from a boat.

Stop exaggerating. Noone is claiming that binoculars are useless in a boat. Being in a boat makes it harder to observe details. That's all.

I point out that this is nonsense - as any person who HAS used binoculars from a boat will attest to. You claim “heat haze” was a factor and I point out that heat haze is a localised ground effect and not apparent over water. And so on… So in fact I DO account for such factors.

I am an expert when it comes to using all sorts of optical aids in the field. I've been doing that almost daily for 35+ years. When you claim that a boat is as good an observation platform as firm land, everyone understands that it is complete and utter nonsense.

Oh but we CAN rule our mundane explanations – as I have shown above.

No you can't, and that has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

 

[Jocce]

If you can point to any part of the research studies conducted and discussed in the article that are applicable or otherwise relevant to the UFO cases under discussion, then you should do so.

So, I have to be very very specific...

I cannot explain to you what takes years of study to understand in the limited time and space I have. All I can do is point you in the right direction to enable you to undertake the research for yourself.

...but you can generalize and demand that I find sources that back up your claims on my own. Isn't that like...unfair? Double standards?

I stated:
“It is you who make the claim that binoculars are useless from such a platform,”

Noone is making that claim. The claim is that the circumstances during the observation degraded the quality of observation to a non negligable degree.

But that is merely an unfounded assertion. You provide no evidential support that this was the case. You provide no research that even suggests that this might have been the case.

They were in a boat. Five people. On a river. During a warm spring day. Of course that degrades the quality of the observation. It is pretty darn obvious unless you have a religious belief in the contrary.

On the other hand I provide you with the evidence that with the aid of binoculars a great deal of detail that was otherwise not apparent to the naked eye “resolved”

You have not shown that! The witnesses saw the outline and a fin. That's all. They then say that they couldn't see an engine and other details. That doesn't mean that it didn't have those.

You go into circular reasoning here.

- I didn't see an engine
- How do you know that you should have seen one if there had been one?
- Because I had binoculars.
- But maybe the binoculars were not good enough?
- No they were fine, I know that because I didn't see an engine.

And round and round we go...

 

[RoboTimbo]

No objective evidence.

That is not exactly correct. The Reverend Father Gill (http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html) and police officers Lonnie Zamora (http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm) and Val Johnson (http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm) objectively reported what they observed. It is an objective fact that each of them observed something unusual and it is also an objective fact that whatever they observed was something we find (and they found) inexplicable in mundane terms. In Father Gill’s case there were multiple witnesses to events occurring over a number of days. In the Lonnie Zamora and Val Johnson cases physical trace evidence was left behind. In all cases the primary witnesses were judged by their peers and case investigators to be reliable, sober minded people who were “pillars” of their community. Quite simply we have no rational reason to disbelieve that the incidents did not occur as the witnesses described them.

Evidence of damage is not evidence of a cause.

Something caused the physical evidence – and the description of that something defies mundane explanation!

You used a lot of pixels to prove that you don't understand what "objective evidence" is. Are you still standing by your claim to being a scientist also?

 

[Rramjet]

If we can't put our finger on the specific source of eyewitness error…

Why not? In all of the cases I have presented there is a great deal of descriptive detail included that makes it possible to assess the context and viewing conditions. In fact it is just that level of descriptive detail that makes the cases such good cases in the first place.

and the eyewitness report is unbelievable…

Why, in your opinion are the reports unbelievable? In the cases I have been presenting it is generally the almost mundane and objective nature of the reports that makes them so believeable in the first place.

and there's no independent evidence (maybe not the case in all of your UFO cases you've cited, I understand, but bear with me for the sake of argument for this limited range of cases)…

Why should I “bear with you”? If you need to narrowly restrict the range of cases to support your position then have you considered that your position might not be that strong? Besides, as you indicate, there does exist independent confirmation in many of the cases I have been presenting and once again this is (at least in part) what makes them such good cases.

…we don't conclude that the eyewitnesses are correct.

