UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[H'ethetheth]

How can I be presumed “arrogant” if I am proposing no “non-mundane” explanations whatsoever – merely noting the fact that there does not seem to be any plausible mundane explanation?

In my opinion it is actually quite arrogant of you to presume such a thing seemingly without bothering to determine what my specific stance on the matter actually is.

Okay, if that really is the case, then it's just weird that you have even begun considering non-mundane explanations that you can't come up with. The only reasonable thing to consider at this stage is mundane evidence you can't come up with.

“Allow me to rub your nose in it”? What happened to the civility of “I believe you are mistaken. Allow me to demonstrate”?

Sorry if that sounded snippy, but next time you tell me I haven't said something, please be sure you're correct.

Object 2 enters from the lower left heading upward at an angle of about 30 degrees? If so then we are in broad agreement.

Yes.

No, according to my movement analyses, object 1 does not accelerate, merely changes direction (its velocity remains constant).

This is probably an engineering/physics-speak vs. everyday-speak thing:
Speed is not the same thing as velocity. The speed may remain the same, but the velocity changes. Any change in velocity, including the direction, requires an acceleration (either of the object, or of the observer).

I.e. a change in direction from 30° to horizontal requires an acceleration downward.
If you don't see this, I'm afraid I'm not sure I can take you seriously when you say you did a "movement analysis".

Object 2 also does not accelerate, but does change direction to a slightly more horizontal one. In fact between 7:30 and about 7: 40, it follows a distinctly curved trajectory, even while object 1 transcribes a straight line trajectory!


Object two maintains a straight line trajectory!


Object two maintains a straight line trajectory!

I have no idea how you come up with that. I'll see if I can find the time to do my own motion analysis, though I'm not sure it'll be worth the effort.

And what of object three? Appearing at about 7:40 from the mid-left of screen and continuing in a straight line toward the bottom centre of frame, all through the alleged trajectory “changes” you describe for object 2 and ostensibly passing in front of object 1?

No, there are simply no “synchronous” changes in either acceleration or direction such as you describe. Perhaps you better view the video with a more critical eye? Can I suggest you download it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) and view it with a video editor that allows you to examine it in a finer grain detail than you are obviously getting via your current viewing methodology?

I'll see what I can do. In the mean time, while we're patronizing, why don't you brush up on your kinematics?

 

[tomi71]

Well, it´s impossible to say how mundane RoboT:s thought about this is. It´s possible that his explanation is not mundane at all. How can we check this or should we only trust his word on this?

 

[wollery]

Your phrase “Outside of human understanding” is in no way reflective of my statement “outside our common understanding of reality”. Your statement implies that I believe UFOs are not understandable (being outside our understanding), whereas my statement implies that we can understand them - we just need to reassess our “common” understanding of what “reality” is (to think “outside the box” or apply some lateral thinking to the problem).

Elsewhere I have stated that UFOs lie beyond the limits of what we take to be boundaries of our understanding of science and technology (or words to that effect). The meaning of both my phrases is that we have a concept of what we think we know (the limits of our understanding), but UFOs are indicating to us that there is actually more that we don’t know (beyond what we think we know) awaiting discovery.

Thus your statement “paraphrasing” my position actually misrepresented that position. As I said, I was not sure that it was a deliberate misrepresentation on your behalf, and you seem to have confirmed that it was not, rather it was merely a misunderstanding of my position. I hope then now to have clarified it for you.

Nope, I understood your position perfectly. Perhaps I should have included the word "current" in my paraphrase, i.e. "Outside of current human understanding". I never intended to imply that you suggested that they were beyond the reach of human understanding.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboT …returning to the substantive case before us:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc)


No, I am sorry, but I am not about to begin speculating on what might or might not be going on in your mind, especially on the back of your blatantly illegitimate attempt to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.

You're doing it again. YOU are the one making a claim. YOU are the one who wants others to believe that your cases represent something extraordinary. Now YOU must come up with extraordinary evidence to support that. You claim that you have a process that eliminates all mundane explanations. I've shown that you don't. If you are now realizing that your process does no such thing, then you have finally learned something here and I'm glad I could have a hand in your education. If you haven't learned anything, well, I did my part. You have to do some of the work yourself.

In my opinion, if you really did have a plausible mundane explanation, you would put it forward. The fact that you do not put forward a plausible mundane explanation merely suggests that you actually don’t have one.

Naughty naughty! I won't allow you to switch the burden of proof. I feel that my having a firm hand here is in your best interest. The sooner you acknowledge that your "process" is fatally flawed, the sooner you will be enabled to start looking for extraordinary evidence.

“…seconds later an Airforce F117A Nighthawk from the 49th Fighter Wing at Hollowman Airforce Base was alerted by airtraffic control. The stealth fighter saw something.

ABQ: In the next 2-3 minutes. Be looking off your
right side, if you see anything about 30000 feet, we had
one aircraft reporting something, it wasn't a weather
balloon or anything. It was a long white looking thing with
a strobe on. Let me know if you see anything out there.

HAWKE85: You got any traffic off my left wing right now?

