UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[manxman]

Ramjet the tehran jet chase has to be one of the most compelling cases to argue contact between the military and an intelligently controlled UFO, whose craft it was is another matter.


Robbo timbo, why do you keep using the phrase !!UFO creduloids'!!.

I understand you deploy the phrase as derogatory, however i am confused as you acknowledge you accept the existence as proven by ramjet of UFOs, and their acceptance by most of the participants in this discussion, so i wondered who exactly you were being derogatory to, as most acknowledge and accept the existence of UFOs
it must therefore be them who you direct your !!UFO creduloids'!! slur at, aswell as bracketing yourself in the same group several times.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I did redefine alien for my purposes – is that fact really open to debate or somehow irrelevant?

If you had read the entire sentence, you would have seen why I explained that the point is moot. Here, I'll explain it again: You haven't shown evidence for aliens or "aliens", therefore it doesn't matter which definition you use.

That is your opinion (an unfounded assertion too). By the way, what happened to the explanations for the NASA videos showing the anomalous debris trajectories you claimed were available?

Where is the link to my post where you claim I said that?

Again, merely your opinion. How DO you explain those trajectories?

Typical UFO creduloid tactic of shifting the burden of proof. I told you I'd point it out each time.

I tend to agree (except for the categorical “always”).

Really? Then there should be no debate in science at all then? So, why is it we see arguments about what the evidence of research shows in practically every scientific research project whose results were ever published?

Really? You think that people should vote on whether the evidence you have presented is evidence for aliens or "aliens"?

See my reply to Wollery above.

I did. I was right.

I stated:
“Then I simply ask: If not the shuttle’s thrusters, then what? Use your imagination. Come up with a hypothetical explanation (which should be easy for you as you DO claim to have already put one – or more - forward) and I will research it for you. That requires little if any work on your part – just a little thinking. How could I be more fair?”

How so? You claimed that you already had explanations – I am simply asking you to put them forward so we can analyse their veracity.

More homework for you. Find a link to my post where I said that.

Thank you.

You're welcome. I call 'em as I see 'em.

That many? But no “challenge” involved at all – merely a search for information on the subject – it’s called research by the way.

That may have been the most you've come up with at one time. Did you have more to add to the list?

What claim?

You aren't making any claims?

I have shown that the shuttle’s thrusters could not be the cause. What other motive force for the debri is left considering a weightless environment in the vacuum of space?

Debri people^WP again?

You’ve just noticed?

No, that's why I credited you with consistency before.

What “status quo”? I am contending there is no mundane force that could have caused the debris’ trajectory. I have shown the shuttle could not have provided that force. What else are we left with?

The status quo of it being unidentified. Ah, so you are making a claim that it is impossible for it to be mundane. Now we're getting somewhere. Please provide evidence for your claim that it can't be mundane.

You have made this claim before – yet have not explained it. I asked you to explain it. Will you now do so?

I've also explained it many times before. Go back and read the thread. You may wish to searh for bait and switch.

But that is what I am claiming…

Ah, so you are making a claim. You keep jumping back and forth from claiming that you are not claiming anything to claiming something.

Explain the beings in the Father Gill UFO case then (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(or the Lonnie Zamora case (http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)).

This is the typical UFO creduloid tactic of shifting the burden of proof. You have yet to show that it is impossible for witnesses testimony to be unreliable. Your burden of proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ramjet the tehran jet chase has to be one of the most compelling cases to argue contact between the military and an intelligently controlled UFO, whose craft it was is another matter.


Robbo timbo, why do you keep using the phrase !!UFO creduloids'!!.

I understand you deploy the phrase as derogatory, however i am confused as you acknowledge you accept the existence as proven by ramjet of UFOs, and their acceptance by most of the participants in this discussion, so i wondered who exactly you were being derogatory to, as most acknowledge and accept the existence of UFOs
it must therefore be them who you direct your !!UFO creduloids'!! slur at, aswell as bracketing yourself in the same group several times.

Let's hear your complete definition of UFO.

 

[Rramjet]

Where is the link to my post where you claim I said that?

Here:

What is your theory concerning the trajectories?

Perhaps you missed my explanation then. I simply meant that the “denial machine” lies at one end of the spectrum while the “true believers” lie at the other and neither seem to have been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation regarding the UFO phenomenon. Santa Claus does of course have a satisfactory explanation.

And that's why your phrasing is problematic. Satisfactory explanations have been put forward. The true believers just put their fingers in their ears.

Now I will grant that there was a more general reference to UFO cases in between your two statements above, but as you have positively admitted the “debris trajectory” case(s) are genuinely UFO cases, then I am simply asking you for the “satisfactory explanations” that have been put forward for them.

If you had read the entire sentence, you would have seen why I explained that the point is moot. Here, I'll explain it again: You haven't shown evidence for aliens or "aliens", therefore it doesn't matter which definition you use.

Yet I asked you to “Explain the beings in the Father Gill UFO case then (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(or the Lonnie Zamora case (http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)).” Meaning of course that I believe these types of cases do provide such evidence as you ask for. I made the claim and I presented evidence to support that claim. You have made an alternate claim (it is not evidence), but have provided nothing to support that claim – thus it remains an unfounded assertion – or a mere unsupported opinion.

I stated:
“Again, merely your opinion. How DO you explain those trajectories?”

Typical UFO creduloid tactic of shifting the burden of proof. I told you I'd point it out each time.

…meaning of course that you cannot explain the trajectories and neither (I suspect) do you know of any authority who can. It is interesting to note the lengths the UFO debunkers will go to avoid directly addressing the actual evidence in UFO cases.

I made the claim ( anomalous trajectories). I presented the evidence in support of those claims (For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7Eg...eature=related). I also supplied various research results to show a) it could not have been a result of the shuttle’s thrusters and b) that it was not the result 2D representations of 3D trajectories and of shifting camera positions.

Now you make the claim that I am somehow shifting the burden of proof. Strangely however you have provided no explanation or evidence that that claim can be supported in the face of my statements (even after repeated requests for you to do so). Therefore we are entitled to dismiss your claim in this regard as unfounded and unsubstantiated.

