UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[EHocking]

It seems I don't get email alerts for all of them. I went back and found a couple the other day completely by accident so maybe the answers are back there someplace. If there are still unanswered questions just post the links and I'll get to them as soon as I can.
j.r.

Riiiggghhtttt. The post is only 5 posts back from from this response of yours and you "missed" it.

It relates to you avoiding addressing the huge discrepancies in your estimates.

Last asked (and ignored) in post 281, which reminded you of your lack of response to posts 265 and 268.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The bottom line is that UFO reports can be assessed for reliability using a variety of methodologies – of which the principles of perception and cognitive heuristics and biases form just a part.

Perhaps I am just not very good at googling but I have yet to find anything that supports your claim that you can accurately assess the reliability of UFO reports using the methodology you describe. I have repeatedly asked you to describe your methodology but you have REFUSED to do so by presenting specifics in pertinent documents, which outlines/supports what you do. When asked you are ambiguous and vague about particulars. This means you want it to sound scientific but, because you don't want it be examined closely for potential errors, it probably is a pseudoscientific effort.

I have also asked you to demonstrate with RAW reports (those not written about in these UFO sites) that your methodology is sound. You have REFUSED to do that as well. This means you do not want experimentation to be performed on your methodology. That is another sign that it is pseudoscience.

You have refused to or chose to ignore information in all your cases you have assessed that point in directions that indicate possible mundane explanations. Chalk up another point in the pseudoscience column.

You have chosen to criticize the work of accomplished scientists because you have found works written by amateurs, who have biased opinions on the subject, that suggest they are wrong. Can we call that pseudoscientific behavior? I think so.

Need I go on?

As I have noted several times already, and continue to point out, your methodology is nothing more than a subjective measure by you that can be, and probably is, affected by your personal bias. Calling or implying that it is an objective scientific process of some kind is pseudoscience. Any conclusions you draw from this methodology have little value because it is only your biased opinion.

I snipped off the rest of your rant because it has little value. Your opinions are based on this pseudoscientific approach to the whole problem.

 

[SOdhner]

I specifically took the time explain to you the context of my statements and that I did not, nor have I ever, called you a liar.

This is essentially the same thing as "JAQing off". It's absurd and transparent and dishonest. You are clearly calling people liars (and have flat-out called me one before while refusing to actually show any lie) so why beat around the bush?

I have of course addressed your “points” about that case on numerous occasions and in some detail.

Hey, remember when I combed through EVERY SINGLE POST and detailed the contents all in one place to show, conclusively, that you had done no such thing? And then you continued to ignore me? Yeah. Your statement above isn't just wrong, it is a flat-out and deliberate lie to avoid addressing the issues raised. I've already proven this, multiple times. If you want to insist that I'm wrong or "imply" I'm lying then you should back it up by linking or re-posting ACTUAL ANSWERS to my many, many points against your absurd non-UFO case.

Tell me, what is it you do not understand about the following statement? The mere statement of unfounded assertions will not somehow magically make them true.

That was a demonstrably true statement, though. Still, it's easy enough to prove you wrong. My statement was that you were not able to either determine the facts of the case or eliminate all mundane possibilities as you claim to have done elsewhere. If that's wrong, then you should be able to tell us one of those things now. We're waiting.

 

[Akhenaten]

Exactly. Which is why anecdotes, especially ones recalled over 30-plus years, are of no value as evidence.

They're of value, just not as empirical evidence for scientific proof of alien visitation.

Agatha just said that.

Or you could say that because of your personal opinions on what constitutes value, that because empirical scientific proof is the only thing of value to you, that you personally don't assign it any value.

Attempting to handwave logic and critical thinking away as other people's opinions is getting really old, really quickly, particularly since we have years of Rramjet doing exactly the same thing behind us. Likewise, substituting 'proof' for 'evidence' willy-nilly is getting a bit tired.

But it certainly has value to other people.

p.s.

Only to other believers, or perhaps to pseudoscientists.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Hubble comment I made wasn't a memory error. I was just misinformed. I never knew about the Mars orbiter Metric conversion error so I couldn't have been remembering it instead.

And yet you conflated the two issues exactly as you would have if faulty memory had been at work. What a coincidence!

It turned out that the Hubble error was an error in a "metering rod", so maybe by the time it got to me it was interpreted to have been a "metric" conversion error. I never actually looked into it myself until the other day when I got corrected on it.

j.r.

