UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Access Denied]

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

“Oh, well that's different. Never mind.”
- Emily Lattella

Perfect place for this garbage then...

 

[Rramjet]

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.

I don’t really care who assesses such UFO reports and comes to whatever conclusion they do about them. What matters is a critical analysis of those reports. Dr Maccabee (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) has provided a detailed and critical analysis of the Mexican DoD report (the Campeche incident) - and as far as I can tell he does a pretty good job of it - dealing with ALL of the facts in the case – not merely the cherry picked aspects of it that the UFO debunkers continually rabbit on about (the FLIR – disingenuously implying that is the sole, single pierce of evidence in the whole case we have).

I have also explained the psychological factors at play in the incident – that is, having radar UFOs, the aircrew went looking for visual confirmation. Thus primed for a visual contact, they thought they had found that contact when lights appeared. It has also not been proved that what is in the FLIR IS actually “oil well flares” – that is merely the generally accepted plausible explanation after much research and debate – it does not of course mean that is what they were.

Moreover, I have never claimed “the military” to be a reliable in the way you make out – clearly I believe the military often covers thing up in such cases. What I do believe is that the official reports from military people (such as the aircrew in this case, official documents, memos etc) are to be considered somewhat more reliable than the reports form the average person on the street. Now that does not mean that the conclusions reached about what is being observed by those people are correct – just the reports will be generally more reliable in their detail.

It is also interesting that the Mexican Military felt strongly enough about the US position on the matter that they would demand an end to US secrecy...

I also find it interesting that the UFO debunkers continually and totally ignore such critical assessments and analysis as have been made in the case, seeming to want to continually focus on a very limited range of the evidence in order to push their own agenda at every opportunity – as if it were somehow a case that meant a great deal to them - and that any full examination or critical analysis might debunk their own beliefs in the matter if the FULL evidence in the case were brought to public attention.

 

[Rramjet]

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?

LOL. Mere ad hominem attacks will no longer wash in this forum.

If you have any evidence that Dr Maccabee’s analysis of the Mexican DoD case was anything less than exemplary - or that my own statements on the matter somehow miss the mark – then you will of course present it. No? I thought not.

 

[Akhenaten]

I also find it interesting that the UFO debunkers continually and totally ignore such critical assessments and analysis as have been made in the case, seeming to want to continually focus on a very limited range of the evidence in order to push their own agenda at every opportunity – as if it were somehow a case that meant a great deal to them - and that any full examination or critical analysis might debunk their own beliefs in the matter if the FULL evidence in the case were brought to public attention.

Why are you stuffing around here then? Why not 'go public' with all of your best material and when the world's headlines are screaming "Rramjet Vindicated!!! Flying Saucers confirmed" you can return here in triumph and gloat to your heart's content?

 

[Akhenaten]

LOL. Mere ad hominem attacks will no longer wash in this forum.

Ignoring for now that you're just displaying, for about the thousandth time, that you don't understand, what an ad hominem is, where on Earth did you get the idea that you're in any kind of position to know what will 'wash' in this forum?

Quite clearly your own arguments have failed dismally, and your attempt to critique the efforts of others who have been far more successful, not only in contention with yourself, but in areas of the forum that you appear to be blissfully unaware of is comical, to say the least.

 

[Pixel42]

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.

Top post.

If only there was a significant chance that ufology would read and understand it.

 

[Stray Cat]

I don’t really care who assesses such UFO reports and comes to whatever conclusion they do about them. What matters is a critical analysis of those reports.

Of course you don't care, all you're interested in is the pseudo scientific mumblings of those who want to build a mystery around what is basically a jumble of radar targets that weren't seen by FLIR and FLIR targets that weren't seen by radar (not a single one of the FLIR sightings was confirmed by radar and visa versa).

Dr Maccabee (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) has provided a detailed and critical analysis of the Mexican DoD report (the Campeche incident) - and as far as I can tell he does a pretty good job of it - dealing with ALL of the facts in the case – not merely the cherry picked aspects of it that the UFO debunkers continually rabbit on about (the FLIR – disingenuously implying that is the sole, single pierce of evidence in the whole case we have).

He writes an overly long and intentionally over complicated report in order to lose the fact that the story amounts to nothing amongst his Wall O' Waffle™ in order for it to look like he's doing science, when in fact he's trying desperately to find a gap in which he can put some gods.