ABQ: I’ve got something passing off your 9:00 in about 12 at 31 westbound.

HAWKE85: It actually looks like something a little lower than us just off my left wing.​

The Nighthawke reported an object passing off its left wing. America West 564 had the same experience moments later. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc: 2:55 - 3:50)​

“A Boeing 757 piloted by Captain Eugene Tollefson and First Officer John J. Waller, was passing near Bovina, Texas. Captain Tollefson left his seat to look [at a line of regularly flashing lights]. As the lightning flashed behind the lights, it silhouetted something that to the observers appeared to be a large, dark, cigar shaped object between 300 and 500 feet in length.

(…)

No satisfactory explanation has ever been found for the Flight 564 sighting.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

“There was nothing that could explain the sighting of America West Flight 564, and until another explanation can be found for the unusual object, we must assume that a UFO was seen that night.

The case of America West 564 is a good example of a confirmed UFO by an experienced crew, with confirmation by radar.”
(http://aliencasebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/norads-involvement-with-ufo-sighting.html)

“Webb later filed Freedom of Information Act requests for Government information about the case, and also checked military installations for any activities that might explain the sighting, but no known object or phenomenon could be found that correlated with the sighting.” (http://ufologie.net/htm/texas95.htm)

“This incident remains unresolved with no satisfactory explanation provided by any of the agencies involved. In fact the incident has essentially been dismissed as never having occurred.” (http://www.zuko.com/inexplicable/UFO_Encounters.asp#The_America_West_Flt_564_Incident)

So, we can be confident that it was a UFO then? Not a UFAO unless you have some extraordinary evidence of that? Describe your process for how you eliminated all mundane explanations in this case.

 

[Rramjet]

In reference to:
The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc)

In my opinion it suggests that your process of elimination is flawed since you haven't even thought about the mundane explanation RT is thinking about. Just what people has been pointing out for several months now.

For "months now"? If I've told you once, I've told you a million times ...never exaggerate! LOL.

…and who knows what is going on in the mind of RoboT. For all I know he could be thinking my Great Aunt Mary is the explanation - or a telephone, or perhaps even page 345 from War and Peace …who knows? He made the claim that he knew of a mundane explanation, he needs to support that claim with evidence - or we are entitled to dismiss the claim as unsubstantiated and assume he does not know of an explanation at all.

I stated that I was not proposing “non-mundane” explanations, “…merely noting the fact that there does not seem to be any plausible mundane explanation

Okay, if that really is the case, then it's just weird that you have even begun considering non-mundane explanations that you can't come up with.

Ummm…what part of I am not proposing “non-mundane” explanations don’t you get? I have in the past speculated and opinion as follows:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ETH
2) Interdimesional beings
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian consciousness
4) Add as you think of one...​

…but that is speculation beyond what the current evidence can tell us.

The only reasonable thing to consider at this stage is mundane evidence you can't come up with.

I am not sure I understand your statement here. I have presented some of the case evidence (in my previous post) and some links to further evidence (see the head of this post), so what exactly are you proposing? We can only examine the existing evidence…

Sorry if that sounded snippy, but next time you tell me I haven't said something, please be sure you're correct.

I don’t quite follow this either …even if I were to propose you had not said something (which I don’t think I ever did) how am I to know when you haven’t said something except by its absence in this thread?

This is probably an engineering/physics-speak vs. everyday-speak thing:
Speed is not the same thing as velocity. The speed may remain the same, but the velocity changes. Any change in velocity, including the direction, requires an acceleration (either of the object, or of the observer).

Okay then you should have made it clear that you were talking in terms of vectored motion rather than in “everyday” language. I merely (attempted to) point out that the “velocity” of the object remained constant (distance travelled per unit time) through the direction change. The way you stated it (that the object “accelerates downward”) was ambiguous (as we had no idea whether you were talking in terms of vectors or in terms of an everyday understanding - and I merely attempted to clarify that).

In refernce to the competing claims:
Yours: direction change.
Mine: straight line motion

I have no idea how you come up with that. I'll see if I can find the time to do my own motion analysis, though I'm not sure it'll be worth the effort.

No detailed motion analysis need for this one, just place a straight edged ruler across the screen and note any deviations.

I'll see what I can do. In the mean time, while we're patronizing, why don't you brush up on your kinematics?

“Kinematics”? Oh… I see… you are being patronising! LOL. (…but of course in reality we do want to know about the forces acting on the objects)

Well, it´s impossible to say how mundane RoboT:s thought about this is. It´s possible that his explanation is not mundane at all. How can we check this or should we only trust his word on this?

Well of course we cannot verify what RoboT is thinking if he does not make it explicit. His purpose is however clear: (that is in my opinion) he is attempting to obfuscate in order to forestall direct discussion and analysis of the actual evidence in the case. While we are tied up in his semantic games we are not concentrating on (our attention is distracted from) the case itself – and of course that (in my opinion) is precisely what he wants to achieve and thus it represents a win for him.

Nope, I understood your position perfectly. Perhaps I should have included the word "current" in my paraphrase, i.e. "Outside of current human understanding". I never intended to imply that you suggested that they were beyond the reach of human understanding.

