UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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?

Ummm, okay … you are a liar. Happy now?

Reminds me of a childhood conundrum actually – you know where three people stand in a row and one says “I am not a liar” and one says “He is a liar” and the other states “I am a liar’. LOL.

 

[SOdhner]

Ummm, okay … you are a liar.

And, predictably, you failed to respond to anything in my post.

Where's the lie, Rramjet? (Mine, I mean - we've all seen your lie about having responded to the points I've raised.)

 

[ufology]

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.

The above are just more proclaimations and attacks on the arguer instead of dealing with the thread topic. Try bringing up a specific point with a reference that relates to the context of the discussion.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

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.

Good point above. The universe is so complex that the likelihood of there not being other civilizations out there that are beyond contact range is so small as to be negligible.

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Nobody is questioning that these studies exist. It is your application that is suspect because you claim to be using them but never provide references or citations. You also seem to selectively apply them in various cases and find excuses why they are not applicable without applicable documentation other than your say so (see Rogue River and the clear blue sky comments).

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.

And you have yet to demonstrate that you are using these principles properly in all the cases you have presented to date. You are subjectively applying them.

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

Completely worthless unless you have tested witnesses who have observed these UFOs.

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.

Take the month of July from the NUFORC and MUFON database sets that are available on line. Let us know what you determine.

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?

I am not the one claiming to be conducting science. You are the one who claims to be applying scientific principles for assessing the reliability of UFO reports yet you choose not to explain yourself or provide one iota of information that states what you are doing is accurate.

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.

So are you now stating that what you are doing is not scientific? If so, it is subjective just as I have continously pointed out. It is subject to the errors you introduce by your personal bias.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above are just more proclaimations and attacks on the arguer instead of dealing with the thread topic. Try bringing up a specific point with a reference that relates to the context of the discussion.

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.

Can you see it now?

 

[Stray Cat]

The above are just more proclaimations and attacks on the arguer instead of dealing with the thread topic. Try bringing up a specific point with a reference that relates to the context of the discussion.

Yes, I'm sure you'd like to have everyone running around the forum picking up all the bits you've been ignoring.

And I was dealing with the new deflection topic you introduced in order to attempt to get us away from the massive discrepancies in your own fairy story sighting.

But of course, you've overlooked that part... no doubt you'll be telling us you didn't receive an alert email to inform you of it as soon as the forum page is turned and you'll expect someone else to find it for you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

As has been proven repeatedly to the point of tedium, you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations so your pseudoscientific plunge to your conclusion of pseudoaliens is pseudoscience, as you will readily admit.

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).

No, it was explained to you why "blimp" and "squid boat" were plausible explanations, as were HOAX and misidentification. It was also explained to you why "oil well fires" were implausible using your version of a process of elimination. Your refusal to acknowledge reality is your own problem.

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.

No, yours is the false statement and whatever blimp was observed positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less. That you deny reality should give you cause for concern.

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).

It has been demonstrated with comparisons to you enough times that you should know precisely what a Gay Rodeo blimp looks like now from different orientations. Your denial of reality is what's causing your confusion.

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.

And it was demonstrated to you with scale graphics what they think they saw would have looked like at the distance they believe they saw it. Why do you deny reality?

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.

Are you now contending that the sound of the blimp engine would have been heard at the distance they claimed when it has been shown that ambient noise would have drowned it out?

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.

The critically minded rightly contend that you simply ignore reality in ignoring the evidence that makes blimp not only plausible but the most likely explanation. So far you have only asserted things without evidence. Reality is a relative unknown to you, isn't it.

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!

Then it is pseudoscientific to claim that ET is visiting us when you don't know that they exist and there is no evidence for them ever visiting us. Are you now claiming to be a pseudoscientist?

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).

Yes, you are using the pseudoscientific method of conflating two different things into one. It's an easy mistake to make, look what happened at Campeche, the UFOlogist's Waterloo.

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

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.

Now you are laying claim to being a radar expert. Will wonders never cease.

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.

I see now where you are mistaken. You have no ability to eliminate plausible mundane explanations. Look at how you totally blew it at Campeche, the Blimp at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle, and the HOAX at Delphos, all of which you wrongfully asserted defied plausible mundane explanation. Your wishful thinking and denial of reality have let you down again.

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.

And you've told a falsehood each time you've claimed it. We have no nuts and bolts craft, we've seen no intelligent control attributable to ET, and we have no associated beings. Why do you continue to falsely claim these things? Is your denial of reality so entrenched that you really can't tell the difference?