Really? You think that people should vote on whether the evidence you have presented is evidence for aliens or "aliens"?

Funnily enough, whether a scientific theory becomes accepted or not within the scientific community is a matter of consensus opinion - rather than “Here are the facts, we now have a new theory!”

There is a common misconception within the lay community concerning a perception of a certain type of infallibility within the scientific method. Science is, in the main, an inductive process, not a deductive one. It procedures and results are (most often) open to interpretation (value judgements). That’s just how it is.

Your “vote” in this case is merely one of many opinions on the matter. If you want your opinion to carry more weight, then you could of course try bolstering that opinion with supporting evidence…

I did. I was right.

Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

More homework for you. Find a link to my post where I said that.

See above.

That may have been the most you've come up with at one time. Did you have more to add to the list?

Not at this time.

You aren't making any claims?

I make and have made many claims. I was simply asking you to specify the particular claim to which you refer.

The status quo of it being unidentified. Ah, so you are making a claim that it is impossible for it to be mundane. Now we're getting somewhere. Please provide evidence for your claim that it can't be mundane.

Why do you automatically leap to the extreme? I am not claiming “impossible” or “can’t be”, just that on current evidence the trajectories seem to defy mundane explanation. Can you add anything of substance to that discussion?

I stated:
“You have made this claim before – yet have not explained it. I asked you to explain it. Will you now do so?”

I've also explained it many times before. Go back and read the thread. You may wish to searh for bait and switch.

A simple “No”, or “I will not”, or “I cannot” would have sufficed.

Ah, so you are making a claim. You keep jumping back and forth from claiming that you are not claiming anything to claiming something.

Yes, I make many claims… sometimes however when you contend I have made a particular claim, I can (and do) point out that I have not made that particular claim at all… that is why you need to be specific when talking about what I do or do not claim. Such generalities as you make above are too easily refuted.

This is the typical UFO creduloid tactic of shifting the burden of proof. You have yet to show that it is impossible for witnesses testimony to be unreliable. Your burden of proof.

I have never claimed that it is impossible for witness testimony to be unreliable. The reliability of such testimony must be assessed on in merits on a case by case basis.

It seems to me however that you have yet to grasp the concept of “burden of proof”. Simply put, such a burden rests on the person making the claim. For example you are claiming (by implication) that Lonnie Zamora and Father Gill are unreliable witnesses. According to the concept of burden of proof, if you make that claim, then you need to supply evidence in support of that claim.

What you are actually doing is applying a double standard. You are demanding that I supply supporting evidence for my claims, yet refuse to supply any for your own.

 

[wollery]

Sure, but as for assessing the movement of the observation platform (the shuttle in this case) we simply look at the background stars. All the stars in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) move in a straight line, slowly (in comparison to the debri in question) from the top of frame downward. No curves, no unusual trajectories.

This means of course the shuttle is very slowly orbiting MIR (too slowly to have caused the observed curved trajectory affects on the debri such as you outline). You can even see the perspective of MIR change slightly over the course of the video. I am afraid therefore that your analysis, while theoretically correct, does not explain the curved trajectories of the debri. I do however appreciate the thought and intelligence behind your explanation though. It is a welcome addition to this thread at this time.

Now please explain what you would see when you observe very distant objects if you move your observing platform in one direction whilst panning the camera in the other direction.

Hint - think about looking sideways out of a car window at trees on the horizon.

Now, whilst doing the same movements, what would relatively nearby objects, that are also moving, appear to do?

 

[Jocce]

Sure, but as for assessing the movement of the observation platform (the shuttle in this case) we simply look at the background stars. All the stars in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) move in a straight line, slowly (in comparison to the debri in question) from the top of frame downward. No curves, no unusual trajectories.

This means of course the shuttle is very slowly orbiting MIR (too slowly to have caused the observed curved trajectory

Good for you, you made a claim (see bolded). Now back it up with some hard calculations or admit your just looking at a video and guessing.

 

[Jocce]

But I just conducted some research… and Wollery added further detail to it… so there was certainly enough data to perform that research at least.

That was not research, it was a dialogue on an internet discussion forum.

Observation, hypothesis formation, experimental research, conclusions. What more do you want?

Validated data to work with would be a start. Without that, your "Observation, hypothesis formulation, experimental research and conclusion" equals to exacly nothing but wild quessing.

You need to get hard data before doing anything else. Distance to debris, velocities etc.

 

[Jocce]

I am contending there is no mundane force that could have caused the debris’ trajectory.

This is getting really silly. You don't even know what the trajectory is in 3D space. Looking at videos and claiming "doesn't look right to me" is not good enough.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here:


Now I will grant that there was a more general reference to UFO cases in between your two statements above, but as you have positively admitted the “debris trajectory” case(s) are genuinely UFO cases, then I am simply asking you for the “satisfactory explanations” that have been put forward for them.

Then you admit you were incorrect in attributing some claim to me. And thank you for backing that up with evidence by providing a link to a post that showed you to be incorrect.

Yet I asked you to “Explain the beings in the Father Gill UFO case then (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(or the Lonnie Zamora case (http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)).”

Here is where you have tried to shift the burden of proof and are stymied at every turn when I won't let you. It isn't up to me to explain the alleged anecdotal beings in a case. If you want to believe in aliens because of anecdotes, help yourself.

Meaning of course that I believe these types of cases do provide such evidence as you ask for. I made the claim and I presented evidence to support that claim. You have made an alternate claim (it is not evidence), but have provided nothing to support that claim – thus it remains an unfounded assertion – or a mere unsupported opinion.

Nope, anecdotes aren't going to pass for evidence. You still have the burden of proof.

I stated:
“Again, merely your opinion. How DO you explain those trajectories?”

Shifting the burden of proof again.

…meaning of course that you cannot explain the trajectories and neither (I suspect) do you know of any authority who can. It is interesting to note the lengths the UFO debunkers will go to avoid directly addressing the actual evidence in UFO cases.

This burden of proof thing is just going to keep dogging your heels.

I made the claim ( anomalous trajectories). I presented the evidence in support of those claims (For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7Eg...eature=related). I also supplied various research results to show a) it could not have been a result of the shuttle’s thrusters and b) that it was not the result 2D representations of 3D trajectories and of shifting camera positions.