So let me get this straight. What you are contending is that because you cannot be bothered to do some basic analysis of the evidence and because you simply don’t believe the reports in the first place - and if you restrict your cases to only those that seem to support your beliefs - THEN you can conclude the eye witnesses were in error?

Look, here is a list of the cases I have presented: Perhaps you could point to aspects in those cases where the detail you require is lacking or that the observation is “unbelievable” or even where there is no independent evidence? Such specifics as you could provide might truly help advance the discussion.

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: Project Twinkle (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (2 July 1952)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/tremontonruppelt.htm)
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
The Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
Val Johnson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlandir.htm)
JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)
Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)
O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7 Nov 2006)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)

It's more likely that we just can't put our finger on the source of error, or the hoax, than is the unbelievable story that would have to otherwise be true.

As I stated: I have presented the cases above and if you can be more specific about what detail IS lacking that would prevent you making such assessments, then that would truly help advance the discussion.

 

[Rramjet]

Try reading your own thread. For you to pretend this hasn’t already been discussed is one of theses reasons why I see no point in discussing any of these cases with you any further… it’s a waste of time, you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

I simply asked what parts of the Lonnie Zamora incident report resemble a helicopter? Surely if the contention is correct then it would not be difficult for the UFO debunkers to provide this information – the case report is not overly large (http://www.nicap.org/zamora2.htm), so the effort required to do so would be minimal, so why can’t you do that simple task to show support for your contentions (Well, initially Jack by the Hedge’s contention)? Besides, if it has been discussed before, then why was it raised again without reference to that previous discussion?

Now you ask about photographs of the trace evidence and claim the Air Force has never released the results of their investigation to the public… the Blue Book files were declassified in 1975 and all the photographs and diagrams are in there. Why don’t you make some effort to look it up for yourself?

You have gone all “Astrophotographer” on us and have not provided citations or links to your sources! You say the photographs are available in the Blue Book files but perhaps this is merely a belief of yours that is without foundation? Are the photographs available or not? I stated that they were not because the results of the official Air Force investigation have not been publically released. Do you have information that contradicts that? If you have access to the investigation’s photos, why don’t you post them (they are after all – as you claim - in the public domain) or perhaps you know a website where they are displayed?

By the way, the official ATIC Form 329 filed on the case says…

”Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."

The lunar surveyor now? Apart from the fact that “Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site” and the official range logs for the surveyor tests do not coincide with the timing (http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm) and that the Zamora sighting took place 100 miles away from the surveyor test site (do you think that the surveyor was 100 miles off course and completely off the testing range in a test situation!) and that the description of the object was nothing like the surveyor and that (strangely) “An unusual observation made at the Socorro scene was that there appeared to be no “blast” effects (and) Between the burned spots were unburned areas, including patches of unburned brown range grass.” (http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm) …No, simply the “lunar surveyor” explanation is about as implausible as it gets. But of course it does serve a UFO debunker purpose, and that is to “muddy the waters”.

 

[Rramjet]

That is almost correct. No mundane or alien explanation has been confirmed

I am only interested in the fact that no mundane explanation has been “confirmed”. But again you are attempting to play with semantics here. Mundane explanations have been ruled out (that is falsified). No plausible mundane explanations have been forthcoming. No-one has come up with a plausible mundane explanation for any of the cases I have been presenting. That’s the bottom line here.

We don't know what they are, that's why they are unidentified.

Sure, but if not mundane, then what?

I have said nothing about ETI. Do you now claim to read my mind?

Oh, so then I need to ask what YOU mean by “alien” then? If it is not ETI, then what do you mean?

Yes, I know what you mean.

You should, I have explained it to you many times now.

Very very similar to a blimp.

“very very” similar to a blimp? – perhaps the two “very”s will make it true? Otherwise a relatively small, circular object with no fins, no gondola, no engines, no Goodyear logo emblazoned on its sides and moving silently at the speed of a jet plane does not sound like a blimp to me.