In the time he wasted writing up the detailed technical specs of the FLIR system and all the other associated guff he unnecessarily includes in his write up, someone else plotted the flightpath (quickly and easily done) and looked at some maps and found Cempeche Bay's biggest oil field and associated oil wells right in the line of sight. Maccabee tries to at least hint that he doesn't believe the oil well flare explanation by asking the Mexican military for a test flight and of course 7 years later either that flight never happened or it did and because it confirmed the explanation it hasn't been written up.

I have also explained the psychological factors at play in the incident – that is, having radar UFOs, the aircrew went looking for visual confirmation. Thus primed for a visual contact, they thought they had found that contact when lights appeared.

No they didn't. Even according to Maccabee's report, not a single radar target was positively confirmed as a visual target. Further to that military ground radar at Carmen saw no unidentified radar targets.

The first object detected on radar was quite close to the airplane, yet remains unexplained. Other radar targets seem to have been reflective objects on the ground. Many of the of the radiation sources or reflectors (“lights”) detected by the forward-looking-infra-red (flir) system were much farther away than the crew thought at the time Some of these may have been be distant oil field gas burnoff flames. Others might have been reflections from clouds. Only one flir light was possibly associated with the first radar target.

It has also not been proved that what is in the FLIR IS actually “oil well flares” – that is merely the generally accepted plausible explanation after much research and debate – it does not of course mean that is what they were.

It's not accepted by everyone though is it?
Still many UFO believers refuse to consider it even though the sums all add up, the geometry of the flight path has been calculated, the angle and direction of the FLIR accounted for and it points directly to the largest oil well field in the bay. Plus you can even make out the reflection of the flares on the water in the FLIR video.

Moreover, I have never claimed “the military” to be a reliable in the way you make out – clearly I believe the military often covers thing up in such cases.

It completely depends if what the military say corresponds to your belief in aliens. If they say "no aliens" they are covering it up, if they say "aliens" (not that they have ever said that, but if they say unidentified flying object", they are credible reliable witnesses (eg: Tehran).

What I do believe is that the official reports from military people (such as the aircrew in this case, official documents, memos etc) are to be considered somewhat more reliable than the reports form the average person on the street. Now that does not mean that the conclusions reached about what is being observed by those people are correct – just the reports will be generally more reliable in their detail.

But only up to the point where that level of detail confirms your belief in "aliens".

It is also interesting that the Mexican Military felt strongly enough about the US position on the matter that they would demand an end to US secrecy...

Well to be fair, the claim that the Mexican Military demanded that of the US came from creduloid hoax promoter and media career buffoon Jaimie Maussen, so that's probably not accurate either.

I also find it interesting that the UFO debunkers continually and totally ignore such critical assessments and analysis as have been made in the case, seeming to want to continually focus on a very limited range of the evidence in order to push their own agenda at every opportunity – as if it were somehow a case that meant a great deal to them - and that any full examination or critical analysis might debunk their own beliefs in the matter if the FULL evidence in the case were brought to public attention.

Not at all, the sceptics are willing to look at all the information, but we'll tend to concentrate on the parts which are most often claimed as "proof" of "OMG! it's Aliens!!!!"
If you would like to discuss the fact that not a single one of the radar targets was confirmed by either a visual or FLIR sighting we can.
Perhaps we could continue that discussion in relation to the fact that the radar targets were not recorded (there is no tape to play back) and therefore the size, position, speed data is not actually available to examine and comes from the recollections of the reliable military air crew?

We keep mentioning FLIR because this case highlights the lie that military sources are not necessarily reliable and that there is no way to be certain in any particular case, that they have been. Also as the FLIR video is still to this day touted as proof of flying saucers by those who are credulous because they also mistakenly think that the militry source lends enough credibility to the story, it is a great example of how those misguided people are so wrong to hold on to that viewpoint.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Yet you have yet to demonstrate how it is done and list the appropriate documentation that supports this methodology. I also see no "error analysis" in your qunatifying of these factors. It looks like you are making it up as you go along.

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.

In other words, you have just reversed yourself. In one case, it is not reliable to make such estimates and now you create reasons to state such estimates are reliable simply because it is one of your best evidence cases. You provide not one bit of supporting documentation that states such factors ensure witnesss reliability. It is just your say so, which isn't good enough. There is no way to determine exactly how reliable your witnesses are because you have NOT quantified anything. You are simply accepting that they must be correct because it has to be to support your belief that it was some sort of craft "unknown" to science (or whatever you want to call it).

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.

