UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[MG1962]

Ufology - how did you have a 25 km clear line of sight?

 

[John Albert]

You are no better than the other skeptics who resort to ridicule, and your act has worn really thin. Why the JREF forum tolerates your kind of prejudice and derision in the name of science and critical thinking can only suggest that it is not I who is the fraud, but that the stated intent of the JREF is not as advertised. There is no friendly skepticism or any other kind in such remarks and the failure of the forum moderators to censure it makes them implicit in the abuse. Please stop with your baseless accusations. You are free to ignore my posts and not respond to them, but harrassing me with repeated attacks on my personality is unwarranted. Unless you have something constructive to say, please leave me out of your comments. This is the second time I've asked nicely.

There is a difference between being constructive and friendly in your skepticism and engaging in repeated and irrelevant personality attacks while hiding behind anonymous names. It's called harassment. I didn't come here to be harassed. I came here to engage in a "friendly discussion". If you pride yourself in being "meanies", then you need psychotherapy or something. I recognize that a certain amount of emotionalism goes along with these discussions and I've been pretty good natured about it. But I have limits, and I've asked nicely. So please respect my bounds.

Ufology, I think maybe you're taking this a little too hard. You have to understand that none of us know you personally. All the information we have to judge your character is contained in your posts. Nobody's accusing you of being untrustworthy in any kind of real-world dealings. All the criticism you're receiving is on account of your steadfast refusal to accept the rules of basic logic and critical thinking.

You came here seeking something from us. Whether that be the difference of a skeptical viewpoint, validation of your pursuits in the eyes of a critical community, or just an opportunity to discuss your interests within a different kind of forum, we've tried to get across to you our point of view: the importance of setting aside your own personal prejudices and blind faith, and accepting a more structured way of thinking. Critical thinking doesn't come naturally. It often runs contrary to human intuition. It is a learned discipline that demands you follow certain rules when trying to discern reality from the faulty information we sometimes receive from our senses and our preconceived notions. It's a more difficult path, but we've trained ourselves to look at things this way because we recognize the positive benefits it has brought to all mankind. The majority of human progress over the last 100 years or so has resulted from this kind of disciplined thinking. Going back the other way means regressing to a primitive state. We're not going to abandon our disciplined way of thinking because some bloke on the Internet wants to impress us with fancy stories about UFOs.

We've offered you advice on how to look at things more logically, but you've resisted our advice every step of the way. It's up to you how to proceed. Either you keep on insisting on doing things your way and we'll keep butting heads over every little triviality, or you can listen to what we say, take our criticisms to heart and learn how to think critically for yourself.

 

[Agatha]

Um, I think you may be overreacting just a little bit. If you think a post breaches the MA then use the triangle over there <---------- to report the post to the moderators. I really don't recommend that you start even hinting at legal action over what you perceive to be anyone disparaging your character; threatening legal action is the quickest way to the ban-hammer there is on this tiny outpost of the intertubez.

Having your views challenged or even ridiculed is not the same as being attacked personally; if you cannot separate the two then the internet probably isn't the place for you, and a website for critical thinking certainly isn't.

If you bring an anecdote to the forum as evidence of aliens, you cannot expect it to be accepted uncritically. People will ask questions and they will expect answers, or for the anecdote to be withdrawn.

The ball is firmly in your court and I count several unanswered questions regarding your alleged sighting.

 

[Agatha]

So (again) What did you do in the immediate aftermath? Write your recollection down immediately? Compare notes with others who might have been viewing the sky at that time? Contact local astronomers? Visit the supposed landing site in daylight?

How did you have a 25km line of sight?

 

[Rramjet]

You misunderstand. How can you quantify it? You just stated research states that such estimates are unreliable. How reliable/unreliable are they? 50%, 100%, 25%, 200%? That is what I mean by "quantified". The margin for error is unknown and you can't determine it because it changes with each person.

No, we can quantify the perceptual and cognitive factors that lead to perceptual error and make an accounting of those factors when assessing UFO reports. I provided the example of someone reporting size against a background of a clear blue sky – in such a report we could not rely on the size being accurate and could not therefore base any conclusions on (or about) the size. Other perceptual and cognitive factors can similarly be accounted for. The reliability of reports can be assessed by such an accounting.

BTW, are you now stating that the estimates made of distance, size, speed at Rogue river are "unreliable" because they were made of an unknown object in a clear sky? If not, perhaps you can describe how you quantified their reliability using this documentation to support your claim.