That's what happens when you rely on memory.

Why are you so resistant to this lesson?

 

[Akhenaten]

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.​

=========

Evidence can can take many forms, not just scientific proof, so I was just trying to be more precise, which is ironic because I got sloppy and forgot to earse the p.s. for the post script I was going to put in, and it looks like I changed my initials. Anyway there was no offense intended. Please don't take it as such.​

j.r.​

Your whole argument is starting to look far worse than just sloppy.

Are you really going to try and start an argument about the difference between proof and evidence? You might want to peruse the late but not terribly lamented 'ECREE is nonsense' thread and at least acquaint yourself with the various forms of failure you're about to find yourself engaging in.

 

[Akhenaten]

I did my cross checks for the report on my website. I consulted maps and looked up elevations and distances.

You relied on your memory in the middle of a discussion about the unreliability of memory and mucked it up royally. There's only one way that was going to end.

Here I'm just having what I thought was more of an informal discussion, and didn't expect to be called on every detail of what I say.

This isn't Fakebook, you know.

You're being called on every detail of what you say because you're making an extraordinary claim and will obviously be required to provide extraordinary evidence for it. If the best answer you can give is "I thought close enough would be good enough" then you've no right to whinge about people not believing you.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK GeeMack ... if that's how you see it. I can't get you blood tests or a psychology report, to prove I am a drug free, sane, human being who actually remembers seeing a UFO in 1974 with my girlfriend. So fine, let's leave your comments at that and try to focus on the topic of the thread ... "Extraterrestrials". Perhaps you might have a starter for something different or maybe even an answer for the question posed by the opening post?

j.r.

The question asked in the OP was "Do you believe in Extraterrestrials?"

Quite clearly you do, but when quizzed about it at length it appears that your main reason for doing so isn't much more than "because I want to."

Fine. Believe what you will, but don't think for a minute that you'll get away with coming here and attempting to pass off your need to believe as critical thinking, especially if it involves telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong.

 

[ufology]

Extraterrestrials - EBEs vs Alien Tecnology

So again it's everyone else's fault that your critical thinking powers are failing you. Right. It is on topic, you have recalled a story about extraterrestrials, we are applying critical thinking to it and you are not.

I've tried to get the topic back on track by asking for constructive on-topic input, but as the quote above indicates, the poster would rather continue being critical of the arguer rather than addressing the topic of the thread. I'll do it for him now and we'll see where it goes. Will it result in more off topic thread derailing posts or something constructive? Let's find out.

This is a hypothetical question for the purpose of discussion and is not intended to be a scientific exploration of the topic, but an informal, fair minded, constructive discussion. The topic is Extraterrestrial Biological Entities vs Alien Technology.

The question is: Would intelligent alien technology such as a space probe be considered proof enough that aliens exist(ed), or would we need to shake hands with a living biological entity?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've tried to get the topic back on track by asking for constructive on-topic input

Which you've received but ignored. Maybe you should take this time to go back and read and answer those that you have admitted that you skipped which were questioning your obvious memory problems.

but as the quote above indicates, the poster would rather continue being critical of the arguer rather than addressing the topic of the thread.

No. He was replying on the topic of the thread. You've been trying to change the topic because what is being discussed shows how useless anecdotes are and anecdotes are your life's blood. It can't be a comfortable position to maintain.

I'll do it for him now and we'll see where it goes. Will it result in more off topic thread derailing posts or something constructive? Let's find out.

I'd rather know what you think about the feedback you've received about the huge differences in the various stories you've told about your 37 year old memory of seeing a light. Do the mulitiple discrepancies give you pause to question the fallibility of your memory?

This is a hypothetical question for the purpose of discussion and is not intended to be a scientific exploration of the topic, but an informal, fair minded, constructive discussion. The topic is Extraterrestrial Biological Entities vs Alien Technology.

The question is: Would intelligent alien technology such as a space probe be considered proof enough that aliens exist(ed), or would we need to shake hands with a living biological entity?

j.r.

What a silly question. Let's get back on topic of your alleged sighting of extraterrestrials 37 years ago. What else can you remember of the incident?

 

[Akhenaten]

I've tried to get the topic back on track by asking for constructive on-topic input, but as the quote above indicates, the poster would rather continue being critical of the arguer rather than addressing the topic of the thread. I'll do it for him now and we'll see where it goes. Will it result in more off topic thread derailing posts or something constructive? Let's find out.