I think Wollery is slowly getting you to realize you might be incorrect here.

Now you make the claim that I am somehow shifting the burden of proof. Strangely however you have provided no explanation or evidence that that claim can be supported in the face of my statements (even after repeated requests for you to do so). Therefore we are entitled to dismiss your claim in this regard as unfounded and unsubstantiated.

No, you are incorrect there. You do still have the burden of proof since nothing you have presented is compelling for your OP.

Funnily enough, whether a scientific theory becomes accepted or not within the scientific community is a matter of consensus opinion - rather than “Here are the facts, we now have a new theory!”

There is a common misconception within the lay community concerning a perception of a certain type of infallibility within the scientific method. Science is, in the main, an inductive process, not a deductive one. It procedures and results are (most often) open to interpretation (value judgements). That’s just how it is.

So what is your theory and how would it be falsifiable?

Your “vote” in this case is merely one of many opinions on the matter. If you want your opinion to carry more weight, then you could of course try bolstering that opinion with supporting evidence…

Burden of proof. Yours. Is.

Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Yes, I think you're starting to finally get that, burden of proof-wise.

See above.

See entire thread.

Not at this time.

It's going to take you a while to eliminate all mundane explanations at that rate.

I make and have made many claims. I was simply asking you to specify the particular claim to which you refer.

Take your pick.

Why do you automatically leap to the extreme? I am not claiming “impossible” or “can’t be”, just that on current evidence the trajectories seem to defy mundane explanation. Can you add anything of substance to that discussion?

I think you've added the weasel words "seem to" to enable you to try to shift the burden of proof. How far away is the object? What size is it? What is its speed?

I stated:
“You have made this claim before – yet have not explained it. I asked you to explain it. Will you now do so?”

A simple “No”, or “I will not”, or “I cannot” would have sufficed.

If that had been accurate, that's what I would have said. What is accurate is what I did say. I've explained it to you before. I'm sure you remember because you've replied to it before. You may search for bait and switch in this thread. There will be many references to your posts.

Yes, I make many claims… sometimes however when you contend I have made a particular claim, I can (and do) point out that I have not made that particular claim at all… that is why you need to be specific when talking about what I do or do not claim. Such generalities as you make above are too easily refuted.

No, you too easily handwave away things.

I have never claimed that it is impossible for witness testimony to be unreliable. The reliability of such testimony must be assessed on in merits on a case by case basis.

So is it impossible for the witness to be unreliable in the Lonnie Zamora case? How about the Campeche incident?

It seems to me however that you have yet to grasp the concept of “burden of proof”. Simply put, such a burden rests on the person making the claim. For example you are claiming (by implication) that Lonnie Zamora and Father Gill are unreliable witnesses. According to the concept of burden of proof, if you make that claim, then you need to supply evidence in support of that claim.

Your problem is that I understand the concept of burden of proof all too well. You are claiming that Lonnie Zamora is an infallible witness. You have yet to prove that. The same applies to Father Gill. The same applies to Campeche.

What you are actually doing is applying a double standard. You are demanding that I supply supporting evidence for my claims, yet refuse to supply any for your own.

What you are doing is allowing your enthusiasm for UFOlogy to color your judgment in determining what is compelling evidence. I'm trying to help you get past that by showing you that you have the burden of proof.

 

[Rramjet]

Now please explain what you would see when you observe very distant objects if you move your observing platform in one direction whilst panning the camera in the other direction.

Hint - think about looking sideways out of a car window at trees on the horizon.

Now, whilst doing the same movements, what would relatively nearby objects, that are also moving, appear to do?

Okaaaay… Let’s take this one step at a time.

(by the way, the camera is fixed and does not pan)

6:17 – 7:03 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)
Trajectory: apparent straight line (there is actually an ever so slight upward “bow” in its trajectory – but given the facts below, this makes it anomalous – so let’s discount that for a moment shall we…?)
Speed: Slowing down! (cm/5sec = 5, 4.5, 3, 2, 2, 1.5, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, 1.01… That is measurements taken in cm (from 6:17) at intervals of 5 seconds (to 7:03). In other words, when we first see the object it is apparently travelling 5cm/5sec, but just before its first direction change it is apparently travelling 1cm/5sec!

Let’s see if we cannot infer from those two facts something about the objects actual trajectory through space (as opposed to apparent trajectory from our POV).

1. According to the background stars our POV is rotating slowly “upward” (the stars track downward in the FOV from our POV) meaning of course the shuttle is slowly rotating as it "orbits" around MIR .
2. That rate of that apparent movement is at approximately 9% of the FOV during the period 6:17 to 7:03 (from where we first see the object, to just before its first direction change).

If the object in question were truly travelling in a straight line through space, then it should also have deviated 9% downward from its apparent straight line trajectory across our FOV. It does not. Instead it matches the speed of rotation of our POV. That is, it must actually be following a curved trajectory through space!

This is seems odd. Discounting a constant external motivating agency (that is discounting a non-mundane force – and remembering the shuttle’s thrusters cannot supply such a constant force, as manoeuvring is conducted in discreet micro-bursts – and what other mundane force is there?), then what other scenario could cause the observed straight line trajectory?

Well of course it could somehow be linked to our POV. But the only way that could happen is if the object has originated from the shuttle and has been imparted the same rotational momentum as the shuttle as it broke free.

At the same time it is obviously travelling in a different direction than the shuttle’s “orbit” of MIR (ie; it is crossing our FOV).

But then the object is apparently losing momentum as it travels (ie: slowing down!). In the vacuum of space with no mundane force acting on it how could this occur?

The only way this could occur (without a continuous external force) is if the object is actually curving away from us… wait a minute did you say curving (again)?

So, the scenario we have inferred above requires the object to be both curving upward and away from us!

Either that or the object is in reality slowing down… either way, it is anomalous.

And all that even before we get to the apparent direction changes!

So as not to complicate things unduly, before we get to discussing what happens to the object on (and after) its first direction change, let us discuss and analyse this first section of its journey across our FOV?

According to the facts of the matter, the object must either be curving in its trajectory, or it is slowing down as it travels – in either case it is anomalous.

