UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

To nobody's surprise whatsoever, you failed to respond to what I said. You asked what I thought of the Delphos case and I told you. The witnesses were mistaken or hoaxing and the fairy ring is a known fungus.

Rramjet, since there are no cases where you can show that your version of a process of elimination has worked, would you like to discuss where you went wrong specifically with the Delphos case?

 

[Rramjet]

Exactly. And yet you continue to claim at least 20% of ALL 2199 reports being unexplained in mundane terms. Focus on the 3% that are left, thats what I said.

I guess you must have missed this section from a previous post of mine:

What you are falling victim to is a basic statistical fallacy that can be illustrated in the following example:

Total reports = 45 and are broken down as follows:
Reliability Poor:
Known = 10; Unknown = 5
Reliability Good:
Known = 7; Unknown = 8
Reliability Excellent:
Known = 5; Unknown = 10​

You are then stating that because two categories (Poor & Good) are not reliable enough for you, then only 10/45 are “Unknown” – when in fact 23/45 are “Unknown”. The fallacy you commit is that if you discount the 13 “Unknowns” in the Poor and Good categories, you must also discount the 17 “Knowns” in those categories as well! That is, you cannot say that the reports are reliable enough to determine “Known” yet not reliable enough to determine “Unknown” (either the reports are reliable enough to make a categorical determination or they are not). This is basic stats 101.

Please indicate what you understand my statements (above) to be telling you.

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, do you plan on replying to my post?

 

[Jocce]

I guess you must have missed this section from a previous post of mine:

Please indicate what you understand my statements (above) to be telling you.

I just suggested that you focus on presenting the few cases where reliability was excellent and the object remained unknown. If you don't want to, thats ok too.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”The overall “take home message” in this part of the Battelle analysis is that more reliable the observer, the less likely the report will be able to be classified as known.”

However, this was considered irrelevant.

Do you belief that merely stating an unfounded assertion will somehow magically confer veracity on it? I present the research and the evidence and you counter with unfounded assertion?

First of all, only 9.7% of the sightings were considered to be made by presumably reliable (“excellent”) observers.

[isn’t statistics fun?]

Perhaps, but as Dr Hynek noted:

“An outstanding example of the Air Force use of statistics to support rather than to illuminate is their own Blue Book Special Report 14, the results of which, properly and fully presented, would have seriously conflicted with the Air Force position.” (Hynek, A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 253)​

I would then simply draw your attention to the phrase “properly and fully presented”. Let us now relate the application of that phrase back to your statement above and properly and fully present the data:

Now of course we can clearly see that not only does the 9.7% represent two hundred and thirteen reports (a not insubstantial figure!), of which 33.3% were categorised as unknown, in addition to those 213 reports, there were also seven hundred and fifty seven reports (or 34.5% of the total) considered to be of “Good” reliability where 24.8% were categorised as “Unknown”. One would be hard pressed to conclude all that is "irrelevent".

Secondly, out of the 434 sightings identified as UNKNOWN, only 12 were described with sufficient detail such that they could be considered GOOD UNKOWNS.

[regardless of who reported it]

Let us now properly and fully present the actual statements from the research report:

”It was decided that an attempt would be made to describe the physical appearance, flight characteristics, and other attributes (that is, construct a model) of a class or classes of "flying saucers".

Preparatory to this attempt, a re-evaluation of the UNKNOWNS was necessary. This re-evaluation was accomplished by a panel composed only of persons previously associated with the work. Using all the UNKNOWNS reports available at ATIC, the panel made a careful study of the reports for the UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS in angle-of-sun-elevation Groups 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 — those groups for which the sun was either above the horizon or less than 10° in elevation below the horizon.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) p. 76)​

”Thus, out of the 434 OBJECT SIGHTINGS that were identified as UNKNOWNS by the data reduction process, there were only 12 that were described with sufficient detail that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". The following is a summary of the 12 good UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS:” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) p. 78)​

We can now understand how Access Denied’s statement is misleading: That is, not only were these “good UNKOWNS” drawn only from the specific sub categories and not the full set of UNKNOWNS, they were specifically selected on very strict criteria where the descriptive detail was such that it might allow a “model” of a UFO to be determined! Twelve sightings were thus considered good enough to potentially enable a “model” UFO to be characterised. That’s pretty startling stuff – especially considering the typical UFO debunker line that all we have are “blurry photos and lights in the sky”!

Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, it was thought the rest of the UNKOWNS could easily have been mundane objects.