Rubbish. What you're trying to do is deflect attention away from the fact that your own ET anecdote is as full of holes as a swiss cheese.

From the OP:

Extraterrestrials

I'm interested to see how people respond to the following question and how they justify their response:

Do you believe that extraterrestrials exist?

​

Establishing the reasons for your belief in extraterrestrials and asking you to justify that belief in terms of evidence is exactly on topic. Trying to claim otherwise just because your explanations don't stand up to scrutiny isn't going to work.

This is a hypothetical question for the purpose of discussion and is not intended to be a scientific exploration of the topic, but an informal, fair minded, constructive discussion. The topic is Extraterrestrial Biological Entities vs Alien Technology.

You no sooner finish accusing your opponents of wandering off the topic and you come straight out and announce that you've changed it?

That'll end well.

The question is: Would intelligent alien technology such as a space probe be considered proof enough that aliens exist(ed), or would we need to shake hands with a living biological entity?

j.r.

As an attempt to change the subject away from the huge inconsistencies in your campfire story I'd rate this as somewhere between 'feeble' and 'pathetic'.

 

[ufology]

Personal Sighting

If anyone wants questions answered that haven't been answered with respect to my personal sighting, then I'd be happy to answer them. As for the incorrect assessment that my story is as full of holes as "swiss cheese", I only made one minor memory error in the haste of a forum response. If anything, minor discrepancies tend to show truthfulness under pressure because they haven't been rehearsed over and over again to prepare to deveive people. Please be fair minded and I'll be happy to continue discussing my sighting. Otherwise it's time to move on.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

I've tried to ...[do something or other and now I'm not doing that anymore, I'm doing something else...

Mmmm... so we are changing the subject again.
I'm losing count of the amount of topics you can bring up only to abandon as soon as they are shown to be less than solid.

In every Flying Saucery thread you have participated in, you have done it.
We have outstanding issues of Hessdalen, London UFOs, UFO over cape of Good Hope (Google Earth photo) and your own sighting, on top of the closed Critical Thinking thread (still unfinished business in there) and the continuing flogging of the dead horse of Pseudo Science.

Are you trying to go for the record of 'most failures in one month'?

As for your alternative (deflection) question:
Either will do.
In fact any verifiable physical evidence will do, I don't need to shake hands with an alien or personally examine some technology as long as I can verify it has been tested, checked, substantiated in a proper scientific manner.

But indulging on more of your alien 'let's pretend' games isn't really my thing, hope you understand.

 

[Akhenaten]

If anyone wants questions answered that haven't been answered with respect to my personal sighting, then I'd be happy to answer them. As for the incorrect assessment that my story is as full of holes as "swiss cheese", I only made one minor memory error in the haste of a forum response. If anything, minor discrepancies tend to show truthfulness under pressure because they haven't been rehearsed over and over again to prepare to deveive people. Please be fair minded and I'll be happy to continue discussing my sighting. Otherwise it's time to move on.

j.r.

These couple of points could do with clearing up, just for starters:

Yeah I am definately thinking Kenneth Arnold at this stage. The clincher for me seems to be the complete lack of interaction between the object and its enviroment. An object travelling at over 50,000 miles an hour is going to make a mess - A big mess

It's going to make a fair old sonic boom too, I shouldn't wonder.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If anyone wants questions answered that haven't been answered with respect to my personal sighting, then I'd be happy to answer them.

Good, go back and answer them.

As for the incorrect assessment that my story is as full of holes as "swiss cheese", I only made one minor memory error in the haste of a forum response.

Now you don't remember how many errors your memory made.

If anything, minor discrepancies tend to show truthfulness under pressure because they haven't been rehearsed over and over again to prepare to deveive people.

Pseudoscientific waffling. Do all UFOlogists try to claim that black is white?

Please be fair minded and I'll be happy to continue discussing my sighting. Otherwise it's time to move on.

j.r.

Everyone has been very fair minded in allowing you to dig as deep a hole as you liked. It's time for you to man up.

 

[Stray Cat]

If anyone wants questions answered that haven't been answered with respect to my personal sighting, then I'd be happy to answer them. As for the incorrect assessment that my story is as full of holes as "swiss cheese", I only made one minor memory error in the haste of a forum response. If anything, minor discrepancies tend to show truthfulness under pressure because they haven't been rehearsed over and over again to prepare to deveive people. Please be fair minded and I'll be happy to continue discussing my sighting. Otherwise it's time to move on.

j.r.