Have I made any mistakes in by inferences? Any suggestions?

 

[Rramjet]

Your problem is that I understand the concept of burden of proof all too well. You are claiming that Lonnie Zamora is an infallible witness. You have yet to prove that. The same applies to Father Gill. The same applies to Campeche.

If you understand the concept of burden of proof, then why do you persist in making unfounded claims?

For example I have never claimed any witness to be infallible. I have been consistent throughout this thread in stating that witnesses can be fallible. Indeed I have even stated a number of times that we can actually use that fallibility to tell us something about the cases we are exploring.

My overarching point is that we must assess the reliability of witnesses on a case by case basis. Further, one can claim that a particular witness is a reliable witness without assuming infallibility in that witness.

I have also shown in this thread that according to perceptual research there are certain things that we humans are usually quite good at (discerning shape against a contrasting background for example) and some we are generally bad at observing (size and speed in a clear blue sky for example).

Thus we can use perceptual research in conjunction with (for example) character assessments to assess witness reliability in particular cases.

The way UFO debunkers tell it is that humans are 100% fallible. That is there is no UFO case where any witness is not mistaken about what they observed. Or put another way, the UFO debunkers believe that when it comes to UFO observation, humans are 100% wrong, 100% of the time – and that claim is clearly nonsense.

Generally, humans are actually quite good observers and quite adept in describing what they have observed also. Do they get it wrong? Of course they do, but perceptual and psychological research can (and does) inform us as to how and why people get it wrong (that is under what circumstances and conditions people are likely to get it wrong – and conversely, under what circumstances and conditions people are likely to get it right) and we can use that research to inform us about cases. Does such research provide us with a 100% guarantee that our assessment in particular cases will be correct? Of course it cannot. It is merely another tool in our research armoury.

The upshot is, and without wanting to rehash cases that have already been discussed at length in this thread, both Lonnie Zamora and Father Gill, on the balance of evidence, seem to be particularly reliable witnesses. In each case there are some basic observations that we cannot account for with mundane explanations. When faced with such cases the UFO debunkers last (and only) resort is to claim the witnesses could not have seen what they described. But such a claim flies in the face of the evidence. On the balance of evidence, the cases occurred pretty much as described by the witnesses. If the UFO debunkers want to claim otherwise, then they have to show how and why their claim can be stood up in the face of ostensibly compelling evidence. That is their burden of proof – and that is something they have consistently failed to provide – evidence to support their claims in the face of evidence contrary to their claims.

That is why the UFO debunkers keep their claims general. “Witnesses can be mistaken.” They rarely (if ever) actually get into the specifics of a case to describe the how and why of this general claim. They simply maintain the claim as a mere possibility and thus conclude from that mere possibility - in conjunction with the a priori belief that every observation has a mundane cause - that the witnesses in a particular case must have been mistaken.

However, if history has shown us anything, it is that a priori beliefs often turn out to be unfounded – just plain wrong in other words. The UFO debunkers can have their beliefs, I would prefer to assess the evidence on its merits and to follow it to wherever it takes us and to whatever conclusions it suggests.

Finally, regarding the Campeche incident, the UFO debunkers hang their hat on the circumstantial evidence that the FLIR can be explained as misidentified oil-well fires. I don’t disagree with their assessment here. I merely point out that according to close analysis of the case, there may indeed have been a genuine UFO involved. However, the UFO debunkers outright refuse to talk about the evidence surrounding that possibility. Why is that do you think?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The way UFO debunkers tell it is that humans are 100% fallible. That is there is no UFO case where any witness is not mistaken about what they observed. Or put another way, the UFO debunkers believe that when it comes to UFO observation, humans are 100% wrong, 100% of the time – and that claim is clearly nonsense.

Clearly. That's why I'm going to have to insist that you back this extraordinary claim up with ordinary evidence: a link to a post where this is claimed by anyone other than yourself. Your burden of proof again.

You also still have the burden of proof in the Zamora and Father Gill cases. You could post some evidence that will confirm your claim that Lonnie Zamora or Father Gill were not mistaken. Some DNA, a piece of alien, a bit of alien spacecraft, a dropped ray gun. Anything at all? Anecdotes really aren't compelling evidence for extraordinary claims unless your enthusiasm for UFOlogy colors your perceptions.

The upshot is, and without wanting to rehash cases that have already been discussed at length in this thread, both Lonnie Zamora and Father Gill, on the balance of evidence, seem to be particularly reliable witnesses.

So, are they fallible or are they infallible? How does reliability relate to fallability? Is it another weasel word so that you can say they were infallible in this case without actually appearing to claim it? Can people who are reliable be fallible ever? I'm sure Lonnie Zamora is the Salt Of The Earth. Do you think SOTEs can ever be mistaken about anything?

 

[wollery]

Okaaaay… Let’s take this one step at a time.

(by the way, the camera is fixed and does not pan)

6:17 – 7:03 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)
Trajectory: apparent straight line (there is actually an ever so slight upward “bow” in its trajectory – but given the facts below, this makes it anomalous – so let’s discount that for a moment shall we…?)
Speed: Slowing down! (cm/5sec = 5, 4.5, 3, 2, 2, 1.5, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, 1.01… That is measurements taken in cm (from 6:17) at intervals of 5 seconds (to 7:03). In other words, when we first see the object it is apparently travelling 5cm/5sec, but just before its first direction change it is apparently travelling 1cm/5sec!

Let’s see if we cannot infer from those two facts something about the objects actual trajectory through space (as opposed to apparent trajectory from our POV).

1. According to the background stars our POV is rotating slowly “upward” (the stars track downward in the FOV from our POV) meaning of course the shuttle is slowly rotating as it "orbits" around MIR .
2. That rate of that apparent movement is at approximately 9% of the FOV during the period 6:17 to 7:03 (from where we first see the object, to just before its first direction change).

If the object in question were truly travelling in a straight line through space, then it should also have deviated 9% downward from its apparent straight line trajectory across our FOV. It does not. Instead it matches the speed of rotation of our POV. That is, it must actually be following a curved trajectory through space!