With regards to the witness inability to see if the object had multiple fins, gondola, engine etc. I saw a UFO yesterday. Looked like a shining sausage. No wings, no fins, no engines. Am I to assume that it didn't have any or am I to assume that it might have been an airplane and that the observation conditions didn't allow me to see those things?

Yeah, sure you did – we know you probably saw an airplane (if you are simply not “making things up” for the purpose) and that you are “playing dumb” with regards to the certain particulars of the observation (and your knowledge about the wider context) in order to make a point that you consider might be weak without the “personal” experience aspect.

But if I similarly “play dumb” and go along for the ride, of course the point is that without the details (such as those that are present in the case reports I have been presenting) then we have not enough information to assess if the object was an airplane or a UFO.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“I have NEVER claimed the research “backs me up”! I claim that we can USE the research to inform us in our assessments of the cases in question.”

Just a couple of your statements recently can demonstrate you do make such claims:

According to research, fallibility occurs under very specific conditions, so we note what research has informed us about those conditions and look to see if they might be applicable in the case. (Post 7008 27 March)

No source is given but you do make the claim that some sort of research has been done. Do you care to present this reserach you speak of here?

Simply, we must understand the context and circumstances of each UFO sighting to determine if there are ANY conditions apparent that are KNOWN to cause perceptual illusion or misinterpretation. If those conditions are NOT manifest, then we are more likely to credit the veracity of the report. We can also USE conditions that ARE present to determine veracity in reports… (post 6767 9 March)

There is no reference to research here but to make such a claim, one must have some sort of case studies to establish this procedure as valid. Once again, you have yet to provide anything that supports this claim.

But there is nothing in these general statements of principle that refers to any specific claim about any specific case such as might indicate that I claim the research supports my position. In those statements I am merely stating that perceptual research can be used to assess the cases – I am NOT claiming the support of that research for my position…

Simply, we must understand the context and circumstances of each UFO sighting to determine if there are ANY conditions apparent that are KNOWN to cause perceptual illusion or misinterpretation. If those conditions are NOT manifest, then we are more likely to credit the veracity of the report. We can also USE conditions that ARE present to determine veracity in reports… (post 6767 9 March)

Again, we have references to "Perceptual research and theory" and "Perceptual research literature" without any sources or where this information can be obtained.

You mean you really cannot find any literature on the principles of perception? Even after I stated (in reply to Jocce “All I can do is point you in the right direction to enable you to undertake the research for yourself. I will state that visual acuity has been explored in some detail by Dr Maccabee here (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and I have already touched on size and distance perception. Other areas you might want to explore include perception of figure and form (I also suggest you might look up the effect of instrument magnification on perception), movement and auditory perception (to name some of the more particularly relevant perceptual factors in the case).”? You once suggested I approach my local library in order to further my research efforts – I might return the advice.

Since you refuse to present where you have obtained this information (even though you have made references to an ambiguous source), I can only assume that there is no such research. You can not say on one hand that you can determine if a witness is potentially right or wrong based on the "perceptual literature" and then state that you have no research that backs your claim. Therefore, any reference you make to "research" and "the perceptual literature" is a false claim simply because you have not presented anything to support it. As a result, this forum can not accept any statement by you about researching perception as factual.

I find it absolutely typical that UFO debunkers simply refuse to do any research on their own that might undermine their own belief systems. I also find it typical that even after no research , the UFO debunker can proceed to make false claims – such as “then state that you have no research that backs your claim”. Clearly I have NEVER stated any such thing. I have contended the research that enables us to assess UFO cases does exist and that it is based on the principles of perception. Of course that is not the ONLY research available to us – but we must start with the basics – crawl before we walk so to speak – but I cannot even get you to LOOK at the basics, let alone go further…

That such research CAN be practically used can be found for example here:
(http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_7_2_article.pdf)
(http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf)

To quote Sagan:

"No anecdotal claim - no matter how sincere, no matter how deeply felt, no matter how exemplary the lives of the attesting citizens - carries much weight on so important a question. As in the older UFO cases, anecdotal accounts are subject to irreducible error." (Sagan - "The Demon Haunted World" p. 180)

Can you present a scientist OUTSIDE the paranormal (i.e. UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, etc) field that has a different opinion?