[again, regardless of who reported it]

This statement from Access Denied is again misleading. One may also note that he does not reference any of his statements back to the actual report – but the following is obviously the statement in the report to which Access Denied refers:

” Taken in conjunction with the Chi Square Tests discussed earlier, the results of the re-evaluation of reports identified as UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS would seem to indicate that the majority of them could easily have been familiar objects.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) p. 77)​

Now the critical question is what are the “UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS”? First it must be noted that they are not the same group as the original 434 “UNKNOWNS” - but some smaller subset of them – but how small? Let’s start from where they began on this section of the analysis:

”It was decided that an attempt would be made to describe the physical appearance, flight characteristics, and other attributes (that is, construct a model) of a class or classes of "flying saucers".

Preparatory to this attempt, a re-evaluation of the UNKNOWNS was necessary. (…) Using all the UNKNOWNS reports available at ATIC, the panel made a careful study of the reports for the UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS in angle-of-sun-elevation Groups 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 (p.76)​

Now we know that “all the UNKOWNS” comprised 434 sightings. However, we also know that groups 4 & 5 were night-time sightings. So how many “daytime” sightings were there?

”One hundred sixty-four folders of a total of 186 OBJECT SIGHTINGS in Groups 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 were examined.” (p.77)​

Immediately we can see how Access Denied’s statement has mislead us. His statement that “the rest of the UNKOWNS” (other than the 12 “good UNKNOWNS”) could have “easily been mundane objects” is simply not true at all! The question that now needs to be answered is: Considering 186 of the 434 (42.8% of them) were daytime sightings, is: How many of these sightings (according to the “re-evaluation”), represent “UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS”?

This question is difficult to answer. The report does not specifically mention a figure for these. It does state:

”There were 18 possible aircraft, 20 possible balloons, 7 good UNKNOWNS, 100 UNKNOWNS, and 19 others which were identified as being possible KNOWNS of various types.” (p.77)​

But that does not really answer the question and the only other mention of these “UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS” is contained in the following:

” All of the remaining UNKNOWNS were classified as such solely because they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects.

(…)

This is a very important point. To put it differently, if these UNKNOWNS, which represent all but about 40 of the UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS, were reported to have performed maneuvers which could be ascribed to known phenomena, they would probably have been identified as KNOWNS.” (p.77)​

This section of the report also describes in some detail various assumptions about “KNOWNS” and “UNKNOWNS” and how they could be categorised, none of which makes clear precisely what is meant by “UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS” and exactly why these sightings “could easily have been familiar objects”. Just what that statement actually means is never made clear. What is clear is that this whole section is actually building toward the conclusion that:

”Thus, out of the 434 OBJECT SIGHTINGS that were identified as UNKNOWNS by the data reduction process, there were only 12 that were described with sufficient detail that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". The following is a summary of the 12 good UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS: (p.78)​

”Only” 12? Well …better than none I guess! However, what is clear is that Access Denied’s statements on the matter are misleading.

Finally, out of the only 0.5% of sightings identified as GOOD UNKOWNS, precisely zero could be considered as evidence of “a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World” after further analysis.

Now that is simply an erroneous statement:

First, the “Free World" statement actually comes from the Introduction to the report and concerns only the definition of a “flying saucer”:

” This definition would be applicable to any and all of the sightings which remained unidentified throughout this study. However, the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World.” (p.1)​

Now of course in the report there were considered to be 12 GOOD UNKNOWNS - however it must be remembered that ”The UNKNOWNS with sufficiently detailed description would be called "good UNKNOWNS" (pp.76-77) and these were defined in the specific context of ”…UNKNOWNS which were described in sufficient detail that they might be used to construct a model or models of "flying saucers". (p.76).

So in fact the criteria used in this section of the report was for a "model flying saucer" - NOT for something inexplicable to the "Free World". Thus the conjunction attempted by Access Denied is erroneous and misleading. Moreover, that “Free World” statement has nothing whatsoever to do with later classifications of KNOWN or UNKNOWN or the various percentages later associated with them!

In conjunction, Acess Denied's "precisely zero" statement is misleading as well. Many of the twelve reports were rejected on specific "UFO model" criteria (such as the shape of one not being the same shape as another! - and this is like saying a motor-car and a ship are not both transport vehicles because they are a different shape!) which had nothing whatsoever to do with explicability to the Free World!

Now what about that “0.5%”? Clearly that does not make any sense at all in the context of the GOOD UNKNOWNS (12 cases) as related to any of the statistics provided for any of the various UNKNOWN categories in the report!

As Jocce put it, what's your point?

The point is that your statements are misleading us as to what the statistics in the report tell us about the UFO phenomenon! The point is that more than 20% (conservatively speaking) of all UFO reports analysed were categorised as UNKNOWN. The point is that the more reliable the report, the more likely it was to be categorised as UNKNOWN (with the most reliable reports having 38% unknowns). The point is that the UFO debunkers have for years claimed the percentage of unknowns is insignificant – well here is the research and the evidence to show that assertion to be bunk!