This is seems odd. Discounting a constant external motivating agency (that is discounting a non-mundane force – and remembering the shuttle’s thrusters cannot supply such a constant force, as manoeuvring is conducted in discreet micro-bursts – and what other mundane force is there?), then what other scenario could cause the observed straight line trajectory?

Well of course it could somehow be linked to our POV. But the only way that could happen is if the object has originated from the shuttle and has been imparted the same rotational momentum as the shuttle as it broke free.

At the same time it is obviously travelling in a different direction than the shuttle’s “orbit” of MIR (ie; it is crossing our FOV).

But then the object is apparently losing momentum as it travels (ie: slowing down!). In the vacuum of space with no mundane force acting on it how could this occur?

The only way this could occur (without a continuous external force) is if the object is actually curving away from us… wait a minute did you say curving (again)?

So, the scenario we have inferred above requires the object to be both curving upward and away from us!

Either that or the object is in reality slowing down… either way, it is anomalous.

And all that even before we get to the apparent direction changes!

So as not to complicate things unduly, before we get to discussing what happens to the object on (and after) its first direction change, let us discuss and analyse this first section of its journey across our FOV?

According to the facts of the matter, the object must either be curving in its trajectory, or it is slowing down as it travels – in either case it is anomalous.

Have I made any mistakes in by inferences? Any suggestions?

Well, let's start with the blatantly obvious. MIR doesn't move 9% down the frame either, it stays exactly where it is in the frame! So, either MIR must be moving in a curved trajectory across our path, or the shuttle's rotation is matched to MIR's position! Now if the object is at a similar distance to MIR then it will also not show any apparent movement due to the rotation. So, no, sorry, your inference is wrong.

As for the rest of the movement, I only have one question. Which direction is the Earth from the POV of this video?

 

[Rramjet]

Well, let's start with the blatantly obvious. MIR doesn't move 9% down the frame either, it stays exactly where it is in the frame!

You are simply and demonstrably incorrect. MIR actually moves about quite a bit in frame. Run the film at fast speed if you don’t believe me.

…and during the time period under current discussion (6:17 – 7:03) MIR move upwards and to the right in the frame. Critically however, it never moves as much as the drifting stars (relatively speaking) – meaning that it is relatively stable within the frame when compared with the background stars. This point becomes critical below.

However, what has MIR got to do with it? The shuttle is orbiting MIR and its attitude in relation to MIR is being maintained (that is the astronauts are attempting to orbit MIR while maintaining the same POV on MIR – or the same “face” of the shuttle pointing at MIR). This is obviously not quite a precision art – for not only does MIR move about in frame somewhat, but the background stars also move – not only do they drift downward (by about 9% in the time period under discussion), but also left to right and back again. Not only that but we can see – by the changing perspective on MIR – that we are indeed orbiting it.

So, either MIR must be moving in a curved trajectory across our path, or the shuttle's rotation is matched to MIR's position!

So do let us start with the blatantly obvious – yes, the shuttle is being piloted in an attempt to match MIR’s position (that is the shuttle is trying to maintain a constant distance from - and "face" toward - MIR while orbiting it).

Now if the object is at a similar distance to MIR then it will also not show any apparent movement due to the rotation. So, no, sorry, your inference is wrong.

One can notice that the background stars also drift downward in relation to MIR’s position in the frame - indeed, this coupled with the relative stability of position of MIR in frame (compared with the drift of the stars), is what tells us that we are orbiting MIR, rather than simply flying past parallel to MIR and rotating our POV to keep it in frame as we do so (try holding two fingers out parallel to your eye level and about 6 inches apart within a background “frame” (like a picture on the wall). Then lower your eye level while trying to maintain the closer finger in position in that frame. You will note that you have to come inward, further under, to maintain a representation of what is happening in the video - thus "orbiting").

As for the rest of the movement, I only have one question. Which direction is the Earth from the POV of this video?

How precisely does the direction of earth matter?

But the key question here is not really that the trajectory of the object appears to be a straight line (for the first part of its journey at least - for that, as you have pointed out, even erroneously, could have a plausible explanation) it is actually that the object appears to slow down over the period currently in question. This either means it is curving away from us … or it is slowing down. Both options are seemingly anomalous, so choose your poison.

(If you reject “slowing down” - to prove it must therefore have a curved motion, draw a straight line on a piece of paper and (from right to left) mark out divisions of length 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Then from each of those points draw lines at right angles extending up the page. Then try to fit a line of length 5 into those divisions, each starting from where the last left off. You will end with a rough representation of a parabolic curve (if you do it with the actual measurements you will note the curve is not constant

If you reject a curved motion, then the object is slowing down…).

 

[Rramjet]

Clearly. That's why I'm going to have to insist that you back this extraordinary claim up with ordinary evidence:

I am gratified to note that perhaps you are weaning yourself from the erroneous belief that there is such a thing as extraordinary evidence…

…a link to a post where this is claimed by anyone other than yourself. Your burden of proof again.

Which claim? You have bolded two claims in your quotation from me.

The first: UFO debunkers believe eyewitnesses are 100% fallible.
The second: That claim is “clearly nonsense”.

Regarding the first, how about we start with a quote from your own post right here:

“Anecdotes really aren't compelling evidence for extraordinary claims unless your enthusiasm for UFOlogy colors your perceptions.”

For a start, my claim is entirely ordinary. A stock, standard claim – you only believe it is “extraordinary” because you don’t believe it is a correct claim. But if a mere belief that a claim is incorrect could make that claim “extraordinary, then practically every claim that was ever made would be an “extraordinary” claim – and that is clearly nonsense.

Now, getting to the substance of my claim in relation to your own statement (above), one can ask what you mean when you claim that “anecdotes” are insufficient evidence.

You mean of course that because eyewitnesses are fallible, then anecdotes provided by eyewitnesses cannot be taken as sufficient evidence. That is turn means that you believe - in whichever particular case under discussion - that the eyewitness was somehow mistaken – meaning in turn that you also believe eyewitnesses are 100% fallible. You may try to worm out of this by claiming that in a particular case the eyewitness was mistaken, but that does not mean you believe they are so in 100% of cases… but in whichever case is being discussed the same argument will be put forward from you – that the witness was mistaken in this particular case – however I have yet to find a case where the UFO debunkers did not put this general “anecdotal” argument forward.