But this is merely a restatement of his “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” nonsense (nonsense because there is no such thing as “extraordinary evidence”). The mistake made here by Sagan and the UFO debunkers is that not only is “extraordinary evidence” a nonsense in itself, but that the observations themselves are extremely ordinary and mundane. There are NO “important” questions at stake in the observations themselves.

The questions we need to ask are basically perceptual ones. Could the observers have seen what they describe? This brings in perceptual principles such as visual acuity, figure and ground, movement perception, distance and size perceptions, etc, etc. Was the object so unusual as to preclude “ordinary” perception (as defined by the principles of perception). In just about all the UFO cases I have presented the characteristics of the object sighted were entirely [mundane and there is nothing in those characteristics that would make ordinary perception unable to cope with the task.

Sagan also buys into the “witnesses are in error 100% of the time” nonsense with his “irreducible error”. Why is it “irreducible”? What about cases such as the NZ case where we have a conjunction between visual, radar and film observations? Sagan’s assessment is unscientific. It is an merely an unfounded assertion and not based on the evidence in the cases. He is trying to justify a belief in theoretical terms and in doing so has allowed himself to become illogical and to become divorced from the real world.

 

[Rramjet]

Gill's account is the evidence. I think he spun a yarn. What more is there to say?

In other words you believe the whole thing a hoax? But the man was a skeptic! He did NOT believe in UFOs (as the letter written and sent before his encounter indicates directly! (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm). He wrote the whole thing in his diary at the time. There were more than 30 other witnesses! A hoax is about as implausible an explanation as you can get. I suggest you actually DO as you claimed you do and assess the evidence in the case. The evidence simply does not support “hoax” as a plausible explanation.

The picture which resembles the profile of a helicopter from the front (as I thought had been mentioned before, somewhere in this monster thread). I told you I don't know what he experienced. I don't expect to have a dazzling revellation of what it was by studying the same evidence as everyone else who's already looked at the case. If I had to take every single word of the account as irrefutable fact, then I'd find it hard to conceive of a likely mundane explanation. I'm under no such obligation, though. So I don't know what he saw.

The “picture”? Oh my… you mean the image here (http://www.nicap.org/zamora4.htm) or perhaps you mean the image here (http://www.nicap.org/zamora.htm) or here (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)? Come on, please let’s be at least a little realistic about our assessments of the cases I am presenting. If you really “don’t know” what officer Zamora saw, then why do try and make something into another thing that it patently does NOT resemble?

 

[wollery]

The evidence is what decides plausibility.

No, it isn't, it's the interpretation of the data that decides plausibility or lack thereof.

In the case of Rogue River, it is the historical evidence (showing it is implausible that a blimp was at the time and place)

Showing it's implausible that a USN or USNR blimp was there.

and the witness testimony that definitely describes an object that does not resemble a blimp at all.

That resembles a blimp quite a lot. See, here's where the interpretation of the data comes in. I look at the descriptions and the pictures, and think, "hey, you know what? That looks a bit like a blimp, maybe their binoculars weren't top notch quality and their boat was rocking a little, and there was a bit of glare from the Sun, and they misinterpreted what they saw." You look at them and think, "Wow, that can't possibly be a blimp, it doesn't have any engines, or a gondola, and there's no logo!"

You interpret that data as accurate, I, as a trained scientist, interpret the data as possibly erroneous. Sorry, but part of my scientific training is to question the accuracy of any data I'm presented with. Remember White Sands? My first reaction was to ask, "Where's the error measurement?" That question never even occurred to you, and when I asked it you were incredulous. To your mind they couldn't possibly have made a mistake, and any error would have been small or they wouldn't have quoted a result. But they could have made a mistake, they are after all, human, and without the error we have no idea what they would or wouldn't quote.