Our (the skeptic's) point that renders this entire thread an epic fail on your part because you refuse to acknowledge it…

The only “epic fail” here is in your own statements Access Denied – and I have demonstrated precisely why in the above.

[overly dramatic emphasis mine]

“In general, the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Furthermore, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased its subjectivity. This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy. In spite of these limitations, methods of statistical analysis of such reports in sufficiently large groups are valid. The danger lies in the possibility of forgetting the subjectivity of the data at the time that conclusions are drawn from the analysis. It must be emphasized, again and again, that any conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be.” [pp. 4-5]​

Yes of course the data were subjective. However, the reliability of both the reports and the observers were assessed - and the more reliable the more likely UNKNOWN would be the conclusion!

The time between sighting and report varied from days to years - but critically, no statistic was provided to indicate how many delayed reports there actually were. Just one single years long delay could make this sentence true! And also this does not tell us whether those delayed reports were actually not eventually classified as KNOWN (or insufficient information or just plain old unreliable) – and considering the reliability assessments – I doubt that a years long delay in reporting would have passed muster to move it into the UNKNOWN category!

The inability of the average individual to recognise speed, distance, etc? So then we turn to the military observers (the most reliable observers) and there we see that a full thirty eight percent (!) (that is 38%) of their reports were categorised as UNKNOWN!

The results were based on observers “estimates” of the “true facts”? This is merely the subjectivity argument repeated with the addition of “again and again” (!) The reports were assessed for reliability! THIS fact must be emphasised “again and again” and the more reliable the report, the more likely it was to be categorised as UNKNOWN!

That is a FACT, not an opinion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

LOL. I suppose you have the extraordinary evidence to support that extraordinary claim?

This isn’t it.

I know your post definitely isn’t it! I present the research and the evidence. What you present I’ll simply leave to the readers to judge.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Can I take the fact that you're no longer even attempting to defend your statement that "research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation" means that you are retracting it?

If only I believed that. In truth, I suspect that you'll conveniently forget that we had this conversation and at some point in the future in conversation with someone you'll make the same claim. Just as I suspect that your mysterious falling silent on the subject of testimony from UFO abductees gathered by hypnosis when I demonstrated the overwhelming scientific evidence that such testimony is inherently unreliable means that you're pretending that that scientific evidence doesn't exist so that you can continue to believe in/present evidence gathered under hypnosis.

If I'm wrong about this, demonstrate it.

 

[Access Denied]

What you present I’ll simply leave to the readers to judge.

Great idea, I'll actually do that for your response...

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, do you plan on replying to my post?

Why should I reply to a post containing false statements? That is:

I haven't seen any evidence that points to that. At all. And, interestingly, you refuse to link to it.

I supplied the evidence and the links HERE .

Okay. My theory is that the letter is a hoax. We know it's possible - anyone can write a letter, anyone can make up a story about a light and some strange injuries. It also doesn't assume anything not in evidence - no monsters, no magic, no otherworldly craft or time travelers. That simplicity means it passes Occam's Razor with flying colors.

Just because something is possible does not mean that it is plausible. It is possible (under the laws of quantum mechanics) for a pencil on a table to move all by itself with no external influence whatsoever – however it is not plausible to contend that a pencil on a table observed to move actually did so merely according to the random nature of quantum mechanics!

Moreover I have shown you the evidence that the letter is not a hoax, beginning HERE – and all the other UFO debunkers in this thread who have discussed the case agree that it is not a hoax – if you persist in your opinion in the face of the evidence then perhaps you might care to outline the reasons why you consider it a hoax in contradictory defiance of the evidence (that it is not a hoax)?

This is now my null hypothesis. The letter is not factually accurate.

That is not a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference between the known facts in the article and the alleged non-facts in the article OR that there is no difference between the alleged facts in the article and the known facts outside the article.

However your statement of opinion (broadly, a directional hypothesis) is falsified by the evidence (see HERE to begin).

I will be totally willing to revise this, of course, if a better and more plausible theory comes up. So far it seems that you are suggesting that a unidentified flying object was just outside and somehow caused these injuries. This isn't really a useful theory, because it assumes some things that aren't in evidence (something flying was outside, which had the ability to cause these injuries) while not actually explaining anything at all (what was the flying thing? How did it cause those injuries?).

I am not explaining anything, merely noting the evidence and drawing plausible inferences. For example note my reply to the following:

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the symptoms are not consistent with radiation poisoning. Some of the individual symptoms are, but not in a consistent way - and others don't align with that theory at all. Why are you so committed to the idea that it was radiation when that doesn't match the account?

First, the victims were woken by “a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house (…) not accompanied by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a peculiar smell.” (…) (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

What’s that if not some form of radiation?

Second, the symptoms:

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair

The was also a lapse of days between the occurrence and the blotches turning to sores and the hair falling out.