You also still have the burden of proof in the Zamora and Father Gill cases. You could post some evidence that will confirm your claim that Lonnie Zamora or Father Gill were not mistaken.

I have never claimed they were “not mistaken”. Indeed I have consistently and repeatedly claimed that eyewitnesses are fallible. The only thing we can do is use our knowledge of human perception and human behaviour and the surrounding contextual circumstances to form an opinion about the reliability of the witness and their “anecdote” – on a case by case basis.

So, are they fallible or are they infallible? How does reliability relate to fallability? Is it another weasel word so that you can say they were infallible in this case without actually appearing to claim it? Can people who are reliable be fallible ever? I'm sure Lonnie Zamora is the Salt Of The Earth. Do you think SOTEs can ever be mistaken about anything?

In both the Zamora and Father Gill cases all the evidence points to the fact that these men were “pillars” of their community. In other words, reliable in every other aspect of their lives that we know of. This fact adds weight to the contention that these men were not somehow “lying” or “making their respective stories up”. Indeed we have independent confirmation of both their stories (for example – but not limited to - the radio contacts and the physical evidence in Zamora’s case and multiple witnesses in Father Gill’s case). So their stories are “reliable” in the sense that it is unlikely they were “lying” or “making things up”, but of course this does not prove that they were not mistaken in their observations (although multiple witnesses does tend to rule against that in Father Gill’s case).

We must then ask ourselves how the witnesses could have been mistaken in their observations. In the Zamora case we have to account for the fact that he described a wholly smooth and opaque egg shaped craft, standing on legs, with two small beings and that took off with blue flames shooting and roaring from beneath – but then becoming silent after it became airborne. What possible mundane explanation could account for these basic observations? A helicopter? But where were the rotors, the tail, the legs, the glassed areas and the blue flame? Surely Zamora could recognise a helicopter when he saw one? Anyone would. If it was a helicopter Zamora would have thought. “Oh, a helicopter has landed. I wonder what they are doing here? Are they in trouble? What can I do to help?” etc, etc. and his story would have been entirely different. But if “helicopter” is wholly implausible, what then?

As for Father Gill: Circular, silent, hovering (for hours), beings “on deck”… in fact it was there for so long (and on more than one night) that in the end he got bored watching it hovering above them in the sky and went back inside asking simply to be informed if anything changed!

Some DNA, a piece of alien, a bit of alien spacecraft, a dropped ray gun. Anything at all?

And so we get to the end game. The UFO debunkers will only “believe” if they have actual physical evidence. Of course that assumes they would actually recognise that evidence for what it was if they had it – but that aside it must be conceded that we do not have any such physical evidence that is acceptable to the UFO debunkers (we do however have much physical trace evidence – for example the burnt bushes and disturbed earth in the Zamora case). So where does that leave us?

We have so many credible and reliable witnesses providing us with extraordinary stories for which we can find no plausible mundane explanation. We have physical trace evidence such as affects on the environment and an on humans and animals. We have RADAR, visual, and film evidence (and a conjunction of those). We have multiple witnesses. We have science indicating that it would be extraordinary if there was not life elsewhere in the universe. We have history informing us that it is unwise to make categorical assumptions about what reality is and what it is not and about what could and could not be. …and do we really have no physical evidence? That is debatable but also mired in conspiracy, claim and counterclaim.

In short, something is going on for which no plausible explanation has been forthcoming. However, just because we have no plausible explanation, does that mean we simply dismiss the whole thing with the proverbial wave of the hand stating “It could not be, therefore it is not”? I don’t believe we should. I believe that UFOs represent a deep mystery that challenges our belief systems – and perhaps that is their purpose! Perhaps their only purpose… who knows… all I know is that such a profound mystery deserves public attention. It deserves scientific resources. It deserves debate in forums such as this. So I will continue to put forward cases for debate, for who knows when someone, somewhere might not have that “Aha” moment…

 

[EHocking]

That is, it must actually be following a curved trajectory through space!

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the phenomenon which is Orbit^WP.

This is seems odd. Discounting a constant external motivating agency (that is discounting a non-mundane force – and remembering the shuttle’s thrusters cannot supply such a constant force, as manoeuvring is conducted in discreet micro-bursts – and what other mundane force is there?),?

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the phenomenon which is Gravitation^WP

So, the scenario we have inferred above requires the object to be both curving upward and away from us!

Yes.

Either that or the object is in reality slowing down…

No..

According to the facts of the matter, the object must either be curving in its trajectory, or it is slowing down as it travels – in either case it is anomalous.

Have I made any mistakes in by inferences?

Yes

Any suggestions?

The object is moving away from the the camera's position, at an angle and on a different geometrical plane.

The rate of traverse along the path across the POV will appear to diminish in this case.

 

[EHocking]

Okaaaay… Let’s take this one step at a time.

(by the way, the camera is fixed and does not pan)

6:17 – 7:03 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)
Trajectory: apparent straight line (there is actually an ever so slight upward “bow” in its trajectory – but given the facts below, this makes it anomalous – so let’s discount that for a moment shall we…?)
Speed: Slowing down! (cm/5sec = 5, 4.5, 3, 2, 2, 1.5, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, 1.01… That is measurements taken in cm (from 6:17) at intervals of 5 seconds (to 7:03).

Below is a diagram explaining what you are seeing and attempting to measure.

The first is the "plan" view of a body moving at constant speed along a flat plane.



The second is the "perpective" view of the same body, moving along the same plane, but skewed for perspective as though you are standing at the base axis and the body is moving away from you.


The second diagram clearly shows that your linear measurements do not indicate a slowing body, merely that from the observer's perspective, the body is appears to be not horizontally traversing his POV at the same rate.

In other words, when we first see the object it is apparently travelling 5cm/5sec, but just before its first direction change it is apparently travelling 1cm/5sec!

Note my bolding.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am gratified to note that perhaps you are weaning yourself from the erroneous belief that there is such a thing as extraordinary evidence…

A pity you didn't provide any that was even ordinary.