That is what makes the “blimp” explanation” implausible. It is not rocket science.

No, it isn't, rocket science is well defined, and involves a lot of precise mathematical calculations.

Ughh, the evidence against USN/USNR blimps is incontrovertible!

No, it's strong, not incontrovertible.

The evidence against a Goodyear blimp is circumstantial

Indeed.

(Goodyear ran blimp tours from Tillamook, but they ceased in 1948)

No, Goodyear ran a "US West Coast Tour" that used Tillamook at some time during 1948. That's all we know.

and the witnesses describe an object that does NOT resemble a blimp.

That is your interpretation. Others disagree. Live with it.

Yeah, but add in no logo,

You've been shown photos of blimps with the logo obscured by Solar glare.

no gondola, no fins

One fin actually, or are you forgetting both descriptions. And you've been shown photos of blimps where the gondola and lower fins were obscure and hard to see.

no sound,

At a large distance. You were shown calculations that show the sound would be equivalent to that of a quiet library. Add to that a slight wind which could dampen the sound a little bit (if you need an explanation of how I'd be happy to help), water lapping about the sides of the boat, and the lack of sound is not in the least bit surprising.

circular

Interpretation of the shape. What they drew had the same profile as a blimp, and at no point do they describe the object as presenting any other profile.

and the speed of a jet plane

How did they judge this speed? What reference points did they use? How much experience did they have with judging the speed of distant flying objects?

and that does NOT add up to “blimp”

Not in your mind, no. But that's the problem. The evidence is ambiguous.

Yeah, right.

Yes, exactly right.

The historical evidence is extensive.

No it isn't. There are a couple of forward planning documents, which show that the Navy intended to have USNR blimp squadrons in the area, and an ambiguous reference to crew training procedures. For the Goodyear blimps there is even less evidence - a couple of short newspaper reports - and Goodyear themselves have no idea what their blimps were doing at the time.

The observational evidence is what it is.

Never a truer word spoken.

It is only “poor” if you need to make a case that the witnesses were in error.

There's no "need" to make a case that the witnesses were in error. It is a well documented fact that witnesses make mistakes. We're just suggesting that this could possibly be one such case.

There is simply no plausible reason not to accept the witnesses statements as substantially correct

If by correct you mean that they accurately reported what they honestly believed they saw, then I agree. But that isn't the same as accurately reporting what was actually there.

– except where we KNOW that they might plausibly have been in error – such as size and distance estimates.

And if their size and distance estimates were too low then the object was further away and the sound issue becomes pretty moot.

As for the speed, do you know why (in most western countries at least) Police are no longer allowed to make naked eye assessments of the speed of a car in speeding prosecutions?

 

[Rramjet]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I know that you ask the questions "Was it a meteorite. Was it a secret experiment" etc. What I want to know is what steps you took to reach the answer "No". If that's all it takes I can easily prove that it's not alien. Look:

"Is it alien? Well... IS it?. No?"

You asked for the process of elimination. You now want the particulars of each step in that process. It would be absolutely boring to outline every single step in that process so what I can tell you is that you should take the evidence (relatively small circular object, with no protuberances except a single fin, silent and moving at the speed of a jet plane plus al the contextual information about manoeuvrability, colour, etc) and match that with descriptions of mundane objects. If it does not match, then we can rule out the particular mundane explanation. Try it with “meteorite” for example. Does it match? Of course it does not. An airplane then? Does it match? No it does not.

Now…what about “alien”? What are the descriptive characteristics of “alien”? What do you mean you don’t HAVE any? How then can you apply the process outlined to rule out “alien” then? You admit you can’t apply the process? But you just claimed you could do that. Huh…

You're confused. I haven't talked about ETI's. You on the other hand has on several occasions said that UFO=alien.

What DO you mean by “alien” then if not ETI?