In that case there were multiple eyewitnesses and the object was moving toward, across and away from their fields of vision. Two of the witnesses also utilised binoculars. We also know the power of those binoculars and the type of details that were able to be discerned (wrinkled, dirty skin for example). The size estimates did vary between the witnesses (telling us they did not collaborate on their reports – a valuable observation in itself) – but they also has reference to the terrain surrounding them… and their size estimates, while at variance with each other, were within a set range (approx. 25-60 feet). We therefore know a range of size/distance/speed calculations – if it was smaller than their estimates it must have been much closer than they estimated (and therefore could not have been a blimp for example), if however it was larger than estimated, it must have been further away and therefore much faster than estimated (thus also not a blimp)… thus you see how we can use the sighting reports – including potential inaccuracies - to draw certain particular conclusions? (given also the object, according to all witnesses, was circular – like a coin of pancake – and given that it first came toward them turned across their field of vision and then headed at an angle away from them, we can take that shape as reliable - then that also rules out a blimp - as does no noise, no protuberances, etc). So sure there can be errors, but we make an accounting of them in assessing the sighting.

You can keep calling me a liar but that kind of comment reflects more on you than me.

I cannot remember me ever calling you a liar AstroP – it was a common turn of phrase used in such situations concerning the veracity of your statement – nothing more, nothing less. It is however well known that guilt can alter people’s perceptions of others comments in that way in such circumstances though

You have yet to present these documents and how you use them to quantify and verify witness perception/misperception. You say it as if it were true but I have yet to see you demonstrate it in practice.

You can obtain the basic factors involved in perceptual influences from any psychology 101 course and you can obtain the cognitive heuristics and biases from papers by authors such as Kahneman or Tversky. Those would be good places to begin your research into the topic.

I also keep providing you examples of it working in practice – perhaps you are simply ignoring those examples?

Because witness reports can be wrong, we need to establish the truth of their claims through other evidence in order to accept their claims (especially the extraordinary ones).

Just because eyewitnesses can be mistaken, does not mean they are mistaken in a given instance. In any given instance we can assess the perceptual and cognitive factors involved for reliability. We can of course also assess reliability, as you suggest, by looking for lines of converging or independently corroborating evidence.

By merely showing that a witness report is not wrong because of some previously-understood methods by with a witness report is wrong does not show that it is correct, because there could be other, unknown or unimagined ways in which the witness report is wrong.

First, I think you better revise the logic of your statement there Paul – I understand your meaning, but as you have written it, it makes no logical sense.

Second, we cannot state categorically that a witnesses is “right or wrong”, all we can do is assess whether they are more or less reliable in their observations. The more reliable, the greater the weight we place on the evidence (and vice versa of course).

Third, you make an appeal to the argument from ignorance. A fallacy in other words. You cannot say a witness is mistaken because of some unimaginable factor…

Eyewitness testimony is one of the poorest types of evidence. Our minds are so subject to bias, inattention, etc., etc., etc. How do you think people were talked into mistakenly remembering that their parents had raped them repeatedly in their youth?

…and what about all the poor souls who remember that correctly. Do you dismiss their trauma, hurt and pain merely because it is possible that they are mistaken? Come on Paul…

Physical evidence, on the other hand, can be repeatedly examined by multiple independent observers, and when they come to a consensus, that leads to a stronger conclusion that eyewitness testimony.

Sure, but just because you personally cannot see how we might assess eyewitness reports for reliability, does not mean that it cannot be done.

In essence, what you are saying is that you require absolute proof in the form of physical evidence (an alien spaceship on the Whitehouse lawn I believe is the typical example) before you will “believe”. That is of course your prerogative … However, my contention is that there are UFO reports that simply defy mundane explanation. I am proposing no explanation for those reports, merely noting their existence. Whatever explanations you put on them is up to you. You seem to be assuming the ET explanation, but I have continually pointed out that we do not have any direct evidence for it.

So, sorry if this covered somewhere else, but I just read an interesting article on how the Jerusalem UFO was faked.

Presenting examples of hoaxes will not change the fact that just because it is possible for reports to be hoaxed, does not mean that all cases are hoaxed. We all know hoaxes occur – that is a given – but that does not make every case a hoax – it would be a nonsense to propose such a thing. Besides the official studies that have been conducted (by the USAF, Hynek and Hendry for example) have the hoax/delusion category at about 1-2% of all reports. That is relatively insignificant.

Of course in the modern internet age we do fall victim to representativeness biases – that is we tend to over-estimate the actual incidence because of the visibility of those instances.

 

[Akhenaten]

Presenting examples of hoaxes will not change the fact that just because it is possible for reports to be hoaxed, does not mean that all cases are hoaxed. We all know hoaxes occur – that is a given – but that does not make every case a hoax – it would be a nonsense to propose such a thing.