Do these symptoms not accord with ionising radiation poisoning?

Finally:

”…the house was uninjured, all doors and windows being closed…”
”…there was no detonation, but only the load humming…”

What other plausible explanation other than some form of radiation is there?

In reference to The Cash/Landrum incident (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm):

I disagree that the symptoms are "very" similar. There are some similarities, and also many differences. Without knowing what actually happened in either case we simply don't have any grounds to suggest they were caused by the same thing.

The only difference is that they saw a UFO as the cause of their injuries!

” the UFO (…) glowed so bright that it lit up the surrounding forest like daylight (…) Over the next few hours Betty's skin turned red as if badly sun burned. Her neck swelled and blisters erupted and broke on her face, scalp and eyelids. She started to vomit and continued to do so through out the night. (…) Some time between midnight and 2 am Vickie and Colby began to suffer similar symptoms, although less severe (…) Betty's condition continued to deteriorate and three days later she was taken to hospital. The burns and swelling altered Betty's appearance so radically that friend who came to visit her in hospital did not recognize her. Her hair began to fall out and her eyes became so swollen that she was unable to see for a week” (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)​

As I stated – remarkably similar. Were they caused by the “same thing”? A UFO was observed as the cause in one incident, in the other incident the victims were inside a closed house and could not see the cause. So who knows?

No, I don't mean an ET vehicle. I mean an unidentified flying object. This was an unidentified incident, with no object described and no flying suggested. The theory stated in the letter refers to a meteorological incident, which wouldn't necessarily involve an "object" in the traditional sense at all. The "U" is the only part we have here.

If we positively ignore the rest of the world and its history you may be right.

If I see something and identify it as a 747, and you see it and are unable to identify it, then it is a UFO to you and not to me. If I see something and can't identify it and you see it and recognize it as a reptiloid spacecraft, then it is unidentified to me and identified to you. If I see something flying and can't identify it but then later, examining pictures online, I determine what it was... then it was a UFO when I saw it but now isn't anymore.

My point was that it is remains a UFO only after subsequent research has failed to find a plausible mundane explanation.

That's the nature of using "unidentified" in the description of something - if it is identified at some point or to some people the label may not apply outside of certain people or certain times.

If it is plausibly “identified” as something mundane then the “label” (UFO) should (!) no longer apply in any context.

Your assumption that I am some sort of "UFO Debunker" out to use sneaky phrases to quash investigations comes off as paranoid.

A UFO debunker is someone who “debunks” UFOs - and to “debunk” simply means ”to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debunk). Are you claiming the term has somehow been inappropriately applied?

I don't see the point in saying that they "defy mundane explanation".

If the descriptive characteristics of a UFO defy plausible mundane explanation – then that is precisely what they do.

I don't go around saying that things "defy non-mundane explanations" either.

If you can come up with anything that “defies non-mundane explanation”, please let me know.

If we don't have an explanation for something, then it has so far defied explanation.

I can only repeat: If the descriptive characteristics of a UFO defy plausible mundane explanation – then that is precisely what they do.

To be fair, in reality we have to look for some level of plausibility. You seem to agree with this, as you've assessed things as being plausible or not many times in this thread. Nothing ever defies non-plausible explanations, because if we aren't worrying about being plausible the Flying Spaghetti Monster might have done it.

I can only repeat: If the descriptive characteristics of a UFO defy plausible mundane explanation – then that is precisely what they do.

Plausibility, however, has some subjectivity to it. You already believe we are being visited by aliens of some sort or another…

I have explicitly denied that belief in this thread so many times now that anyone who knows anything about my position on the matter understand that much at least.

…and so the idea that it is "aliens" requires less supporting evidence for you than it would for me.

I have explicitly stated that we have no direct evidence for ET in this thread so many times now that anyone who understands anything about my position on the matter knows that much at least.

It's not that I'm a "UFO Debunker", it's that after reading many cases over the years and listening to the logic and evidence for alien visitation I remain unconvinced.

That’s your belief and you are entitled to it. I have already stated we have no direct evidence for ET visitation (we do however have a lot of circumstantial evidence – but that is not enough for me to draw the positive conclusion).

Once I am convinced in one case it will gain some degree of plausibility in the others, although there's still a standard of evidence before I allow something to go from "I don't know" to "aliens”.

You and me both.

Saying it defies mundane explanations isn't helpful, any more than saying it defies non-mundane explanations would be.

I can only repeat: If the descriptive characteristics of a UFO defy plausible mundane explanation – then that is precisely what they do. AND If you can come up with anything that “defies non-mundane explanation”, please let me know.

You ruled out a cryptozoological incident - okay, does that mean that it defies non-mundane explanations?

No, it simply means that there is no evidence for a “cryptozoological incident” as a plausible explanation.