Wilfully misconstruing what I have stated will get you nowhere. I have stated that by definition a UFO is “alien” – that is the characteristics of UFOs indicate something that is ‘foreign” to our concept of the known natural and technological world and if not mundane then “alien”.

Oh really? But, that is exactly what you do in f ex the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora and other cases. You choose to believe them without any other evidence availabe that backs up their claim.

But there does exist “other evidence” (radar, film, physical trace, multiple witnesses, independent witnesses, independent character assessements, weather reports, etc). Once again you simply hand wave away the evidence because it suits your belief system not to have to examine it.

Several plausible problems has been mentioned but you just dismiss them. A boat is not as stable as land. Therefore it degrades the observation f ex.

If I just dismissed them I would not provide the reasons WHY I reject the claims (just ike you do in dismissing most of the evidence in the cases as witnessed above). However I provide the reasons for my rejection of your contentions – you just ignore those reasons. “f ex” (ughh… does this type of laziness carry over into your general approach to the assessment of these cases?) there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the mere fact of being in a boat will have caused the observation to be in error. Sure it is possible that greater descriptive detail might have been obtained if the witnesses were standing on the shore, but there can be no denying that we DO have a great deal of basic descriptive detail available to us in the case.

Noone has claimed that the binoculars were faulty. We have claimed that they might not be top quality and that several mechanical problems could exist that degrades the observation. Furthermore, details wasn't resolved. The outline was resolved according to witness statements. That's different.

The plain and simple facts of the matter are that with the aid of binoculars much detail of the object resolved and became visible, details that were not apparent to the naked eye, like the fin, the surface texture, the specific shape, a “patch” on the fin, etc. No amount of “handwaving” away of that evidence by you will make it simply disappear! Whatever the efficiency of the binoculars, observations were made and specific details were observed. You can’t just dismiss that evidence.

That's not a conclusion that follow from the evidence. That they didn't see fins, engines etc. is not proof of good binoculars (or that the object didn't have any).

If they could determine the surface texture of the object and also see a small ”patch” on the “fin” then it is utterly implausible that over a minute or two of observation time they would have missed details such as “other” fins, gondola, engines etc, not to mention a large, colourful advertising logo emblazoned on both sides!

Stop exaggerating. Noone is claiming that binoculars are useless in a boat. Being in a boat makes it harder to observe details. That's all.

So? The witnesses clearly saw much detail with the binoculars. Would they have seen greater detail had they been on dry land? Possibly…but it really is a moot point. They saw the details they did, and no amount of handwaving by you can alter that fact.

I am an expert when it comes to using all sorts of optical aids in the field. I've been doing that almost daily for 35+ years. When you claim that a boat is as good an observation platform as firm land, everyone understands that it is complete and utter nonsense.

I have NEVER made that claim! I wish UFO debunkers would quit making things up – is this how you generally approach the assessment of these cases – to simply ignore the evidence and instead make things up to suit your own belief system?

No you can't, and that has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

I can and have ruled out mundane explanations. Once again you are simply ignoring the evidence here.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“If you can point to any part of the research studies conducted and discussed in the article that are applicable or otherwise relevant to the UFO cases under discussion, then you should do so.”

So, I have to be very very specific...

No…all I am pointing out is that the research you pointed to is absolutely irrelevant (and not applicable) to the cases we are discussing. However I DID provide you with the opportunity to correct that contention if it was mistaken. That you have not done so means of course that you cannot find relevance or applicability in that research – because you most assuredly would have done so if you could have.

...but you can generalize and demand that I find sources that back up your claims on my own. Isn't that like...unfair? Double standards?

You misunderstand by claims (again…). I don’t “demand” anything of you. I merely stated that it was possible to use perceptual research to aid our assessment of the cases in question. I have provided you some links (eg; exploration of visual acuity - http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and see above).

You go into circular reasoning here.

- I didn't see an engine
- How do you know that you should have seen one if there had been one?
- Because I had binoculars.
- But maybe the binoculars were not good enough?
- No they were fine, I know that because I didn't see an engine.