I am glad we got that cleared up at least.

You're doing it again. YOU are the one making a claim.

Ummm…

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

YOU are the one who wants others to believe that your cases represent something extraordinary.

Well no. What others conclude about the cases I leave entirely up to them. I am merely pointing out that there seems to be no plausible mundane explanations for them.

Now YOU must come up with extraordinary evidence to support that.

How can I come up with “extraordinary evidence’ if there is no such thing?

You claim that you have a process that eliminates all mundane explanations. I've shown that you don't.

Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

If you are now realizing that your process does no such thing, then you have finally learned something here and I'm glad I could have a hand in your education.

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

If you haven't learned anything, well, I did my part.

Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

You have to do some of the work yourself.

Perhaps if you would give us something (anything) to go on (your claim to have thought of a mundane explanation) we might be able to do just that.

Naughty naughty! I won't allow you to switch the burden of proof. I feel that my having a firm hand here is in your best interest.

You mean your claim that:

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

And:

….the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

And:

…the one I am thinking of.

And:

…the mundane explanation I am thinking of.

And further down in the same post:

…the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

Does not require evidential support? You repeatedly make the claim. Therefore it is your “burden of proof”.

The sooner you acknowledge that your "process" is fatally flawed…

Perhaps you can point out the flaw in the following process then?

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

Again you are illegitimately attempting to shift the burden of proof. You claim the process is “flawed”, yet provide no evidence in support of your contention.

…the sooner you will be enabled to start looking for extraordinary evidence.

Can’t look for something that does not exist (well …you can look for it …but you won’t find it).

So, we can be confident that it was a UFO then?

I don’t know about “confident” - that is a relative term and I have no way of knowing the parameters surrounding your use of it. I can say that given no plausible mundane explanations have been forthcoming, then by definition it is a UFO.

Not a UFAO unless you have some extraordinary evidence of that?

I have been consistent in this thread in stating that there is just not enough evidence to conclude that the ETH is the correct explanation.

Describe your process for how you eliminated all mundane explanations in this case.

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

Given also it is not merely my determination alone that matters here (for example many others who have researched the case have come to the same determination HERE for example), then perhaps it is time you showed us how your claim that

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

can be supported?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You're doing it again. YOU are the one making a claim.

Ummm…

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

Ummm...

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

YOU are the one who wants others to believe that your cases represent something extraordinary.

Well no. What others conclude about the cases I leave entirely up to them. I am merely pointing out that there seems to be no plausible mundane explanations for them.

Ummm...

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

Now YOU must come up with extraordinary evidence to support that.

How can I come up with “extraordinary evidence’ if there is no such thing?

Yes, there is. You just don't have it. That's why you don't want there to be extraordinary evidence.

You claim that you have a process that eliminates all mundane explanations. I've shown that you don't.

Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

Why do you keep asserting that you have such a process then when you say that doesn't make it true?

If you are now realizing that your process does no such thing, then you have finally learned something here and I'm glad I could have a hand in your education.

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

You don't know the characteristics of an unknown thing. Your process is fatally flawed.

If you haven't learned anything, well, I did my part.

Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

You have to do some of the work yourself.

Perhaps if you would give us something (anything) to go on (your claim to have thought of a mundane explanation) we might be able to do just that.

Naughty naughty! I won't allow you to switch the burden of proof. I feel that my having a firm hand here is in your best interest.

You mean your claim that:

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

And:

….the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

And:

…the one I am thinking of.

And:

…the mundane explanation I am thinking of.

And further down in the same post:

…the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

Does not require evidential support? You repeatedly make the claim. Therefore it is your “burden of proof”.

You are correct. It does not require evidential support. Your claim of

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

does require evidential support. It's an extraordinary claim so you need to provide extraordinary evidence for that evidential support.

The sooner you acknowledge that your "process" is fatally flawed…

Perhaps you can point out the flaw in the following process then?

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

You don't know the characteristics of an unknown object. Your process doesn't eliminate the mundane explanation I'm thinking of. Two fatal flaws to your process.

Again you are illegitimately attempting to shift the burden of proof. You claim the process is “flawed”, yet provide no evidence in support of your contention.

I'm thinking of a mundane explanation. Your process has not eliminated it.

…the sooner you will be enabled to start looking for extraordinary evidence.

Can’t look for something that does not exist (well …you can look for it …but you won’t find it).

Can't provide something you don't have, you mean. Substituting ordinary evidence won't work.

So, we can be confident that it was a UFO then?

I don’t know about “confident” - that is a relative term and I have no way of knowing the parameters surrounding your use of it. I can say that given no plausible mundane explanations have been forthcoming, then by definition it is a UFO.

No, that is not the definition of UFO. You redefining words is causing some of your problems.

Not a UFAO unless you have some extraordinary evidence of that?

I have been consistent in this thread in stating that there is just not enough evidence to conclude that the ETH is the correct explanation.

Good. Then my not attributing that to you is also consistent. Still not a UFAO unless you can provide evidence for that. Otherwise we'll go with the standard (not your) definition of UFO.

Describe your process for how you eliminated all mundane explanations in this case.