Then you better think about your choice of words. If you state I made a lie (i.e an intentional effort to deceive), then you are calling me a liar. Either you think I am a liar or you are using it to make it sound like I am lying to those reading this thread. This is not the first time you have done this in our discussions. I suggest you stop using the kind of language that implies this. People can make an honest mistake. That does not mean they are lying or are trying to deceive.

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 see, you appear to be passing the buck.You have repeatedly asked me for sources and I have presented them to you. I ask you for sources and then you tell me to look them up. How do I even know you have ever read these things since you can't seem to explain them. The ball remains in your side of the court.

You claimed, "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 have repeatedly asked you as to how it is done and you give me this subjective nonsense about what you think and then say you found it some psychology books. It is your claim and if you can not present the methodology of how it is quantified, your claim is completely invalid. Such a methodology must be a proven one that works. You have made up examples but have yet to show us how it is done in an actual event. Give us a real example of how you can quantify such things so it can be evaluated properly. Feel free to include an error analysis of some kind to demonstrate the margin for error in your methodology. Otherwise this is all a subjective analysis based on your personal bias.

 

[Access Denied]

If you have any evidence that Dr Maccabee’s analysis of the Mexican DoD case was anything less than exemplary - or that my own statements on the matter somehow miss the mark – then you will of course present it. No? I thought not.

Why bother if you’re simply going to ignore it again? I don’t know what else there is to say that hasn’t been already by others about 100+ pages of epic fail to identify other than it all comes down to this from his conclusion…

…if the flir elevation calibration when looking to the left was off by several degrees (despite calibration using the moon elevation), then these groups of lights might have been distant (ca. 100 mi) ground lights (e.g., gas flames…

In other words Maccabee is saying if his “moon calibration” calculations (based on a sketchy video) are wrong it’s gas flames… and then he has the audacity to demand a test flight to prove it? Dude, you blew it…

As far as the first “unidentified” radar “target” I say again, they were looking for drug runners… drug runners flying under the radar hence the reason they were flying a radar above them, with the “gain” cranked up. This makes “detecting” AP with no visual absolutely normal…

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don’t really care who assesses such UFO reports and comes to whatever conclusion they do about them. What matters is a critical analysis of those reports. Dr Maccabee (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) has provided a detailed and critical analysis of the Mexican DoD report (the Campeche incident) - and as far as I can tell he does a pretty good job of it - dealing with ALL of the facts in the case – not merely the cherry picked aspects of it that the UFO debunkers continually rabbit on about (the FLIR – disingenuously implying that is the sole, single pierce of evidence in the whole case we have).

I have also explained the psychological factors at play in the incident – that is, having radar UFOs, the aircrew went looking for visual confirmation. Thus primed for a visual contact, they thought they had found that contact when lights appeared. It has also not been proved that what is in the FLIR IS actually “oil well flares” – that is merely the generally accepted plausible explanation after much research and debate – it does not of course mean that is what they were.

Moreover, I have never claimed “the military” to be a reliable in the way you make out – clearly I believe the military often covers thing up in such cases. What I do believe is that the official reports from military people (such as the aircrew in this case, official documents, memos etc) are to be considered somewhat more reliable than the reports form the average person on the street. Now that does not mean that the conclusions reached about what is being observed by those people are correct – just the reports will be generally more reliable in their detail.

It is also interesting that the Mexican Military felt strongly enough about the US position on the matter that they would demand an end to US secrecy...

I also find it interesting that the UFO debunkers continually and totally ignore such critical assessments and analysis as have been made in the case, seeming to want to continually focus on a very limited range of the evidence in order to push their own agenda at every opportunity – as if it were somehow a case that meant a great deal to them - and that any full examination or critical analysis might debunk their own beliefs in the matter if the FULL evidence in the case were brought to public attention.

So it's likely that the radar returns were spurious, you're saying? And yet they conflated those with later images on FLIR to arrive at the conclusion of UFOs which the Mexican military later interpreted to be surrounding the craft, and PT Barnum Jaime Maussan egged the Mexican military on to demanding that the US admit something about the US's involvement in the whole affair. And the other half of the circus, Maccabee chimes in with his 'analysis' on the US side.

And they turn out to be oil well fires.


That's pretty much UFOlogy in a nutshell, wouldn't you say?

 

[Stray Cat]

You claimed, "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 have repeatedly asked you as to how it is done and you give me this subjective nonsense about what you think and then say you found it some psychology books.

I'll have a go at quantifying it if that's OK?