Well you could start with EHocking's post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7411831&postcount=349

As he's already mentioned it several times.

 

[Audible Click]

I'm eagerly awaiting your answer to EHocking's question.

 

[godless dave]

The obvious answer, at least to me, is that there certainly should be life out there. I doubt there's a logical reason to believe in the contrary.

But the possibility of intelligent life at the civilization status or beyond is very intriguing. We haven't been contacted yet by a species with such a mastery on the cosmos as to find our planet. Perhaps such an alien race has no desire to look for us because they have manipulated their immortal consciousnesses to a state content in not finding all advanced lifeforms. Maybe they are watching from a distance, finding entertainment in our species since even the most intelligent of beings might still be able to appreciate the chaotic factors of evolution, genes and memes alike. Or maybe there is no such race that exists yet.

Or maybe they're far enough away that they have no idea we're here. Remember, our solar system is one among billions upon billions in an enormous universe.

 

[Rramjet]

Do pay attention and at least try to adress what I am saying. You claim that ET is plausible because "Nothing in our knowledge of the natural or technological world rules it out.". I pointed out that nothing in the natural or technological world rules out blimps, oilwell fires and squid boats either.

Correct no? .

No.

Essentially I have claimed that in the absence of plausible mundane explanations and in the presence of the circumstantial evidence and given that science does not rule ET visitation out - then the ETH becomes a plausible alternative.

I explained why “blimp” and “squid boat” were implausible alternatives (because the historical and eyewitness evidence eliminates them as plausible alternatives) and I explained why “oilwell fires” was indeed a plausible alternative for the FLIR (but not for the radar returns).

LOL. Historical records show a lot of blimp activity in the area but no ET activity so you fail. .

That is simply a false statement. The historical record shows NO blimp activity in the area (repeat NONE at all). As for ET – whatever was observed defies plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less. I will leave it to others to suggest alternative explanations.

And yet they make a drawing of an obviously blimp shaped object. Imagine that! .

You have been informed enough times about those drawings to know precisely what they represent. Yet you continue to repeat your false assertions. That says something about your character Jocce. The eyewitnesses described a circular object, like a coin or pancake – and that is precisely what is represented in the technical drawings of the object made by the draftsman. The drawings may be viewed here (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf - p.86) and the sworn eyewitness testimonies here (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Failure to observe something is not evidence of absence. .

Oh but it is. The witnesses, using binoculars, observed no protuberances that would relate to a blimp (ie; fins, engines, gondola). These witnesses were able to resolve the object closely enough to observe that the skin was (in places) dirty and wrinkled. Under such conditions they could hardly have missed the protuberances of a blimp.

It's a very simple concept to understand. I presented calculations several months ago that shows that the sound of a blimp engine at this distance would be a mere whisper and easily covered by the ambient sounds of wind and water. .

Are you now contending that the distance estimates were accurate? I thought you also contended that size/distance estimates in a clear blue sky could not be relied on? I do not remember any calculations you made in regard to the noise of the blimp (only the mere unfounded assertion) - besides, blimp engines of the time were invariably described as very noisy and easily able to be heard over a number of miles.

The evidence that has been presented to you several times makes blimp a very likely explanation. Far more likely than ET. .

I contended that you have simply ignored the evidence that makes “blimp” implausible an explanation. So far nothing you have stated since has demonstrated that you have accounted for any of that evidence.

And perhaps you will be able to inform us of the likelihood of ET then? Of course you cannot because it is a complete unknown. If ET is visiting, then the likelihood is 100%. If ET does not exist – then the likelihood is zero. There is simply no way of determining the likelihood - so it is utterly disingenuous to claim that you actually know the likelihood of ET visitation – especially to know it well enough to compare it with other explanations!

Remind me again, which one of the several lights returned a radar echo? Oh right, you don't know. Yet you believe that a radar echo in the general direction of some lights equals ET. .

It is reasonable enough to assume that when the radar indicated a direction and range and the witnesses looked to that indicated area and a light was there visible and it also shifted range and direction in accord with eyewitness and radar observations, then the radar return and the light were one and the same. They even captured it on film! See here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/A History of NZ Sightings 12 31 78.doc), here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc), here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html) and here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html).

