Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

Add to that the RADAR returns that alerted the pilot to the object and you have some pretty convincing first person evidence ( which is not anecdotal ).

Nope, it's anecdotal.

Then there is the follow-up investigation by USAF specialists, including the head of Project Blue Book himself, which is where this report came from ... directly from the head of the USAF project, not some UFO buff in the woods of Pennsylvania.

j.r.

I'm sure you simply missed this post a page and a half back but I'll give you a chance to answer it again:

So the object that the pilot claimed to see never appeared on radar?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Actually it isn't reasonable to generalize that way. I posted an early case where a USAF fighter pilot chased a UFO for over 2 minutes during the day and closed to under 1000 yards, close enough to see it clearly as a real solid object in flight ahead of him that he was in pursuit of.

USAF fighter pilots are highly trained experienced pilots that are a cut above the rest of the military pilots, and those are a cut above regular civilian pilots, who are a cut above the typical citizen in terms of training and identifying what is going on in the sky. There is simply no valid comparison between that caliber of a witness and report and that of a random traffic accident.

If you don't believe that then go see how long it takes you to get your training to fly one ( a real one ), not one in a video game. You'll be lucky if you're even accepted into the program, let alone pass basic training and flight school. These pilots have super keen reflexes and eyesight. They are smart, they know the sky and they are trained to identify aircraft, including exotic enemy aircraft. They understand how aircraft work. They don't just learn to fly them and land them, they learn how to fight with them ... their level of training and reliability in a military role makes them extremely credible ... it's not just their job, it's their life, for many the fulfilment of a personal dream, and after going through all the work to get to where they are, they are not going to throw it away and risk military prosecution by spoofing a UFO sighting to their commanders.

Add to that the RADAR returns that alerted the pilot to the object and you have some pretty convincing first person evidence ( which is not anecdotal ). Then there is the follow-up investigation by USAF specialists, including the head of Project Blue Book himself, which is where this report came from ... directly from the head of the USAF project, not some UFO buff in the woods of Pennsylvania.

j.r.

Witness credibility is meaningless. Anecdotes simply don't count. And was it not concluded in project blue book that UFO's are not extraterrestrial in origin?

From the shills at Wikipedia:

1) No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;
2) There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and
3) There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

 

[Astrophotographer]

USAF fighter pilots are highly trained experienced pilots that are a cut above the rest of the military pilots, and those are a cut above regular civilian pilots, who are a cut above the typical citizen in terms of training and identifying what is going on in the sky. There is simply no valid comparison between that caliber of a witness and report and that of a random traffic accident.

I know a lot of naval aviators that would argue the point that the AF boys (who land on a nice long stable runway) are a cut above them (they have to land on a postage stamp that is rocking and rolling on the high seas). But I am biased. Maybe you have some statistics that prove they are the "best of the best"?

As for the rest of argument, I disagree that they are incapable of error. History has shown that pilots, no matter how good they supposedly are, can make errors in both observation and flying their craft.

 

[ufology]

Nope, it's anecdotal.

I'm sure you simply missed this post a page and a half back but I'll give you a chance to answer it again:

On anecdotal ... you are using a generic presumed usage. I use one that accepts firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation as not being anecdotal as in the following definition from Encarta:

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation.

an·ec·dot·al [ànn?k d?t’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànn?k d?tik] adjective
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ), for which anecdotal evidence is the norm. So even if you reject the Enacarta definition, you can still find evidence for anecdotal evidence being used to further our knowledge and understanding, and contribute insight for progress where hard science is concerned.

For the radar return from the object the jet was chasing, the radar is what alerted the base to the presence of an unknown target. Jets were scrambled, but before the jets made visual confirmation, the object faded off the radar. This was an early radar system, so they didn't know if the UFO had faded up out of range, or gone "under the radar". So they started the search high, then moved down, ( this is logical as it allowed the pilots to either intercept or gain the high ground right away. If it was below, then they had the "upper advantage" ... which is how it turned out ... ).

As the search progressed to lower altitudes, one of the pilots spotted the object below the radar and took up pursuit by going into a dive. So there was a short period of time between the radar contact and visual confirmation.

Although a short gap between the radar contact and visual confirmation existed, the two actions are so closely connected, and the flight characteristics of the UFO spotted so similar to the initial radar returns, that it is reasonable to assume that the UFO was the same object that was initially tracked on radar a few minites before.