Likewise, we can rule out the 747 but that doesn't mean that we have eliminated all mundane explanations.

No, it simply means that there is no evidence for a “747” being a plausible mundane explanation. Please do keep going though – this process of elimination will lead you to continue to rule out plausible mundane explanations – until in the end we have something that simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

It's simpler to either suggest an explanation and defend it, or say it has thus far defied explanation. The word "mundane" doesn't add to it.

I don’t have an explanation. All I have is the evidence from which plausible inferences may be drawn. If those inferences rule against plausible mundane explanations – then what is the next step you propose we take?

I, meanwhile, have given specific reasons that it IS plausible to suggest a hoax.

I see no evidence for the veracity of this statement. Perhaps you better actually delineate your reasons instead of merely repeating the unfounded assertion?

In addition to that, you have no better explanation.

I have no explanation at all – the case simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

The closest you have come is to imply that it is the same (also unidentified) craft as in the Cash-Landrum case, despite significant differences between the symptoms of the witnesses and no description of a craft at all in this case.

I have merely noted the similarities in symptomatology (see above) and have noted that a UFO was seen as a cause in one case. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have also suggested radiation was involved, despite being shown several times that the specific symptoms don't align with any specific type and dosage of radiation.

So then we are simply back to the case defying plausible mundane explanation!

Do you have an actual theory to put forth, or are you just saying "I have no idea what it was, but I can't think of anything mundane"?

I have no idea what it was - as the characteristics of the case seem to defy plausible mundane explanation.

In reference to the The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)

As I said several times before, I have read all the links (and then some) that you provided for that case. It's not that I have any problem with exploring the evidence, it's that I don't choose to discuss it with you when you haven't addressed my points on the previous case yet.

Funny you should state that when some of the links to that case I have provided in the last few posts actually don’t work! Nevertheless, I have addressed your points on numerous occasions: HERE for example.

If you will simply respond to my case for the letter being possible to explain as a hoax we can move on to the next one and discuss it.

What case? A mere unfounded assertion that it is a hoax is not a “case” my friend. My money is on that you won’t discuss the Delphos case – even after this current post (which obviously addresses your concerns in great detail).

So far you have linked to a few irrelevant posts, and then said that more relevant ones are out there somewhere but you can't be bothered to link them. By now you've put far more energy into avoiding my request than it would have taken to just link to this supposed proof that it can't be a hoax.

The falsification of those statements from you are found HERE . Moreover I simply cannot repost all the many posts (and discussion of the case therein) since page 199 of this thread that presents the evidence you are looking for – it would simply be deleted by the moderators as spam before it even saw that light of day! Not only that, it is entirely redundant that I do so – all those posts exist! – all you have to do is go back and read them! It is not I that is being obstructionist here my friend.

I stated:
”You have simply failed to understand my OP then.”

How so? I see that you quoted yourself giving a special definition for "aliens" but that's why I had put the quotes around it. You are suggesting that "aliens" are the explanation for these cases, otherwise bringing them up in this thread would make no sense and go against your stated goal in the OP.

I can only repeat: You have simply failed to understand my OP then.

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens” (…) 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. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.

Enjoy, Discuss, debate.
Here is the evidence.
What do YOU make of it?

Nowhere in my OP did I state I would ”explain” UFOs. My goal was to present the evidence and the research to show that such things exist (UFOs and “aliens”). AND I explicitly ruled out ET as a specific explanation (!) instead stating ”they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know”.

 

[Jocce]

I stated:
”The overall “take home message” in this part of the Battelle analysis is that more reliable the observer, the less likely the report will be able to be classified as known.”

The overall "take home message" of the study is contained within the summary of the report:

1. Low probability that apparent similarities between cases of objects definately identified and those not identified were significant.

2. Very small probablility that any of the "unknowns" represent observation of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers".

3. Highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

(Source : http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf, page vii)

 

[Jocce]

I stated:
”The overall “take home message” in this part of the Battelle analysis is that more reliable the observer, the less likely the report will be able to be classified as known.”

Apart from the mentioned summary, you might also have a look at page 94 and find:

The probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small.

Definition of "flying saucer" from introduction:

"a novel airborn phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possesed by the Free World.

You often insist that any explanation of a UFO sighting must be plausible and here you have it. This study concludes that it is highly implausible that any of the cases included are of "alien" origin.

This is the "take home message", whether you like it or not.

 

[Jocce]

First, the victims were woken by “a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house (…) not accompanied by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a peculiar smell.” (…) (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

What’s that if not some form of radiation?

It has been pointed out to you several times that humming noise, vivid, dazzling light, smoky appearance and a peculiar smell is NOT indicative of ionizing radiation (except maybe in the movies). Yet you continue to claim that it is and one must wonder why.