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

You don't know the characteristics of an unknown. What were the characteristics of the lights at Campeche? Remember the second fatal flaw to your argument described above.

Given also it is not merely my determination alone that matters here (for example many others who have researched the case have come to the same determination HERE for example), then perhaps it is time you showed us how your claim that

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

can be supported?

Naughty naughty! No sneaky switching the burden of proof! You keep trying to refine your process until you've eliminated the mundane explanation I've thought of.

 

[Jocce]

we are entitled to dismiss the claim as unsubstantiated and assume he does not know of an explanation at all.

How did you rule out secret experimental aircraft built in the US or Russia or China or Germany or Sweden or....? Or are you considering such things to be "alien"/not mundane?

 

[H'ethetheth]

I stated that I was not proposing “non-mundane” explanations, “…merely noting the fact that there does not seem to be any plausible mundane explanation

Ummm…what part of I am not proposing “non-mundane” explanations don’t you get? I have in the past speculated and opinion as follows:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ETH
2) Interdimesional beings
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian consciousness
4) Add as you think of one...​

…but that is speculation beyond what the current evidence can tell us.

Oh. Well, in that case, what the hell are we even discussing? I was already very much aware that people see things they don't recognize in the sky. Is that really why you started this thread; to demonstrate to us that there are unidentified flying objects?
If so: Well done, indeed.

If, on the other hand, you started this thread to speculate wildly based on scant evidence, you have misunderstood how critical thinking works, because speculating wildly based on scant evidence is not how critical thinking works.

For instance, I never see any invisible pink unicorns in my garden, which is entirely consistent with their being invisible. Also, I thought I heard some whinnying coming from the window to the garden last week, even though, when I looked, no horse, or other hippoid, was apparent there. Some of our plants seem to have disappeared, or have lost significant amounts of foliage over the last few months, and then there was this time when I heard a clacking sound, as though someone had dropped a coconut shell, but again: Nothing there.

They're probably fairly small unicorns though, because they'd never fit. I mean, everybody knows they're social animals, and my garden is not all that big; not to mention the grazing isn't all that good. There's only the trees, the Rhododendron and some autumn crocuses now.
On the other hand, if they can fly, that would explain how they got there in the first place, and how they have no problem meeting and frolicking in the courtyard, despite the walls between the gardens. Though with the trees, it's probably still tricky to get around in there.
Come to think of it, the flying would also explain why sometimes the autumn leaves fly wildly through the garden, because the lifting force needed to keep a horse-sized being off the ground will do that, especially given all the maneuvering they have to do around the trees. So I guess they must be large airborne unicorns.

One thing bothers me, though: I never could make out if they have a horn, or if they're pink, for that matter. I guess there isn't really evidence that they do, so they're probably invisible Pegasuses, which is actually obvious, considering the fact that they fly.
A simple and elegant explanation. In fact, Occam's razor demands it!

I am not sure I understand your statement here. I have presented some of the case evidence (in my previous post) and some links to further evidence (see the head of this post), so what exactly are you proposing? We can only examine the existing evidence…

Sorry, I see I made a mistake. I meant to say explanation in stead of evidence. Never mind.

I don’t quite follow this either …even if I were to propose you had not said something (which I don’t think I ever did) how am I to know when you haven’t said something except by its absence in this thread?

Very well, I mistook your denial of the synchronous behaviour of the two particles for a denial that I had ever said such a thing. Sorry.

Okay then you should have made it clear that you were talking in terms of vectored motion rather than in “everyday” language.

The statement was fully unambiguous, especially in the context of this discussion, except to people who take acceleration to mean "forward acceleration". This is not what acceleration actually means, nor is it my fault that you did not understand this.

In refernce to the competing claims:
Yours: direction change.
Mine: straight line motion

No detailed motion analysis need for this one, just place a straight edged ruler across the screen and note any deviations.

As I said, I'll see if I can find the time to do this with any degree of accuracy.

“Kinematics”? Oh… I see… you are being patronising! LOL. (…but of course in reality we do want to know about the forces acting on the objects)

Yes, an the only way we can see the forces, is by observing the kinematics; by realizing that every acceleration is caused by a force on either the object or the observer.
If we don't really know what acceleration means, that task becomes more difficult.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Now look what you've made me do.

Below is an image that shows a stack of selected images from the video, placed (by hand) so that the stars are in the same place. I could have done a neater job, but I wanted to do it quickly.

The green graph shows the path of your object, the red graph shows mine.
Now here is where it gets interesting: The yellow graph is the very same red graph, only compressed sideways, sheared a bit to amplify the aberrations, and flipped for ease of comparison.

Now, we can see a few things. The courses of the objects change absolutely synchronously. There are two effects:

1. I placed the stack by hand, but in every image the relative positions are consistent. This means that wobbles and kinks like at points 06 and 11 could be artifacts of inaccurate stacking; the objects could both be following a straight line, or the shuttle is maneuvering. To be sure, I'd have to take a closer look, which I probably will, even though that would be even more pointless than this whole exercise already is.
2. The large course change at point number 14 is definitely not an error of mine, and therefore a clear example of the two objects being accelerated in view, at the same time, in the same direction.