And round and round we go...

Not bad except for the very last statement in that chain of logic. The last statement should read “No they were fine, because I could see details on the fin and could also make out the surface texture of the object and these details are of a MUCH finer grade than would be necessary to observe gondola, engines, other fins the advertising logo, etc. – especially over a period of a minute or two while the object turned about in front of us”

So we only go “round and round” because you ignore my statements on the matter and simply substitute them with ones that are made up in order to support your own belief system.

 

[Jocce]

The evidence is what decides plausibility. In the case of Rogue River, it is the historical evidence (showing it is implausible that a blimp was at the time and place) and the witness testimony that definitely describes an object that does not resemble a blimp at all. That is what makes the “blimp” explanation” implausible. It is not rocket science.

So in your mind aliens are more likely than a blimp then. How can that be when we have never encountered aliens before?

Yeah, but add in no logo, no gondola, no fins, no sound, circular and the speed of a jet plane and that does NOT add up to “blimp”.

Then I have to repeat that failure to observe such things is not confirmation that the object was lacking it.

There is simply no plausible reason not to accept the witnesses statements as substantially correct – except where we KNOW that they might plausibly have been in error – such as size and distance estimates.

If distance estimates are wrong, you can't claim that details should have been seen if they existed. If the distance is wrong, the size might be wrong. If the distance is wrong, you can't claim that it should have been heard. Etc.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In other words you believe the whole thing a hoax? But the man was a skeptic! He did NOT believe in UFOs (as the letter written and sent before his encounter indicates directly! (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm). He wrote the whole thing in his diary at the time. There were more than 30 other witnesses!

You mean the the letter that starts "Dear David, Have a look at this extraordinary data. I am almost convinced about the "visitation" theory..."? Yep. Sure sounds like a hardened UFO debunker to me. And the very next day he saw a spectacular flying saucer and wrote about it in his diary so it must be true. And he says there were 30 witnesses so that must be true too. Did they all keep diaries too?

The “picture”? Oh my… you mean the image here (http://www.nicap.org/zamora4.htm) or perhaps you mean the image here (http://www.nicap.org/zamora.htm) or here (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)? Come on, please let’s be at least a little realistic about our assessments of the cases I am presenting. If you really “don’t know” what officer Zamora saw, then why do try and make something into another thing that it patently does NOT resemble?

You asked why, if the helicopter idea had been discussed before, I didn't refer back to it. The reason is as simple as it is obvious: this thread is currently 176 pages long! Long enough that you seem to doubt it ever happened, so I searched and found, for example, this exchange back on page 115:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5532151#post5532151
Since you forgot the discussion ever happened, instead of repeating the same arguments to no purpose, why not just read that portion of the thread?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What DO you mean by “alien” then if not ETI?

Wilfully misconstruing what I have stated will get you nowhere. I have stated that by definition a UFO is “alien” – that is the characteristics of UFOs indicate something that is ‘foreign” to our concept of the known natural and technological world and if not mundane then “alien”.

Blimps, heat haze, observer error, and the geometry of ellipsoids are foreign to Rramjet's concept of the known natural and technological word, hence not mundane, hence alien.

The possibility that some of Rramjet's arguments may lack validity is also foreign to Rramjet's concept of the known world, hence not mundane, hence alien.

I can and have ruled out mundane explanations. Once again you are simply ignoring the evidence here.

Rramjet has indeed ruled out explanations that are, in Rramjet's opinion, mundane. That leaves us with nothing but alien explanations such as blimps and goddesses and the possibility that Rramjet's argument is flawed.

 

[Paul2]

Rramjet, drop for a second all the cases you've talked about, I want to discuss our approach in general, firm up some basic principles, and then we can see how they might apply to your cases.