In reference to this case (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA):

The radar echos has been explained to you several times. Why is it so hard to understand? .

The UFO debunker contention is that they were anomalous radar phenomena. But such phenomena are generally transient and certainly do not fly in straight lines while speeding up.

You can hypothesise all you want but "there is nothing in the natural or technological world that rules out ET" doesn't equal "ET is plausible"..

I claimed that in the absence of plausible mundane explanations and in the presence of the circumstantial evidence and given that science does not rule ET visitation out - then the ETH becomes a plausible alternative.

Any joker can propose non-mundane explanations (eg. ET visited us in a space ship), but to be accepted, there must be some evidence for such explanations. I've seen none so far. .

Indeed - and I have often stated that we have no direct evidence for the ETH. We do however have circumstantial evidence (ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings). So while have no proof - we do have supporting evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

Perhaps I am just not very good at googling but I have yet to find anything that supports your claim that you can accurately assess the reliability of UFO reports using the methodology you describe.

I have explained clearly and concisely how perceptual principles may be used to assess reliability – and I have provided examples. For example the estimated size of an object seen against the background of a clear blue sky will be unreliable while the same object seen against the background of a tree will have a better reliability. Time estimates will be distorted depending on levels of excitement. Colour estimates will depend on available light type and levels. Speed estimates will depend on relative motions. Many factors, both perceptual and cognitive can be assessed in determining reliability of observations. If adverse conditions apply, then reliability will be poor. If no (or minimal) adverse conditions apply, then the reliability will be greater.

I told you that you could use the search terms "principles of perception" and "heuristics and biases" to further you knowledge of the area. Clearly you did not do that.

I have repeatedly asked you to describe your methodology but you have REFUSED to do so by presenting specifics in pertinent documents, which outlines/supports what you do. When asked you are ambiguous and vague about particulars. This means you want it to sound scientific but, because you don't want it be examined closely for potential errors, it probably is a pseudoscientific effort.

One can even test the observer for perceptual reliability (eg; http://www.psych-edpublications.com/visual.htm).

I have also asked you to demonstrate with RAW reports (those not written about in these UFO sites) that your methodology is sound. You have REFUSED to do that as well. This means you do not want experimentation to be performed on your methodology. That is another sign that it is pseudoscience.

What RAW reports do you want to assess then? Clearly any report I suggest you will reject (as you have done already) - so if you want me to assess an unknown report, then perhaps you should suggest one.

You have refused to or chose to ignore information in all your cases you have assessed that point in directions that indicate possible mundane explanations. Chalk up another point in the pseudoscience column.

That is merely argument by proclamation. A mere unfounded assertion. If you can demonstrate your claim to be true – then please go ahead and do so – otherwise, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You have chosen to criticize the work of accomplished scientists because you have found works written by amateurs, who have biased opinions on the subject, that suggest they are wrong. Can we call that pseudoscientific behavior? I think so.

You are a self-proclaimed amateur in the field of astronomy. Does your argument here then mean you are simply conducting pseudoscience because of your amateur status? Or does it mean you blindly accept anything a professional might have to say just because they say it?

And I certainly did criticise your professionals (your “accomplished scientists”) for not conducting a measurement error analysis – which any “accomplished scientist” would undertake. My criticism is valid no matter what my professional status.

Need I go on?

Can I stop you? But, please, do go on, it amuses me.

As I have noted several times already, and continue to point out, your methodology is nothing more than a subjective measure by you that can be, and probably is, affected by your personal bias.

And if I made the same statement about you – how precisely would that advance the debate in any meaningful way? It is a mere unfounded ad hominem attack that does nothing to advance our search for knowledge.

Calling or implying that it is an objective scientific process of some kind is pseudoscience.

I have never “called on or implied” any such thing. I have merely stated that we can use well documented perceptual factors to assess reliability in UFO reports. I am sorry that you cannot see that statement for what it is – a statement of principle.

Any conclusions you draw from this methodology have little value because it is only your biased opinion.

Ah, so an estimate of size in a clear blue sky should be taken at face value? Or are there perceptual factors involved that might speak to the reliability of such an estimate?

I snipped off the rest of your rant because it has little value.

My “rant”? LOL. Have you no intellectual integrity whatsoever?

Your opinions are based on this pseudoscientific approach to the whole problem.

You may continue to argue by proclamation if you like – but I will merely put the facts, the evidence and the logical argument up against such unfounded assertion every time.