NOTE: Consider the term "visual confirmation". Why do you hear that term used? Might I propose that it's because visual confirmation verifies the radar? What does this imply about the data provided by radar compared to data provided directly by a pilot in visual range? Certainly we can see that it has value ... moreso than the radar data alone.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

On anecdotal ... you are using a generic presumed usage. I use one that accepts firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation as not being anecdotal as in the following definition from Encarta:

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation.

an·ec·dot·al [ànn?k d?t’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànn?k d?tik] adjective
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

So, to the pilot it's firsthand. To you and me it's anecdotal and useless.

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ), for which anecdotal evidence is the norm. So even if you reject the Enacarta definition, you can still find evidence for anecdotal evidence being used to further our knowledge and understanding, and contribute insight for progress where hard science is concerned.

And it was those medical studies that we weren't going to compare to because you're comparing apples and oranges, as was explained to you upthread.

For the radar return from the object the jet was chasing, the radar is what alerted the base to the presence of an unknown target. Jets were scrambled, but before the jets made visual confirmation, the object faded off the radar. This was an early radar system, so they didn't know if the UFO had faded up out of range, or gone "under the radar". So they started the search high, then moved down, ( this is logical as it allowed the pilots to either intercept or gain the high ground right away. If it was below, then they had the "upper advantage" ... which is how it turned out ... ).

So, that's a no, the object that the pilot claims to have seen did not appear on radar.

Were you conflating the two? The earlier radar return and the later claimed sighting by the pilot? It's very easy to do when you aren't thinking critically. Fortunately we are thinking critically so the two are separate and distinct.

As the search progressed to lower altitudes, one of the pilots spotted the object below the radar and took up pursuit by going into a dive. So there was a short period of time between the radar contact and visual confirmation.

Exactly! Can you see how other people would merge the two events together in their mind and relate them erroneously?

Although the gap between the radar contact and visual confirmation existed, the two actions are so closely connected, and the flight characteristics of the UFO spotted so similar to the initial radar returns, that it is reasonable to assume that the UFO was the same object that was initially tracked on radar a few minites before.

Yes, I guess you can see how they would erroneously do that. So, you've decided to not apply critical thinking skills here?

NOTE: Consider the term "visual confirmation". Why do you hear that term used? Might I propose that it's because visual confirmation verifies the radar? What does this imply about the data provided by radar compared to data provided directly by a pilot in visual range? Certainly we can see that it has value ... moreso than the radar data alone.

j.r.

But he didn't have a sighting on a radar target. Do you see the difference?

 

[GeeMack]

On anecdotal ... you are using a generic presumed usage. [...]

Yeah, we've seen that kind of dishonest picking at word definitions in order to support a preconceived belief in aliens. Look at Rramjet's thousands of words in this thread and in this thread. A huge portion of those arguments are attempts to dishonestly redefine terms, play semantic games, and lie to avoid sticking to comments he previously made or admitting he was wrong. You're presenting your arguments in the same way and going directly down that same path of dishonesty.

The point is, of course, anecdotes do not constitute objective evidence, so taking them to support your belief in aliens is not critical thinking.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

[snippity]

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ), for which anecdotal evidence is the norm. So even if you reject the Enacarta definition, you can still find evidence for anecdotal evidence being used to further our knowledge and understanding, and contribute insight for progress where hard science is concerned.

Anecdotal evidence in medical research is a part of a double blind process, pitted against placebo. It is not acceptable evidence on its own. Otherwise chiropractics, acupuncture and homeopathy would be real sciences.

Bonus OT opinion: You were never on an alien spaceship and did not have an OBE.

 

[ufology]

I know a lot of naval aviators that would argue the point that the AF boys (who land on a nice long stable runway) are a cut above them (they have to land on a postage stamp that is rocking and rolling on the high seas). But I am biased. Maybe you have some statistics that prove they are the "best of the best"?

As for the rest of argument, I disagree that they are incapable of error. History has shown that pilots, no matter how good they supposedly are, can make errors in both observation and flying their craft.

Regarding the statistics, we are looking at something pretty self evident. You have regular fliers who are wannabe fighter pilots who enter into the program where they have to receive regular flight training, then military training, then fighter training, and all along the way you have people dropping out. Only the best ever make it. There are a few documentaries out there and I postred a short video clip earlier. If you really want statistics, ask the USAF how many make it compared to how many don't ... ( you don't make the grade by doing worse than the next guy ).