To rephrase my post # 7099:

For those cases in which

1. the eywitness report something extraordinary (like alien spacecraft, or the sun reversing course in the sky, etc.),
2. we cannot identify a source of eyewitness error, and
3. there is no independent evidence,

we do not accept the eywitness testimony at face value because it's more likely that the eywitnesses were in error in some way we can't yet determine that their extraordinary report is true. Agreed?

 

[Access Denied]

I simply asked what parts of the Lonnie Zamora incident report resemble a helicopter?

And Jack by the hedge gave you an example.

[not to mention the great illustration by Stray Cat in case you missed it]

Surely if the contention is correct then it would not be difficult for the UFO debunkers to provide this information – the case report is not overly large (http://www.nicap.org/zamora2.htm), so the effort required to do so would be minimal, so why can’t you do that simple task to show support for your contentions (Well, initially Jack by the Hedge’s contention)?

Because it’s already been done and since you ignored it the last time, why should anyone assume you won’t again? I for one am not interested in going around in circles…

[not to mention Zamora's statement is only a small part of the actual case file]

Besides, if it has been discussed before, then why was it raised again without reference to that previous discussion?

I can’t speak for Jack by the hedge but I would assume it’s because anybody who’s been following this thread would reasonably assume you were paying attention. Are you saying you haven’t been?

You have gone all “Astrophotographer” on us and have not provided citations or links to your sources!

First of all, as Astrophotographer has pointed out, you’re the one who’s repeatedly failed to provide sources for your assertions. I’ve yet to see Astrophotographer fail to do this. Can you provide some evidence to backup this assertion? If not then please retract this claim. Tim is a friend of mind and I don’t appreciate your lack of respect.

Secondly, I gave you a citation.

You say the photographs are available in the Blue Book files but perhaps this is merely a belief of yours that is without foundation?

You’re the one who’s presenting this case as evidence of “aliens”. The only reason I can see that you wouldn’t know the answer to this question is because you haven’t researched this case on your own. If you haven’t researched all the available primary evidence then excuse me if I don’t consider your opinion of this case worthy of my consideration…

Now if you don’t consider my or Dave Thomas’ opinion of this case credible, perhaps you’d like to discuss Matt Graeber’s take on this case as published in the latest issue of SUNlite?

SUNlite Volume 2 Number 2: March-April 2010
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_2.pdf

The article is called Twenty-First Century UFOlogy IV: SOCORRO REVISITED and begins on p. 15. Matt has been in the field for a very long time and he has considerable experience interviewing UFO witnesses first hand. Of particular interest I think is the photographs he took in an attempt to recreate the viewing conditions experienced by Zamora.

[not to mention apparently Zamora wasn’t wearing his glasses for much of the time he was closest to the object]

Are the photographs available or not?

What did I say? Here’s some examples…

[click to enlarge]





[just kidding]

I stated that they were not because the results of the official Air Force investigation have not been publically released.

Then prove it, cite your source, otherwise you’re the one who’s making an unfounded assertion.

Do you have information that contradicts that?

What evidence do you have that they weren’t?

If you have access to the investigation’s photos, why don’t you post them (they are after all – as you claim - in the public domain) or perhaps you know a website where they are displayed?

Because you’re the one who claimed they don’t exist even though I gave you a link to where the Blue Book files can be found a long time ago. Here’s one example…

[click to enlarge]

The lunar surveyor now?

No, still.

Apart from the fact that “Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site” and the official range logs for the surveyor tests do not coincide with the timing (http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm) and that the Zamora sighting took place 100 miles away from the surveyor test site (do you think that the surveyor was 100 miles off course and completely off the testing range in a test situation!) and that the description of the object was nothing like the surveyor and that (strangely) “An unusual observation made at the Socorro scene was that there appeared to be no “blast” effects (and) Between the burned spots were unburned areas, including patches of unburned brown range grass.” (http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm) …No, simply the “lunar surveyor” explanation is about as implausible as it gets. But of course it does serve a UFO debunker purpose, and that is to “muddy the waters”.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, in my opinion, yours is clearly uniformed…