Absolutely (well, except that there's no such thing as a nonsense)

Not all flying saucery is based on hoaxes. Some reports are based on 100% genuine blimps, with pictures and descriptions of blimps and everything.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh and just a quick note on the false assertions of RoboT…

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

In this case A UFO (or UFOs) were picked up on radar, the aircrew were looking for visual confirmation and primed for such contact, they allegedly mistook the “oil well flares” for those contacts (which flares are allegedly shown on the FLIR). That they did that is of course explicable in the circumstances and of course does not explain the radar contacts. The UFO debunkers try to dismiss the whole case because of an alleged perceptual error – however, they persistently ignore the radar evidence in this case.

Of course I have addressed this issue many, many times, yet RoboT keeps making his false statements despite that fact – what can we say about such actions from him?

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course I have addressed this issue many, many times, yet RoboT keeps making his false statements despite that fact – what can we say about such actions from him?

my strikingness

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh and just a quick note on the false assertions of RoboT…

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

In this case A UFO (or UFOs) were picked up on radar, the aircrew were looking for visual confirmation and primed for such contact, they allegedly mistook the “oil well flares” for those contacts (which flares are allegedly shown on the FLIR). That they did that is of course explicable in the circumstances and of course does not explain the radar contacts. The UFO debunkers try to dismiss the whole case because of an alleged perceptual error – however, they persistently ignore the radar evidence in this case.

Of course I have addressed this issue many, many times, yet RoboT keeps making his false statements despite that fact – what can we say about such actions from him?

Then perhaps you need to brush up on the story and the sceptics point of view. It really has nothing to do with the "aircrew" being "primed".
When the FLIR footage was examined by high ranking experienced (errrr dare I say "reliable") military staff after the incident, they were all convinced that what was shown was a fleet of UFOs chasing and surrounding the plane. Not a single one of them stopped for a minute to critically look and research to see if there were a mundane cause. What does that tell us about reliability in the military and your constant assertion that military sources are somehow 'credible'?
Furthermore, when the Mexican military and government released the story to international news channels demanding that the US open up about what they know, the UFOlogists jumped on the story and also didn't use that infallible "process of elimination' that you keep claiming is the cornerstone of UFOlogy, they sucked up the FLIR video like credulous sponges and it took a sceptic to actually do any real work researching it.

 

[ufology]

So (again) What did you do in the immediate aftermath? Write your recollection down immediately? Compare notes with others who might have been viewing the sky at that time? Contact local astronomers? Visit the supposed landing site in daylight?

How did you have a 25km line of sight?

I was with two other people, both of whom saw it the first time. Two of us saw it the second time. I stayed awake all night and saw it two more times. I know enough astronomy to rule out anything astronomical, not that there were any astronomers around anyway. I told other people about it, including my Mom, who mentioned it to a few other people. In small town word gets around and someone else interested in UFOs sent me a copy of Canadian UFO report, which had a picture of the Rocky Mountain Trench on its cover, and a story inside of someone else who had seen something very similar years earlier. I wrote the whole thing down, but who knows where it is now. But this wasn't the kind of thing you forget. I could even tell you the record that was playing while we were sitting there ... Led Zeppelin, Houses Of The Holy.

Q. How did you have a 25km line of sight?

Fair question. My girlfriend's ranch property was up on the bench ( of land ) overlooking the lake on the west side, and there was a clear view for many miles of the mountains north and south along the Columbia Valley, part of the Rocky Mountain Trench. Here is a picture from water level, and as you can see, even here you can see quite a distance. Imagine being up about 200 ft with a full panoramic view.

The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

I was [** More unsubstantiated story telling snipped. **]

Any reason we should think that's not all just another lie? This is the fourth time I've asked nicely.

 

[John Albert]

Any reason we should think that's not all just another lie?

It wasn't a lie. It was "true," only in a different context. See? Truth is all about contexts.

Just because it was "true" doesn't mean it was "real."

What part of "alternate reality" do you not understand?

 

[Akhenaten]

I was with two other people, both of whom saw it the first time.

Were you all sharing the same subjective reality at the time?

I know enough astronomy to rule out anything astronomical, not that there were any astronomers around anyway.

Can we see the list of all the known natural and manmade phenomena that you eliminated as possible explanations?

 

[Access Denied]

This whole exchange with ufology should be split off into a separate topic but no doubt the mods already have their hands full so...

[talk about a thankless job]

If you have any more questions please feel free to ask.

What year?

 

[GeeMack]

It wasn't a lie. It was "true," only in a different context. See? Truth is all about contexts.

Just because it was "true" doesn't mean it was "real."

What part of "alternate reality" do you not understand?