Of course all that being said ... sure pilots can make mistakes. But how do you explain a mistake for the sighting I just posted. This pilot got within 1000 yards, and at one time as close as about 500 yards, in the daytime, and saw it was a flying saucer ... and was on it for about 2 minutes before it just took off ... easily outperforming his jet. Pilots can make make mistakes under ambiguous conditions ( night time, poor visibility, short duration, long range ), But these were unmistakable conditions.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

On anecdotal ... you are using a generic presumed usage. I use one that accepts firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation as not being anecdotal as in the following definition from Encarta:

"Words mean what ever I want them to mean said Humpty Dumpty"

Is this the critical thinking thread still?

Are we redefining critical thinking too to include thinking that isn't critical?

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ),

Which as has been pointed out is a completely different kettle of fish.

for which anecdotal evidence is the norm. So even if you reject the Enacarta definition,

Like you apparently have.

you can still find evidence for anecdotal evidence being used to further our knowledge and understanding, and contribute insight for progress where hard science is concerned.

UFOlogy isn't hard science, in fact according to you, it's not even science.

For the radar return from the object the jet was chasing, the radar is what alerted the base to the presence of an unknown target. Jets were scrambled, but before the jets made visual confirmation, the object faded off the radar. This was an early radar system, so they didn't know if the UFO had faded up out of range, or gone "under the radar".

Again I've highlighted a relatively important point.
You presume that the pilot (and ground crew) didn't know if the UFO had gone out of range or gone "under the radar"... but fail to acknowledge a third possibility. There was no object and what was being seen on the radar was AP.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course all that being said ... sure pilots can make mistakes. But how do you explain a mistake for the sighting I just posted. This pilot got within 1000 yards, and at one time as close as about 500 yards, in the daytime, and saw it was a flying saucer ... and was on it for about 2 minutes before it just took off ... easily outperforming his jet. Pilots can make make mistakes under ambiguous conditions ( night time, poor visibility, short duration, long range ), But these were unmistakable conditions.

j.r.

I think you're realizing why anecdotes are so useless for validating extraordinary claims, because they are unfalsifiable. No matter what anyone says about the alleged sighting, you will shift the goalposts and say why it couldn't have been that.

That's also why so many pseudoscientist UFOlogists hang their hat on anecdotes, knowing they aren't falsifiable.

Fortunately, we're thinking critically so anecdotes don't enter into the discussion.

 

[Stray Cat]

sure pilots can make mistakes. But how do you explain a mistake for the sighting I just posted.

There is no need for anyone to explain a story told by a pilot.
The fact that you ackowledge that pilots make mistakes means you now have to comprehensively rule out that possibility. Preferably using more than just your subjectively motivated "judge of someone's character" ability.

This pilot got within 1000 yards, and at one time as close as about 500 yards, in the daytime, and saw it was a flying saucer ... and was on it for about 2 minutes before it just took off ... easily outperforming his jet. Pilots can make make mistakes under ambiguous conditions ( night time, poor visibility, short duration, long range ), But these were unmistakable conditions.

There is no such thing as "unmistakable conditions".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So let me get this straight: This thread is an attempt to make apologetics for the lack of evidence to support UFO claims. Basically you want us to take all UFO claims at face value, without any actual physical, compelling, verifiable evidence.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
This pilot got within 1000 yards, and at one time as close as about 500 yards, in the daytime, and saw it was a flying saucer ... and was on it for about 2 minutes before it just took off ... easily outperforming his jet. Pilots can make make mistakes under ambiguous conditions ( night time, poor visibility, short duration, long range ), But these were unmistakable conditions.

j.r.

How can the pilot know the distance to an unknown object?

 

[ufology]

There is no need for anyone to explain a story told by a pilot.
The fact that you ackowledge that pilots make mistakes means you now have to comprehensively rule out that possibility. Preferably using more than just your subjectively motivated "judge of someone's character" ability.


There is no such thing as "unmistakable conditions".

I am using the phrase synonymously with "beyond any reasonable doubt". I will permit you to retract your conclusive statement that there is "no such thing", if you can be more precise in your context. Otherwise, you are aware from our previous exchanges that I always deal in terms of what is reasonable, unlike the skeptics here who constantly nitpick at the details.

If you are going to hold yourself to nitpicky skeptical standards, you cannot reasonably claim "there is no such thing as unmistakable conditions." There certainly could be, and there is plenty of evidence to back that up.

Consider an opticians test for example. The whole purpose is to determine under what conditions your vision becomes uncertain. Most of us can read the biggest letters on the chart ... when we can ... that condition is unmistakable, and it is based on scientific principles of optics and biology. At some point we reach the limit of human visual acuity, where things do become mistakable.