As I previously said, this makes it extremely unlikely that these objects are not small bits of inanimate matter relatively close to the camera.
If you choose to deny this even further, I can only conclude that you don't actually want these things to be explained in a mundane way.

 

[Rramjet]

RoboT, your scurrilous misrepresentations are becoming tiresome.

Yes I stated that: “I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. but I immediately followed that with (from my original post):

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality.

In reference to:
The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc)

YOU made the claim:

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

Clearly, considering your complete and utter failure to actually produce your “explanation”, that statement is false.

Why do you keep asserting that you have such a process then when you say that doesn't make it true?

Please tell me what you don’t understand about the following explanation of the process of elimination and I might be able to help clarify it for you.

The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

You don't know the characteristics of an unknown object.

Clearly we can describe the characteristics of an unknown object or phenomenon (size, shape, colour, movement, sound, smell, etc).

Can't provide something you don't have, you mean. Substituting ordinary evidence won't work.

Any claim (that matters) requires evidence. The greater the weight of evidence, the greater veracity we place in the claim. In the American West case we have independent eyewitness testimony coupled with radar confirmation. No identification of the object has been made. Therefore it is a UFO.

How did you rule out secret experimental aircraft built in the US or Russia or China or Germany or Sweden or....? Or are you considering such things to be "alien"/not mundane?

Ah, yes, the old UFO debunker fallback position: The “identification” of one unknown with another unknown! LOL. The “explanation” (if that is what it can be called) is also implausible on a number of levels. First, why would a “secret, experimental” craft be flown so close to the civil and military aircraft and the airbases of your “enemy” – I thought the whole purpose of “secret, experimental” craft were that they were …well …secret and experimental! What madness would suggest that your “secret, experimental” craft would be risked (shot down, technological failure, unforseen accident, etc) in such a reckless manner over “enemy” territory (surely no-one can have forgotten the U2 debacle!). Second, such craft invariably become “unsecret” once testing is over and they become operational. No, such an “explanation” not only fails the test of it being able to actually identify the UFO (we might as well speculate ET), it is also utterly implausible on purely practical grounds.

 

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Rramjet
The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

Perhaps this will help, from wikipedia.

Method
The method of elimination is iterative. One looks at the answers, determines that several answers are unfit, eliminates these, and repeats, until one cannot eliminate any more. This iteration is most effectively applied when there is logical structure between the answers -- that is to say, when by eliminating an answer one can eliminate several others. In this case one can find the answers which one cannot eliminate by eliminating any other answers and test them alone -- the others are eliminated as a logical consequence. (This is the idea behind optimizations for computerized searches when the input is sorted -- as, for instance, in binary search).

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboT, your scurrilous misrepresentations are becoming tiresome.

Yes I stated that: “I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. but I immediately followed that with (from my original post):

Yes, and it was a scurrilous misrepresentation. You haven't produced evidence for any aliens or "aliens". Unless you can point me to any of your posts that does contain evidence for "aliens", of course.

In reference to:
The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc)

YOU made the claim:

Clearly, considering your complete and utter failure to actually produce your “explanation”, that statement is false.

That is an outiright fabrication on your part. You'll have to explain your "logic" for how you got from "Rramjet doesn't know RotoTimbo's mundane explanation" to "RoboTimbo doesn't have a mundane explanation". If you cannot show that to be logically sound, then you are merely piling falsehood on top of falsehood.

Please tell me what you don’t understand about the following explanation of the process of elimination and I might be able to help clarify it for you.

Your mistake this time was confusing the fact that your process has at least two fatal flaws (which have been repeatedly pointed out to you and which you cannot overcome) with, somehow, me not understanding your "process". How did you manage to make that mistake? I understand the process that you describe. That's why I was able to point out its fatal flaws.

​

Clearly we can describe the characteristics of an unknown object or phenomenon (size, shape, colour, movement, sound, smell, etc).

No. Clearly you can only describe the characteristics of how something appears to you. I notice you edited out my question about the Campeche incident here. You did that because of the implications of the characteristics and it proved your argument to be, once again, fatally flawed. If you're keeping track, that's two fatal flaws.

Any claim (that matters) requires evidence. The greater the weight of evidence, the greater veracity we place in the claim. In the American West case we have independent eyewitness testimony coupled with radar confirmation. No identification of the object has been made. Therefore it is a UFO.

Yep, good so far. You just don't get to sneakily substitute your definition of UFO.

Fatal flaw #1: Your "process" does not eliminate all mundane explanations. It does not eliminate the one I am thinking of.

Fatal flaw #2: You can't know the characteristics of an unknown object. This has been proven with the Campeche incident. Blimps and debris blasted around in space prove it pretty well, also.

Rramjet, you haven't been able to overcome either fatal flaw, either one of which totally demolishes your arguments. Do you have anything in the way of extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims?

 

[Rramjet]

Oh. Well, in that case, what the hell are we even discussing? I was already very much aware that people see things they don't recognize in the sky. Is that really why you started this thread; to demonstrate to us that there are unidentified flying objects?
If so: Well done, indeed.