Which claim? You have bolded two claims in your quotation from me.

The first: UFO debunkers believe eyewitnesses are 100% fallible.
The second: That claim is “clearly nonsense”.

You may recall that I agreed with your second so it was only the first that you should provide evidence for.

Regarding the first, how about we start with a quote from your own post right here:

You clearly did not link to a statement claiming that witnesses are 100% fallible so you are incorrect there. If your goal was to prove yourself incorrect, you have succeeded. You still have the burden of proof with this one to provide a link to a statemnt (other than your own) that claims witnesses are 100% fallible.

For a start, my claim is entirely ordinary. A stock, standard claim – you only believe it is “extraordinary” because you don’t believe it is a correct claim. But if a mere belief that a claim is incorrect could make that claim “extraordinary, then practically every claim that was ever made would be an “extraordinary” claim – and that is clearly nonsense.

Now, getting to the substance of my claim in relation to your own statement (above), one can ask what you mean when you claim that “anecdotes” are insufficient evidence.

You mean of course that because eyewitnesses are fallible, then anecdotes provided by eyewitnesses cannot be taken as sufficient evidence. That is turn means that you believe - in whichever particular case under discussion - that the eyewitness was somehow mistaken – meaning in turn that you also believe eyewitnesses are 100% fallible. You may try to worm out of this by claiming that in a particular case the eyewitness was mistaken, but that does not mean you believe they are so in 100% of cases… but in whichever case is being discussed the same argument will be put forward from you – that the witness was mistaken in this particular case – however I have yet to find a case where the UFO debunkers did not put this general “anecdotal” argument forward.

A pity you typed all that out and it is incorrect. You should ask what I mean rather than attempting to speak for me. What I meant was that anecdotes are not sufficient evidence for extraordinary claims. If they were, you would also believe in Santa Claus. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe that the existence of Santa Claus is an ordinary or an extraordinary claim?

I have never claimed they were “not mistaken”. Indeed I have consistently and repeatedly claimed that eyewitnesses are fallible. The only thing we can do is use our knowledge of human perception and human behaviour and the surrounding contextual circumstances to form an opinion about the reliability of the witness and their “anecdote” – on a case by case basis.

In both the Zamora and Father Gill cases all the evidence points to the fact that these men were “pillars” of their community. In other words, reliable in every other aspect of their lives that we know of. This fact adds weight to the contention that these men were not somehow “lying” or “making their respective stories up”. Indeed we have independent confirmation of both their stories (for example – but not limited to - the radio contacts and the physical evidence in Zamora’s case and multiple witnesses in Father Gill’s case). So their stories are “reliable” in the sense that it is unlikely they were “lying” or “making things up”, but of course this does not prove that they were not mistaken in their observations (although multiple witnesses does tend to rule against that in Father Gill’s case).

Yes, exactly what I've been noticing in previous posts. You first state that you've never claimed they were infallible but then your turn around and and claim they couldn't have been mistaken. So which is it? Just state it straight out, Yes they could have been mistaken or No they could not have been mistaken and then stick with that.

We must then ask ourselves how the witnesses could have been mistaken in their observations. In the Zamora case we have to account for the fact that he described a wholly smooth and opaque egg shaped craft, standing on legs, with two small beings and that took off with blue flames shooting and roaring from beneath – but then becoming silent after it became airborne. What possible mundane explanation could account for these basic observations? A helicopter? But where were the rotors, the tail, the legs, the glassed areas and the blue flame? Surely Zamora could recognise a helicopter when he saw one? Anyone would. If it was a helicopter Zamora would have thought. “Oh, a helicopter has landed. I wonder what they are doing here? Are they in trouble? What can I do to help?” etc, etc. and his story would have been entirely different. But if “helicopter” is wholly implausible, what then?

Would a trained military observer not recognize oil well fires, when they show up on FLIR? How about multiple trained military observers?

As for Father Gill: Circular, silent, hovering (for hours), beings “on deck”… in fact it was there for so long (and on more than one night) that in the end he got bored watching it hovering above them in the sky and went back inside asking simply to be informed if anything changed!

And so we get to the end game. The UFO debunkers will only “believe” if they have actual physical evidence. Of course that assumes they would actually recognise that evidence for what it was if they had it – but that aside it must be conceded that we do not have any such physical evidence that is acceptable to the UFO debunkers (we do however have much physical trace evidence – for example the burnt bushes and disturbed earth in the Zamora case). So where does that leave us?

You believe that burned bushes and distrubed earth can only point to aliens?

We have so many credible and reliable witnesses providing us with extraordinary stories for which we can find no plausible mundane explanation.

Bring some of those into this thread then.

We have physical trace evidence such as affects on the environment and an on humans and animals. We have RADAR,

FLIR

visual, and film evidence (and a conjunction of those). We have multiple witnesses.

Trained military observers.

We have science indicating that it would be extraordinary if there was not life elsewhere in the universe.

You're going with the ET hypothesis now?

We have history informing us that it is unwise to make categorical assumptions about what reality is and what it is not and about what could and could not be. …and do we really have no physical evidence? That is debatable but also mired in conspiracy, claim and counterclaim.

Then bring forth that physical evidence.

In short, something is going on for which no plausible explanation has been forthcoming. However, just because we have no plausible explanation, does that mean we simply dismiss the whole thing with the proverbial wave of the hand stating “It could not be, therefore it is not”? I don’t believe we should. I believe that UFOs represent a deep mystery that challenges our belief systems – and perhaps that is their purpose! Perhaps their only purpose… who knows… all I know is that such a profound mystery deserves public attention. It deserves scientific resources. It deserves debate in forums such as this. So I will continue to put forward cases for debate, for who knows when someone, somewhere might not have that “Aha” moment…

Evidence would be better. Otherwise, the only people you are going to convince are UFO creduloids.

 

[wollery]

You are simply and demonstrably incorrect. MIR actually moves about quite a bit in frame. Run the film at fast speed if you don’t believe me.

…and during the time period under current discussion (6:17 – 7:03) MIR move upwards and to the right in the frame. Critically however, it never moves as much as the drifting stars (relatively speaking) – meaning that it is relatively stable within the frame when compared with the background stars. This point becomes critical below.