Second, the symptoms:

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair

The was also a lapse of days between the occurrence and the blotches turning to sores and the hair falling out.

Do these symptoms not accord with ionising radiation poisoning?

No, the progression of the symptoms does not match. You have been told that before and have thus far failed to produce a combination of radiation that matches the claimed symptoms.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Seems like my assessment has been confirmed. That's a shame. Rramjet, when I first started conversing with you I honestly believed that you were mistaken, but honest and sincere in your beliefs. Now I know that you're actually dishonest and will conveniently ignore anything which contradicts what you want to believe.

Good luck trying to convince anybody of anything with that approach.

 

[Jocce]

in consideration only of the most reliable reports (those made by military observers), then thirty eight percent (38%) of those reports were categorised as “Unknown”!

And referring to the chapter Conclusions on page 93 we can read more about the result of investigating the "best" cases:

There is low probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class of "flying saucers". It may be that some reports represent observations of not one but several classes of objects that might have been "flying saucers"; however, the lack of evidence to confirm even one class would seem to make this possibility remote.

It is pointed out that some of the KNOWNS, before identification, appeared fully as bizarre as any of the 12 cases of good UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the class of good UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establish their identity.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In reference to the The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)


Funny you should state that when some of the links to that case I have provided in the last few posts actually don’t work! Nevertheless, I have addressed your points on numerous occasions: HERE for example.[/I].

Nope. Your version of a process of elimination simply failed when you summarily dismissed 'hoax' as a plausible explanation.

Rramjet, would you like to discuss why your process failed in the Delphos case? It is hypocritical of you to invited discussion and then ignore it when it counters your belief system.

 

[SOdhner]

Why should I reply to a post containing false statements?

Well, I reply to YOUR posts. It only seems fair.

I supplied the evidence and the links HERE .
(...)
Moreover I have shown you the evidence that the letter is not a hoax, beginning HERE
(...)
The falsification of those statements from you are found HERE .
(...)
Nevertheless, I have addressed your points on numerous occasions: HERE for example.

Those all link to the same post, which has no evidence whatsoever that the letter is a genuine account of events and which I already replied to. Insisting that that post contains evidence doesn't somehow make it true.

That is not a null hypothesis.

Yes, it is.

First, the victims were woken by “a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house (…) not accompanied by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a peculiar smell.” (…)

What’s that if not some form of radiation?

I see nothing in that quote that implies any kind of radiation. I guess you can count visible light as radiation, but clearly that's not what we are talking about.

Second, the symptoms:

This has already been gone over. You need to show what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation would cause these symptoms if you want anyone to accept this theory.

Do these symptoms not accord with ionising radiation poisoning?

They do not. This has been pointed out to you multiple times.

What other plausible explanation other than some form of radiation is there?

I'm so glad you asked! A good plausible explanation is that the letter is not factually accurate.

The only difference is that they saw a UFO as the cause of their injuries!

And the symptoms themselves. And the effect on local vegetation. And the smoke. Wow, this is starting to sound pretty different! SOME of the symptoms were similar, but there are more differences than similarities.

If we positively ignore the rest of the world and its history you may be right.

Oh? So then, point out where I'm wrong. Where, in the letter, is an object referred to? This is quite simply not a UFO case because there is no OBJECT and certainly no FLYING OBJECT. It claims to be a report of a meteorological incident. You know, weather. You are taking an unfounded metal leap by deciding that a UFO is involved.

Are you claiming the term has somehow been inappropriately applied?

Yes.

I can only repeat (...) I can only repeat (...) I can only repeat (...) I can only repeat (...) I can only repeat

Cute.

I have explicitly denied that belief in this thread so many times now that anyone who knows anything about my position on the matter understand that much at least.

My goal was to present the evidence and the research to show that such things exist (UFOs and “aliens”).

Just to be clear - you don't believe that aliens of some sort have been visiting us, but you will argue that they are in this and other threads? That seems dishonest, in one way or another. Either you're arguing for something you don't believe or you are lying about what you believe in.

No, it simply means that there is no evidence for a “747” being a plausible mundane explanation. Please do keep going though – this process of elimination will lead you to continue to rule out plausible mundane explanations – until in the end we have something that simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

No, until I have either explained it or I haven't. It may get explained, or it may defy explanation. Saying that it defies MUNDANE explanation makes no more sense than saying is defies NON-MUNDANE explanation. If I didn't know what a 747 looked like I wouldn't be able to rule it out. If I didn't know that there was an airport nearby I might rule out airplanes altogether (it was too low to the ground, couldn't have been an airplane). If I saw it head on I might be mistaken about the shape or speed or something else. So to say that I have somehow eliminated all mundane explanations is an act of total arrogance - it presumes that I can somehow be confident that I have accurately accounted for and assessed a nearly unlimited field of unknowns! To then say you can do this when it is not your first-hand experience is even worse.