Perhaps you have not explored all the evidence in the cases I have been presenting? If it were merely UFOs I was talking about (as something people simply don’t recognise in the sky), then you may have a point. However, the characteristics of the UFOs in the cases I have been presenting positively defy mundane explanation – even after extensive research.

If, on the other hand, you started this thread to speculate wildly based on scant evidence, you have misunderstood how critical thinking works, because speculating wildly based on scant evidence is not how critical thinking works.

No, I have presented cases where not only has there been the eyewitness testimony, but also film and photographic evidence, radar evidence and physical trace evidence - and in one notable case there was a conjunction of eyewitness, film and radar evidence. It is obvious that your characterisation of this evidence as “scant” understates and underestimates the extent and veracity of the evidence we do have.

For instance, I never see any invisible pink unicorns in my garden, which is entirely consistent with their being invisible.

True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Might I suggest however you look for other evidence (hoofprints, the sound of large wings, disturbances in the foliage, etc)

Also, I thought I heard some whinnying coming from the window to the garden last week, even though, when I looked, no horse, or other hippoid, was apparent there.

You thought you heard – or you did hear?

Some of our plants seem to have disappeared, or have lost significant amounts of foliage over the last few months, and then there was this time when I heard a clacking sound, as though someone had dropped a coconut shell, but again: Nothing there.

Oh then the weight of evidence mounts (no pun intended) – but evidence for what? Your hypothesis that is was an invisible pink unicorn would seem completely unwarranted on the evidence so far.

They're probably fairly small unicorns though, because they'd never fit. I mean, everybody knows they're social animals, and my garden is not all that big; not to mention the grazing isn't all that good. There's only the trees, the Rhododendron and some autumn crocuses now.

So whatever is causing the “disturbances” in your back yard is ostensibly small or flexible enough to actually fit in you back yard. Still, “unicorn” would seem to be mere speculation on your part – especially as you say there does not seem to be anything suitable for them to eat (you obviously know more about what they eat than I do).

On the other hand, if they can fly, that would explain how they got there in the first place, and how they have no problem meeting and frolicking in the courtyard, despite the walls between the gardens. Though with the trees, it's probably still tricky to get around in there.

Unfortunately you have now entered into the realm of pure speculation - outside what the evidence is showing you. This is unwarranted. In any investigation we simply must only stick to conclusions warranted by the evidence. I see no evidence of “flying, frolicking, unicorns” at this stage - all you have so far is some inexplicable “whinnying” – and you are not even sure you did hear that – and some loss of foliage. Is it Autumn where you are?

Come to think of it, the flying would also explain why sometimes the autumn leaves fly wildly through the garden, because the lifting force needed to keep a horse-sized being off the ground will do that, especially given all the maneuvering they have to do around the trees. So I guess they must be large airborne unicorns.

Ah, so it is autumn! You therefore seem to have gone off on a tangent with your “unicorns” that is not supported by the evidence. Autumn leaves regularly fall and are carried by the wind. No need of a unicorn to explain that phenomenon. Perhaps even the “whinnying” might have been caused by the motion of the wind through something in your back yard?

One thing bothers me, though: I never could make out if they have a horn, or if they're pink, for that matter. I guess there isn't really evidence that they do, so they're probably invisible Pegasuses, which is actually obvious, considering the fact that they fly.

If whatever is causing the disturbance in your back yard is not visible, then your speculation about “unicorns”, “horns”, “pink”, “Pegasus” and even “flying” is simply not supported by the evidence. “Autumn” and “wind” would seem a parsimonious explanation at this point.

A simple and elegant explanation. In fact, Occam's razor demands it!

Occam’s razor might demand an invisible horse - based solely on the “whinnying” of course – but as you are not even sure you actually did hear “whinnying” (and that just might have been caused by the wind anyway – have you investigated?), then even that might be stretching things too far. Without the “whinnying” you have some disturbed foliage which can be explained by “Autumn” and “wind” and some unknown “clacking” sound – which as you have not determined the source, could have come from anywhere (something blown by the wind falling over or hitting against something else?). No, your speculation about “unicorns” is absolutely unwarranted on the evidence you have presented. Occam’s razor suggests it is Autumn where you are and that the movement of air is causing some disturbances which you have not investigated closely enough in light of that hypothesis.

Oh, and RoboT? We have just gone through an exercise in the process of elimination where the characteristics of an unknown entity (disturbances in the backyard) were compared with the characteristics of a known entity (Autumn and wind) to come to a hypothetical but plausible mundane explanation. This mundane explanation obviously needs some closer research (the noises produced), but as you may note, the process seems to work admirably well!

 

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Rramjet
The process of elimination: where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible.

Perhaps this will help, from wikipedia.

Yes, quite. Thank you for pointing that out carlitos. Perhaps then I was remiss in not specifying it was an iterative and logical eliminative process. I seem to keep falling into the trap of assuming people will understand the underlying implications of my statements - though you obviously saw it. Actually I do think just about everyone (including RoboT) does understand the process of elimination, just RoboT is (in my opinion) being as obstructive as possible within the limits of this type of thread.