However, what has MIR got to do with it? The shuttle is orbiting MIR and its attitude in relation to MIR is being maintained (that is the astronauts are attempting to orbit MIR while maintaining the same POV on MIR – or the same “face” of the shuttle pointing at MIR). This is obviously not quite a precision art – for not only does MIR move about in frame somewhat, but the background stars also move – not only do they drift downward (by about 9% in the time period under discussion), but also left to right and back again. Not only that but we can see – by the changing perspective on MIR – that we are indeed orbiting it.


So do let us start with the blatantly obvious – yes, the shuttle is being piloted in an attempt to match MIR’s position (that is the shuttle is trying to maintain a constant distance from - and "face" toward - MIR while orbiting it).


One can notice that the background stars also drift downward in relation to MIR’s position in the frame - indeed, this coupled with the relative stability of position of MIR in frame (compared with the drift of the stars), is what tells us that we are orbiting MIR, rather than simply flying past parallel to MIR and rotating our POV to keep it in frame as we do so (try holding two fingers out parallel to your eye level and about 6 inches apart within a background “frame” (like a picture on the wall). Then lower your eye level while trying to maintain the closer finger in position in that frame. You will note that you have to come inward, further under, to maintain a representation of what is happening in the video - thus "orbiting").


How precisely does the direction of earth matter?

But the key question here is not really that the trajectory of the object appears to be a straight line (for the first part of its journey at least - for that, as you have pointed out, even erroneously, could have a plausible explanation) it is actually that the object appears to slow down over the period currently in question. This either means it is curving away from us … or it is slowing down. Both options are seemingly anomalous, so choose your poison.

(If you reject “slowing down” - to prove it must therefore have a curved motion, draw a straight line on a piece of paper and (from right to left) mark out divisions of length 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Then from each of those points draw lines at right angles extending up the page. Then try to fit a line of length 5 into those divisions, each starting from where the last left off. You will end with a rough representation of a parabolic curve (if you do it with the actual measurements you will note the curve is not constant

If you reject a curved motion, then the object is slowing down…).

The big problem with all of your reasoning is that you flip backwards and forwards between seeing it as a three-dimensional movement and a two-dimensional movement. In order for the object to appear to slow down it doesn't have to be curving away from us or actually slowing down, instead it could start off close to us and get further away, i.e. travelling in a straight line at an angle away from us. The result would be that its apparent speed across our line of sight would get lower as it gets further away. This is called proper motion, and is inversely related to actual speed across the line of sight. If you double the distance you halve the proper motion, provided the tangential speed remains constant. This would lead to an apparent steady slowing of the object's motion from right to left.

The fact that MIR remains in roughly the same place in the video merely indicates that any object relatively nearby will also move less than the very distant stars. This idea would be supported by the fact that the object also gets continually fainter (on average).

As for where the Earth is in respect to our POV, it's incredibly important, because I think the Earth is down and slightly to the left, in which case what we're seeing is a satellite in a lower orbit overtaking us, and then following its orbit around the Earth. It moves off into the distance, apparently slowing down due to its increasing distance (see above), and as it does so it starts to curve downwards, slowly at first, and then more quickly, getting fainter all the time until it gets too faint to see. Not once in all of the time it's on frame does it make a sudden course change, nor does it change the sense of its course change. It is always changing from left and up to roughly straight down.

If I had the time I could do some more precise positional measurements, but I'm afraid it would be very tricky, as I'd have to take account of the fact that the shuttle's motions would be projected onto the object (proper motion and parallax, assuming it's a nearby satellite), and I'm currently far too busy writing a paper on stellar motions and distances.

 

[Rramjet]

Below is a diagram explaining what you are seeing and attempting to measure.

The first is the "plan" view of a body moving at constant speed along a flat plane.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614c80f386218b4.gif[/qimg]

The second is the "perpective" view of the same body, moving along the same plane, but skewed for perspective as though you are standing at the base axis and the body is moving away from you.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614c80f3becd748.gif[/qimg]

The second diagram clearly shows that your linear measurements do not indicate a slowing body, merely that from the observer's perspective, the body is appears to be not horizontally traversing his POV at the same rate.Note my bolding.

On the evidence it is clear you have simply imagined without calculation your (second) “perspective” diagram. To correct this oversight, please redraw your diagram showing the calculations where you have worked out the angles necessary to show correct “perspective” in relation to the distances and velocities observed in the video.

Second, even though you imply that your (second) "perspective" diagram somehow correctly represents perspective, your object seems to be travelling off into another (alternate?) universe… (in a correctly conceived and drawn perspective diagram, all parallel lines should meet at a single point – clearly none of your lines are going to do that). Are you trying to tell us something?

Finally, if we do accept for a moment that your “perspective” does play a significant role, then the size of the object should diminish in precise proportion to the perspective you indicate - that is (in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) the object should be smaller by a factor of five over the period 6:17 to 7:03 (Is the object in the video one fifth the size at 7:03 when compared to its size at 6:17? Of course it is not…

Here, by the way, is a correct general representation of the object’s trajectory between 6:17 and 7:03 - IF we assume constant velocity.

But as a matter of interest, let us go back to assuming your “perspective”. At 7:04 the object deviates significantly. Now that you have the object so far away from any potential motivating force (and certainly gravity is a constant force, so could not be the culprit in such a deviation), I would then be extremely interested to see how you might then explain such a significant deviation.

It is also interesting to note that after the object’s first deviation at 7:04 (there are two more deviations after that*), the object does begin to diminish in size, indicating that it is now travelling away from us (that is if we assume the object itself is not in fact diminishing in size...).

*(at least two more: At 7:25 and then 8:00 – where it comes to a complete halt (!), to start moving again at about 8:20 - to then “disappear” at about 8:37 – or does it…? Observe closely…)

So some critical errors in your post have been indicated. First, can you show us your calculations for your “perspective” diagram, or have you simply made it up? Second, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that your “perspective” does play the role you indicate, how then do you explain subsequent trajectory deviations and changes in object size? Until you can satisfactorily and plausibly answer these questions we are entitled to dismiss your “diagrams” and contentions as error filled and unfounded.