Either it has been explained, or it has so far defied explanation. I don't understand why you insist on putting extra words in there.

I see no evidence for the veracity of this statement. Perhaps you better actually delineate your reasons instead of merely repeating the unfounded assertion?

Sure, I'll repeat my reasons so they're all in one spot. First, let's remember that this is not proof that it is a hoax - it is me saying that a hoax is a plausible explanation. Hopefully you understand the difference, but if not let me know and I can clarify.

1. It is possible to write letters that contain inaccurate information, and in fact has been done many times.
2. It is possible to make up stories about lights and smells and people getting sick, and similar stories have been made up many times.
3. Made-up stories can take the same form as this letter (that of a second-hand account with no specific explanation given for the event), and have done so many times.
4. There is no corroborating evidence.

I could speculate on specific motivations, but I don't know enough to do so with any certainty and so it would be pointless. If Cowgill wrote the letter (as it seems he may have) I would have to try and find primary sources about his personality and I'm not sure any exist, nor do I have the time and resources to track them down. It could be that he was the originator of the hoax because he thought it was funny, or because someone dared him to, or because there was an argument over whether or not Scientific American fact-checked letters to the editor and he was testing them. It could be that he was passing on the story as his own and actually believed it but wanted the credit or didn't want it to be doubted due to being a third-hand account or was asked to send it as himself by the prankster for any of the reasons above. In fact, taking that last scenario it's possible that it wasn't ever a deliberate hoax, but was just a story that grew and changed and then got passed off by Cowgill as an actual experience. (I might still call that a hoax, but there's some argument to be made that if the belief was genuine then even with that layer of dishonesty it wasn't a hoax, exactly.) Or it could be any number of other things - there's simply no way to know.

The fact is, Rramjet, that the letter or testimony or whatever being a hoax or otherwise inaccurate will always be a plausible explanation unless you have some corroborating evidence.

Let me selectively quote you to make a point:

we have no direct evidence for ET
(...)
we have no direct evidence for ET visitation
(...)
I don’t have an explanation.
(...)
I have no explanation at all
(...)
I have no idea what it was

Those quotes from you (admittedly taken out of context for this point) are all accurate and true. We don't have evidence for "aliens". We don't know what the explanation for these cases are. In all these cases, the answer is "I don't know". I can show that my THEORY is both possible and plausible, but it's not likely that I will be able to conclusively prove that the letter was a joke or a hoax or something.

For "aliens" to be the answer, we would need to first show that they are possible and plausible and you haven't done either, but even if you had you would want to show that it is MORE plausible than the letter being, simply, wrong. My explanation requires someone to be lying. People lie all the time. Yours requires some sort of "alien" presence that wasn't described in the letter, left no direct evidence, and that we know nothing about such that it still fails to explain the symptoms in any way. Which one makes more sense? Which one is more plausible?

Moreover I simply cannot repost all the many posts (and discussion of the case therein) since page 199 of this thread that presents the evidence you are looking for – it would simply be deleted by the moderators as spam before it even saw that light of day! Not only that, it is entirely redundant that I do so – all those posts exist!

Rramjet, your posting style largely consists of quoting things endlessly. To say that suddenly you are unable to do so seems suspicious.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”The overall “take home message” in this part of the Battelle analysis is that more reliable the observer, the less likely the report will be able to be classified as known.”

The overall "take home message" of the study is contained within the summary of the report:

1. Low probability that apparent similarities between cases of objects definately identified and those not identified were significant.

Let’s take a closer look at that:

”…it looked as though there was a good possibility that the UNKNOWNS were no different from the KNOWNS, at least in the aggregate.. It was decided to investigate this by the use of a statistical procedure called the "Chi Square Test". (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) p. 61)​

The Chi-Square tests are then presented on pages 62-67.

” In five of the six cases, the probability is less than 1 per cent that the distributions are the same. In the sixth case, Light Brightness, the classifications are too nebulous to be of real value. (p. 68)​

Or as Dr Hynek noted:

Probability that “Unidentifieds” Are the Same as Identifieds

COLOR: Probability less than 1%
DURATION OF OBSERVATION: Probability very much less than 1%
NUMBER: Probability very much less than 1%
LIGHT BRIGHTNESS: Probability greater than 5%
SHAPE: Probability less than 1%
SPEED: Probability much less than 1%

(…) A quick calculation shows that the probability of all six UFO-characteristic chi-square tests giving the same results by chance (and thus making the conclusions drawn from the tests wrong) is much less that one chance in a billion.

Yet the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 273)​

2. Very small probablility that any of the "unknowns" represent observation of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers".

This is simply the conclusion drawn from the attempt to “model” a flying saucer generalised. But let us look closely at why the 12 “good UNKNOWNS” studied for that purpose were rejected as being determinant in that respect.