 

[Jocce]

Ah, yes, the old UFO debunker fallback position: The “identification” of one unknown with another unknown! LOL.

I didn't attempt to identify the UFO. I asked how you ruled this out through your process of elimination.

The “explanation” (if that is what it can be called) is also implausible on a number of levels.

So "aliens" is more plausible in your opinion?

First, why would a “secret, experimental” craft be flown so close to the civil and military aircraft and the airbases of your “enemy” – I thought the whole purpose of “secret, experimental” craft were that they were …well …secret and experimental! What madness would suggest that your “secret, experimental” craft would be risked (shot down, technological failure, unforseen accident, etc) in such a reckless manner over “enemy” territory (surely no-one can have forgotten the U2 debacle!).

Oh I dunno, malfunctioning equipment? Not unheard of when it comes to experimental constructions.

Second, such craft invariably become “unsecret” once testing is over and they become operational.

How do you know that this is always the case?

No, such an “explanation” not only fails the test of it being able to actually identify the UFO

I thought your process of elimination is not about identification, but about ruling out more mundane explanations than "aliens"?

it is also utterly implausible on purely practical grounds.

You mean, in your opinion it's implausible.

 

[Jocce]

the characteristics of the UFOs in the cases I have been presenting positively defy mundane explanation – even after extensive research.

How can you once again claim success when clearly you have not been able to rule out mundane explanations in any of the cases you have presented? Your problem here is that you are confusing percieved characteristics with actual characteristics. It has been pointed out to you several times but you keep ignoring it.

Your other problem surfaces in this next paragraph from you::

No, I have presented cases where not only has there been the eyewitness testimony, but also film and photographic evidence, radar evidence and physical trace evidence - and in one notable case there was a conjunction of eyewitness, film and radar evidence. It is obvious that your characterisation of this evidence as “scant” understates and underestimates the extent and veracity of the evidence we do have.

You have not been able to present such evidence. What you have done is to provide links to webpages where someone else claims to have examined such evidence and reached certain conclusions. You have failed to produce the evidence itself and as a concequence it's impossible for me/us to look at it and see if we draw the same conclusions. No matter how many times you claim that you have provided evidence, the fact is that you have not. This has also been pointed out to you and you keep ignoring it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, quite. Thank you for pointing that out carlitos. Perhaps then I was remiss in not specifying it was an iterative and logical eliminative process. I seem to keep falling into the trap of assuming people will understand the underlying implications of my statements - though you obviously saw it. Actually I do think just about everyone (including RoboT) does understand the process of elimination, just RoboT is (in my opinion) being as obstructive as possible within the limits of this type of thread.

Ah good, you admit that. The actual evidence is that you simply cannot address my arguments. You still have two fatal flaws to your argument and you still haven't shown any evidence for aliens or "aliens".

You can't wish facts into the cornfield. You wish you could eliminate all mundane explanations but it's been shown that you can't. You wish you had extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims but you don't.

You have met with one resounding success, however. You have definitely shown that UFOs exist. Sorry but it just isn't UFOs according to your mangled definition of the word.

 

[H'ethetheth]

We have just gone through an exercise in the process of elimination where the characteristics of an unknown entity (disturbances in the backyard) were compared with the characteristics of a known entity (Autumn and wind) to come to a hypothetical but plausible mundane explanation. This mundane explanation obviously needs some closer research (the noises produced), but as you may note, the process seems to work admirably well!

And that's where you and I agree. And I agree that there are situations thinkable where the possible mundane explanations become so unlikely that non-mundane explanations should be considered. If this weren't true, science would not advance very quickly.

However, in the case of unique, seldom, ambiguous, anecdotal, or otherwise non-reproducible observations, this situation is very unlikely ever to arise, because of the paucity of the evidence.
We would need solid evidence that is ridiculously poorly explained by mundane means. However, since human error is never really unlikely, such evidence would generally first cause the suspicion that the experimenter/observer is in error, which causes the need for replication of the results.
This very first, and very basic opportunity for verification is usually not available in the case of UFO sightings.
In other words, there's no way to accurately appraise the reliability of the evidence, and so we must suspend judgment until we have one.

Secondly, the very rarity or even uniqueness of these observations makes vastly unlikely yet mundane coincidences preferable over non-mundane explanations, for the simple reason that it is better to err on the side of safety; safety in this case meaning not having to uproot current scientific knowledge over evidence, however interesting, of unknown reliability.

 

[carlitos]

Regarding UFOs with "beings," I was quite surprised to see the patently ridiculous "Father Gill" sighting still being referenced here. Just a reminder of how obviously fantastic this sighting was...

Comic Book:



Comic Book:



Father Gill "Sighting" :

 

[Rramjet]

And that's where you and I agree. And I agree that there are situations thinkable where the possible mundane explanations become so unlikely that non-mundane explanations should be considered. If this weren't true, science would not advance very quickly.

Yes. Think of “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” for example.

However, in the case of unique, seldom, ambiguous, anecdotal, or otherwise non-reproducible observations, this situation is very unlikely ever to arise, because of the paucity of the evidence.