Perception can be 100% inaccurate
So we can legitimately work out that anything worked out from perception alone includes the possibility that it is 100% inaccurate.
If we take this simple calculation into consideration when assessing witness reports, we can safely conclude there is a possibility of those reports being completely accurate within the confines of it not being accurate at all.

Glad to be of help.

 

[Aepervius]

I am very poor at painting but here is what I get from this thread :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=526&pictureid=4781

 

[Stray Cat]

I am very poor at painting but here is what I get from this thread :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=526&pictureid=4781

Not at all, I think that gets the point across rather well.

 

[MG1962]

Or a blimp.

True story - One night a mate and I were having a Friday night drink when we saw this huge yellow blob moving towards the city - we were a fair distance away so there was no detail visible- we also saw a number of smaller red lights moving around it.

We watched for a while till it disapeared from view. He asked me if I thought it was a UFO. On surface I had to agree with him, then said - If it was we are going to hear about it, seeing was hovering over the center of the city

Turned out to be the Whitman blimp heading into town to work as a camera platform for a football game, and the red lights were choppers filming the blimp for a commercial

I often chuckle to myself at the nonchalant attitude I had to something that had the potential to be as big as "Inderpendence Day"

 

[John Albert]

Got any objective evidence for the existence of ETs, or maybe more retreads of feeble illogical or dishonest "support"?

Why not post another UFO story? That never fails to fail to convince anyone around here.

 

[tomi71]

Not at all, I think that gets the point across rather well.

Scepticism is a funny thing. I can hear the same laugher when the first caveman described a fire (by a lightning) to another caveman or same laughter in the middle-ages when Leonardo da Vinci did show his pictures of futuristic ideas etc. etc.

Humour is a weapon. I admit. It´s not who laughs first but last. We must wait. I still hope that everybody laughs in the end.

 

[Audible Click]

True story - One night a mate and I were having a Friday night drink when we saw this huge yellow blob moving towards the city - we were a fair distance away so there was no detail visible- we also saw a number of smaller red lights moving around it.

We watched for a while till it disapeared from view. He asked me if I thought it was a UFO. On surface I had to agree with him, then said - If it was we are going to hear about it, seeing was hovering over the center of the city

Turned out to be the Whitman blimp heading into town to work as a camera platform for a football game, and the red lights were choppers filming the blimp for a commercial

I often chuckle to myself at the nonchalant attitude I had to something that had the potential to be as big as "Inderpendence Day"

I had a similar experience when I was very young. I was playing outside with my brother when I saw an alien spacecraft in the sky. I quickly pointed it out to him and he told me in his big brother tone of voice: "It's a flying wing, stupid!" He was kind enough to explain to me what that was and I was very disappointed.

​

 

[MG1962]

I had a similar experience when I was very young. I was playing outside with my brother when I saw an alien spacecraft in the sky. I quickly pointed it out to him and he told me in his big brother tone of voice: "It's a flying wing stupid!" He was kind enough to explain to me what that was and I was very disappointed.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/266624e2c59dda597b.bmp[/qimg]​

Wow - thats actually cool

 

[John Albert]

I had a similar experience when I was very young. I was playing outside with my brother when I saw an alien spacecraft in the sky. I quickly pointed it out to him and he told me in his big brother tone of voice: "It's a flying wing stupid!" He was kind enough to explain to me what that was and I was very disappointed.

​

Wow - thats actually cool

Yeah, that's really awesome. The "flying wing" is a bona-fide piece of aviation history.

The last UFO I saw (about 2½ weeks ago) turned out to be a piece of Soviet space junk.

 

[Agatha]

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.

Every time you tell this story it has subtle differences and additions, and I really don't understand why you are drip-feeding the information like this. Are you aware that you tell the story slightly differently each time? How long ago did this occur, and at what time of year?

However, immediately afterwards you made little or no effort to find out what you had seen;
you didn't contact any astronomers (professional or amateur)
you didn't visit the site where you judged the thing to have landed (if indeed it did)
you were watching all night and made three sightings, EDIT it now seems four sightings, but didn't take any photographs
you wrote something down at some point but now can't recall where those notes are now
you haven't said what the discussion with these other witnesses was (at the time or later)
you still haven't explained how you judged size distance or speed other than it appeared to be behind the mountain at one point. I assume the distance from your vantage point to the mountain was known, but you still don't have enough information there to judge size, distance or speed with any degree of accuracy.

Is this the only sighting you have had where you've been unable (dare I say unwilling?) to rule out mundane, terrestrial explanations?