Most of the 12 were rejected on the grounds that either the shape did not “explain” the rest of the UNKNOWNS or that there was an “essential conflict” (such as shape!) between reports. The report concludes:

It is not possible, therefore, to derive a verified model of a "flying saucer" from the data that have been gathered to date. This point is important enough to emphasize. Out of about 4, 000 people who said they saw a "flying saucer", sufficiently detailed descriptions were given in only 12 cases. Having culled the cream of the crop, it is still impossible to develop a picture of what a "flying saucer" .is.” (p.93)​

However, this is like stating that a car, a truck and a train are not all transport vehicles because their shape is different! Not only that, it is like taking the 12 best and most reliable reports of 4000 observations of cars, trucks, trains, ships and aeroplanes and stating that because the reports differ in “essential” detail, they are not of technological manufacture! People can read the conclusions on pages 91-93 ((http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf).

3. Highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

(See above) …but also noting that the analysis determined that the UNKOWNS differed significantly from the KNOWNS, then this conclusion is also in direct contradiction to that finding. Well, perhaps they were thinking UFOs might turn out to be something outside the realm of technological devices! Perhaps not “nuts and bolts” craft at all – holograph images or some such…

Dr Hynek notes:

”The conclusion of the Battelle report and the material in the Pentagon press releases that followed were clearly designed to give the impression that science had administered the coup de grace to UFOs (the summary of the Condon Report, some years later, was fashioned to mgive the same impression) – except, of course, it wasn’t science at all; only shamefully biased interpretation of statistics to support a preconceived notion. Once again statistics which could have been used to illuminate were used instead to debunk the UFO phenomenon.” (p.278)​

Apart from the mentioned summary, you might also have a look at page 94 and find:

The probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small.”

Definition of "flying saucer" from introduction:

"a novel airborn phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possesed by the Free World.

You often insist that any explanation of a UFO sighting must be plausible and here you have it. This study concludes that it is highly implausible that any of the cases included are of "alien" origin.

This is the "take home message", whether you like it or not.

Right. And I am certainly not contending that we can explain UFOs as technological devices of “alien” origin. The ETH is perhaps a compelling hypothesis, but we have no direct evidence that it is true. We DO however have direct evidence that UFOs (in many cases) are physical. That is they can be seen on radar and they leave physical trace evidence behind. That is not to say that they are all “nuts and bolts” craft – indeed many act as if they are not – but we simply don’t have the direct evidence that ET is the cause.

The “take home message” is that there are a large proportion of UFO reports that simply defy mundane explanation (more that 20% of them according to the Battelle study) and we simply don’t know what they represent! And while the ETH may seem compelling, we actually have no direct evidence for its veracity. Obviously more research is needed.

 

[Rramjet]

Symptomatology and progression of same in the Venezuelan case(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair​

No, the progression of the symptoms does not match. You have been told that before and have thus far failed to produce a combination of radiation that matches the claimed symptoms.

Among other symptoms, from the University of Maryland Medical Centre we have under "Radiation sickness - Symptoms":

(…)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Inflammation of exposed areas (redness, tenderness, swelling, bleeding)
• Skin burns (redness, blistering)
• Open sores on the skin
• Hair loss
(…)
(http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000026sym.htm)​

Now there are many other symptoms in that list I have not included and while cases of radiation sickness may vary in specific symptom presentation - depending on dose and level of exposure to different parts of the body and even individual differences (and various websites will list differing combinations of symptoms and doses – leaving some out – including others) – the point is that the specific symptomatology and general progression of same experienced in the Venezuelan case ARE recognised radiation poisoning symptoms!

To contend otherwise (as you obviously do) is to simply deny the well established scientific evidence! However, at this point it no longer surprises me that a UFO debunker would do that.

 

[Jocce]

The “take home message” is that there are a large proportion of UFO reports that simply defy mundane explanation (more that 20% of them according to the Battelle study) and we simply don’t know what they represent!

Rramjet, it would probably be a good idea to present evidence that supports your claim rather than evidence against it. The Battelle study clearly concludes:

"The probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small."

You might not like that and wish it was the other way around, but it's there for anyone to read.

And while the ETH may seem compelling, we actually have no direct evidence for its veracity. Obviously more research is needed.

I did not mention ETH anywhere in my post and I have on several occassions told you that when I say "alien" I mean it per your definition of the term.

 

[Jocce]

the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 273)

The bolded part is an interesting claim that goes against the evidence. Maybe he didn't notice the 15 pages of discussion and results of the revised tests done ? He should really have read pages 61 to 76.

 

[Jocce]

the specific symptomatology and general progression of same experienced in the Venezuelan case ARE recognised radiation poisoning symptoms!

Saying so doesn't make it so.