That is where we depart. UFOs cannot be ignored because of some set of arbitrary criteria. Clearly something is occurring. It’s like saying “UFOs don’t exist” because they don’t conform to our mundane requirements. The cases I have been presenting represent a direct challenge to your concepts here. They contain very solid evidence.

Now at this point I am going to concede that you may have demonstrated that “small bits of space debri” is a plausible mundane explanation for the objects seen in the video we have been discussing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related). But that is all I have been asking anyone to do (with any of the cases I have presented)…

However, the other cases I have presented I do stand by:

Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://www.nicap.org/losangeldir.htm)

The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)

The Trindade Island Photographs (16 Jan 1958)
(http://www.nicap.org/baraunadir.htm)

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

The Travis Walton Abduction (5 Nov 1975)
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)

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)

Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters UFO Incident (25–27 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm)

Val Jonhson - 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)

The American West Flight 564 UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)

Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm)

O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7 Nov 2006)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)​

Not to mention the research such as:

The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

COMETA (1999)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)

Hoyt (20 Apr 2000) History and rationale behind Condon exposed.
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)​

Even if this were the sum total (which it is not – it represents the tip of the iceberg), all this simply cannot be ignored.

We would need solid evidence that is ridiculously poorly explained by mundane means.

Here you seem to have departed from the “normal” requirements of evidence. The whole thing revolves around the reliability of the information we have. UFO debunkers dismiss such cases and research above on the basis that we can never be sure the “evidence” presented is 100% reliable. But I simply ask when any information (in any field of study) we have can be considered 100% reliable? There will always remain the possibility we are in error, no matter what we are examining.

However, since human error is never really unlikely, such evidence would generally first cause the suspicion that the experimenter/observer is in error, which causes the need for replication of the results.

Sure, our first port of call in UFO cases is to establish the reliability of the information we have. However, to then dismiss that evidence – even if it is found to be reliable – on the basis of another arbitrary criteria (lack of repeatability) would seem to be merely an exercise of burying one’s head in the sand.

This very first, and very basic opportunity for verification is usually not available in the case of UFO sightings.

Yes, I agree that this represents a challenge for us. But “verification” is all about reliability of information - and repeatability is just one way of achieving that. “Repeatability” is being treated as a necessary condition for the acceptance of information, when in fact it is merely another tool in the arsenal of establishing reliability – it is merely something we would like to have if we can get it.

I must also be noted that there are cases where repeatability has been achieved and some of the above cases do fulfil that criteria (The White Sands case for example).

In other words, there's no way to accurately appraise the reliability of the evidence, and so we must suspend judgment until we have one.

And this is where I disagree. Even if repeatability were not achievable, there are other ways of establishing reliability.

Secondly, the very rarity or even uniqueness of these observations makes vastly unlikely yet mundane coincidences preferable over non-mundane explanations, for the simple reason that it is better to err on the side of safety; safety in this case meaning not having to uproot current scientific knowledge over evidence, however interesting, of unknown reliability.

The trouble is, we don’t know the relative likelihoods involved that would enable such a conclusion to be drawn. For example white crows are rare and unique, but that does not mean they don’t exist. Moreover, their existence in no way “uproots scientific knowledge”. Your cautiousness (conservatism) is no basis on which to conclude non-existence. You may have dismissed as unreliable initial reports of white crows based on such a “cautious” approach, but you would have been absolutely in error to have then concluded (merely because you were cautious) their non-existence. The best you could have done would have been to reserve judgement until the reliability of such reports was established (or a white crow was presented to you).

I cannot present you with a white crow. I doubt you have ever been presented with one. The existence of white crows for you must therefore rest solely on the reliability of the evidence you do have. Perhaps you have seen a picture of one, or someone has told you they do exist (in text or verbally - as an anecdote). However, to dismiss the existence of white crows based merely on the fact that all you have to go on are possibly photoshopped images and perhaps unreliable anecdotes would be to dismiss them in error – because they do exist.

Similarly with the UFO phenomenon. However it is interesting that we have a greater weight of evidence for UFOs that just images and anecdotes. We also have radar and physical trace evidence (evidence we do not have for white crows).

No, something is going on here and to dismiss that something (whatever that something is) based on mere technicalities and logical fallacies (or even the difficulties posed by that something’s ostensible lack of conformity to our current world view) would seem to be unwise and muddleheaded.

It is also interesting to note the reaction to the evidence when it is accepted. Most people immediately leap to the ETH as the explanation. It is like we go from one extreme to the other without any consideration for what might lie in between: From outright denial to beings from another planet in spaceships – even while the evidence does not directly support the ETH. I suspect that even if the ETH turned out to be true, it would still not represent the full story! What we are dealing with here is an incredibly complex problem. A phenomenon (or phenomena) that in many ways seems to defy our strict research methodologies. The characteristics of UFOs also seems to defy mundane explanation. So what does the UFO phenomenon represent? What does it mean? That is the 64 000 dollar question. The answer is not currently forthcoming, but that is no reason to simply throw our hands in the air and deny the existence of the whole thing.