However in this sighting, we are well within the parameters of visual acuity during the daytime for a fighter pilot to discern the shape of an object at less than 1000 yards, and to judge the speed it was traveling based on his pursuit and the speed of his own aircraft.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

So let me get this straight: This thread is an attempt to make apologetics for the lack of evidence to support UFO claims. Basically you want us to take all UFO claims at face value, without any actual physical, compelling, verifiable evidence.

In essence, yes. It's an effort, a very weak one, and so far failed, to redefine the term "critical thinking" so it entails any old crap a "ufolologist" thinks might support his belief in aliens.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Typical woo approach: If you can't do anything to make an actual, real, tangible change, make huge efforts to redefine the language so that it seems as if there was a change, when the only thing you changed was how you define things.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

[snippity]

Consider an opticians test for example. The whole purpose is to determine under what conditions your vision becomes uncertain. Most of us can read the biggest letters on the chart ... when we can ... that condition is unmistakable, and it is based on scientific principles of optics and biology. At some point we reach the limit of human visual acuity, where things do become mistakable.

Utter nonsense. I have taken many eye exams. I have asked the optometrist on several occasions to go back and forth with the progressive correction levels, as the subjective nature of visual interpretation makes the process subject to human error. You can be certain you are seeing an "O", when it's really a "G". or a "C". All prescriptions for corrective lenses are not entirely accurate.

ETA: [I can't help but think of South Park. "This one, or this one..."]

 

[Stray Cat]

I am using the phrase synonymously with "beyond any reasonable doubt". I will permit you to retract your conclusive statement that there is "no such thing", if you can be more precise in your context. Otherwise, you are aware from our previous exchanges that I always deal in terms of what is reasonable, unlike the skeptics here who constantly nitpick at the details.

I would have thought the context was quite obvious. The context is a man travelling very fast in the air, in a metal tube with wings... however, there really are no conditions in anything where you can guarantee that mistakes can not be made.
If you alone have found such a set of conditions, you are guaranteed to be a rich man.

If you are going to hold yourself to nitpicky skeptical standards, you cannot reasonably claim "there is no such thing as unmistakable conditions." There certainly could be, and there is plenty of evidence to back that up.

I don't see them as nitpicky and I can claim there is no such thing as conditions in which mistakes can not be made as is shown by the amount of various mistakes being made all over the world in all different types of conditions. clear weather, rainy weather, wet and dry, hot, cold, foggy, indoors, outdoors, in space, in combat, in peace etc.

Consider an opticians test for example. The whole purpose is to determine under what conditions your vision becomes uncertain. Most of us can read the biggest letters on the chart ... when we can ... that condition is unmistakable, and it is based on scientific principles of optics and biology. At some point we reach the limit of human visual acuity, where things do become mistakable.

Sorry, you're now talking about situations, not conditions. What if someone were taking an opticians test whilst travelling very fast in the air in a metal tube with wings, whilst under stress of potential combat? That would then show "what conditions your vision becomes uncertain"... but that would only be relevant if you where chasing a giant alphabet based lifeform across the skies.

However in this sighting, we are well within the parameters of visual acuity during the daytime for a fighter pilot to discern the shape of an object at less than 1000 yards, and to judge the speed it was traveling based on his pursuit and the speed of his own aircraft.

Sorry, you haven't demonstrated that he is immune from misperception/human fallibility yet... nor that he'd recently had his eyes tested whilst in the cockpit.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Utter nonsense. I have taken many eye exams. I have asked the optometrist on several occasions to go back and forth with the progressive correction levels, as the subjective nature of visual interpretation makes the process subject to human error. You can be certain you are seeing an "O", when it's really a "G". or a "C". All prescriptions for corrective lenses are not entirely accurate.

ETA: [I can't help but think of South Park. "This one, or this one..."]

I read your post a little quickly and posted in haste. Your post made more sense than I stated.
But it still is never "unmistakable". It is assumed that the "patient" is telling the truth about what they see, because they are purported to desire the proper prescription. But they could be very wrong.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Of course all that being said ... sure pilots can make mistakes. But how do you explain a mistake for the sighting I just posted. This pilot got within 1000 yards, and at one time as close as about 500 yards, in the daytime, and saw it was a flying saucer ... and was on it for about 2 minutes before it just took off ... easily outperforming his jet. Pilots can make make mistakes under ambiguous conditions ( night time, poor visibility, short duration, long range ), But these were unmistakable conditions.

If you want to discuss this specific case, take it to the UFO research/evidence thread. However, you will have to do better than just quote what Ruppelt wrote (which is the apparent source of this story). We are missing a lot of things. A few I can think of are:

1) Experience level of pilot
2) location
3) direction jet was heading
4) weather conditions including radiosonde data