Oh, yeah...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

If we accept the lies that are used to redefine common terms like "truth" in order to validate delusions, then the truth can be any old thing anyone wants. Maybe the "ufologists" haven't made up a definition they like for "lie", and that's why the response to my question is quiet ignorance. But there's no harm in trying again, eh?...

I was [* Argument by unsubstantiated anecdote snipped. *]

I'm sure we all agree that simply proclaiming something doesn't make it true. So given your questionable credibility due to repeated demonstrations of dishonesty in this and other threads, is there some reason we shouldn't take that anecdote as just another lie? And yes, that's the fifth time I asked nicely.

 

[Akhenaten]

This whole exchange with ufology should be split off into a separate topic but no doubt the mods already have their hands full so...

Until ufology resurrected the thread there was no topic. The OP only posted twice and then disappeared and everyone else lost interest in January.

[talk about a thankless job]

I think they should get first turn for a flying saucer ride when ET gets here returns.

If you have any more questions please feel free to ask.

What year?

I heard that it was a good year.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh and just a quick note on the false assertions of RoboT…

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

In this case A UFO (or UFOs) were picked up on radar, the aircrew were looking for visual confirmation and primed for such contact, they allegedly mistook the “oil well flares” for those contacts (which flares are allegedly shown on the FLIR). That they did that is of course explicable in the circumstances and of course does not explain the radar contacts. The UFO debunkers try to dismiss the whole case because of an alleged perceptual error – however, they persistently ignore the radar evidence in this case.

The creduloids pseudoscientists mention the spurious radar contacts as if they only occur when pseudoaliens are in the air. They persistently fail to mention FLIR due to their dishonesty.

Of course I have addressed this issue many, many times, yet RoboT keeps making his false statements despite that fact – what can we say about such actions from him?

Of course you continue to make your false statements about it, continuing to fail to mention FLIR when you repeatedly mention radar contacts (of what?), alleged film (of what?), photographic (of what?), and your pretend "nuts and bolts" craft which you've never pesented. So, you dishonestly fail to mention FLIR every time and you never answer my questions (of what?)

You also deliberately fail to learn your lesson from Campeche where the multiple military (trained observers) saw the FLIR picking up oil well fires and interpreted it as UFOs. Do you remember what UFO stands for? The oil wells weren't flying. Did you think they were?

You've failed to learn your lesson because you still think your gold standard of anecdotes with your "conjunction of eyewitnesses and other evidence" means pseudoaliens. Then you deliberately and dishonestly fail to mention Campeche. Don't you think Campeche is important when you're talking about a conjunction of that type of evidence? Why do you fail to mention it?

 

[Access Denied]

In this case A UFO (or UFOs) were picked up on radar...

And considering the fact they were looking for drug runners that couldn't possibly be considered absolutely normal…

Is that really the “genius” of Maccabee’s argument?

No wonder he promotes so many hoaxes and used the Kaikoura (squid boat) “Lights” case to get himself in bed with the CIA and the former head (and Scientologist) of their pseudoscientific remote viewing program?

Now how about you stop pretending that not only are you a trained scientist, you’re now a trained psychologist who can accurately screen witnesses you’ve never even met for any outstanding factors and an ophthalmologist too who can travel back in time to remotely assess their visual acuity better than Uri Geller can remote view the MLK assassination and address my last post that makes this whole thread moot in case your “special powers” missed it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I was with two other people, both of whom saw it the first time. Two of us saw it the second time. I stayed awake all night and saw it two more times. I know enough astronomy to rule out anything astronomical, not that there were any astronomers around anyway. I told other people about it, including my Mom, who mentioned it to a few other people. In small town word gets around and someone else interested in UFOs sent me a copy of Canadian UFO report, which had a picture of the Rocky Mountain Trench on its cover, and a story inside of someone else who had seen something very similar years earlier. I wrote the whole thing down, but who knows where it is now. But this wasn't the kind of thing you forget. I could even tell you the record that was playing while we were sitting there ... Led Zeppelin, Houses Of The Holy.

Q. How did you have a 25km line of sight?

Fair question. My girlfriend's ranch property was up on the bench ( of land ) overlooking the lake on the west side, and there was a clear view for many miles of the mountains north and south along the Columbia Valley, part of the Rocky Mountain Trench. Here is a picture from water level, and as you can see, even here you can see quite a distance. Imagine being up about 200 ft with a full panoramic view.


[qimg]http://69.89.31.205/~refbccom/userfiles/Lake%20Windermere%20Shoreline%20005%20(gimped).jpg[/qimg]


The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake.

j.r.

It could have been a firefly or a radio control plane.

 

[Audible Click]

Or a blimp.