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, maybe you could answer EHocking's post here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7411831&postcount=349

I'm sure you wouldn't want to ignore it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ooo goody, I love a good blimp story.... especially this one.

You have been informed enough times about those drawings to know precisely what they represent.

Indeed:

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.

Take a look at those drawings... they were not drawn precisely, and don't really resemble any drawing I've ever seen by a draftsman... Are you sure about who drew these?

Blimp seen from a distance.

 

[Stray Cat]

And just in case you forget ufology, maybe you could answer EHocking's post here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7411831&postcount=349

I'm sure you wouldn't want to ignore it.

 

[godless dave]

Good point above. The universe is so complex that the likelihood of there not being other civilizations out there that are beyond contact range is so small as to be negligible.

j.r.

I don't think we have nearly enough data to conclude that.

But we can can conclude that the area beyond contact range is, well, almost all of the universe.

 

[ufology]

Can you see it now?

I've already answered some of the distance discrepancy and acknowledged my mixup of the album name. I still remembered the song names and that is how I pinned the album name down on my website.

To answer in more detail on the distances, particularly the vertical rise, I took into account that the object had landed on the bench overlooking the lake and that the mountain elevations were from the valley floor, therefore the distances in fractions are not from the lake, but from a spot above the lake, plus the mountain was in the background, which would make it appear smaller than it was. Taking these factors into account, I came up with the estimate on my website, which I still think is reasonably accurate. Perhaps I'll redo the calculations with the Google Earth tools to get an even more precise number.

As for the number in feet I used here on the forum that don't match up, it was just a bad on the fly metric conversion or possibly I had meant to say yards, but it was just due to the haste of a forum response.

Lastly, the way it came down the mountain toward us was in three big arcs as described on my website. The graphic I included was for illustrative purposes and was not presented as the sighting itself, but as "very similar". I'd love to be able to work with a CGFX person sometime to get the whole thing into an animation. For now this is all I've got.

If there is anything I've missed then just ask ...

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Every answer I give is as how it happened. If I wasn't certain, or didn't recall, I'd say so. Everyone has certain things they never forget. Many people can remember certain things from a very young age very clearly. I have brief recollections of things from much younger than that. Is your memory really so bad you don't remember things from your teen years or childhood?

Have you learned enough about how fallible and malleable human memory is to retract this?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

To be fair minded, coming from a helpful cooperative skeptic: There is exactly the same evidence supporting the notion that some god hates you and planted a vision of a UFO in your mind so you would blather about it on the Internet decades later and make yourself look foolish, as there is to support the notion that you actually did see something that could reasonably be explained as aliens. Why do you choose to have faith in one of those silly explanations and not the other?

 

[ufology]

To be fair minded, coming from a helpful cooperative skeptic: There is exactly the same evidence supporting the notion that some god hates you and planted a vision of a UFO in your mind so you would blather about it on the Internet decades later and make yourself look foolish, as there is to support the notion that you actually did see something that could reasonably be explained as aliens. Why do you choose to have faith in one of those silly explanations and not the other?

Q. Why do you choose to have faith in one of those silly explanations ( God vs Aliens ) and not the other?
A. I've never seen God.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

If there is anything I've missed then just ask ...

j.r.

Sonic booms.

 

[Akhenaten]

Q. Why do you choose to have faith in one of those silly explanations ( God vs Aliens ) and not the other?
A. I've never seen God.

j.r.

You've never seen any aliens either.

 

[Stray Cat]

To answer in more detail on the distances, particularly the vertical rise, I took into account that the object had landed on the bench overlooking the lake and that the mountain elevations were from the valley floor, therefore the distances in fractions are not from the lake, but from a spot above the lake,

So more details added to the story... go figure.
It's a shame that your "presenting accurate, objective, and verifiable information" has involved presenting inaccurate, subjective and unverifiable* information and that you failed in "cross checking facts and eliminating redundant data" which are a "natural part of the distillation process"


*Except when certain details have been attempted to be verified and found to be inaccurate.

As for the number in feet I used here on the forum that don't match up, it was just a bad on the fly metric conversion or possibly I had meant to say yards, but it was just due to the haste of a forum response.

So more failure to cross checking facts then.
Remember the other day when I got a conversion wrong and as soon as you pointed it out I held my hands up and could instantly tell you how I had made my mistake?
If you don't know what your mistake was, there is no chance you'll ever learn from it and you don't seem too interested in finding out how you made the mistakes, only covering for them.
With you it's "maybe this" or "maybe that".

With this in mind, are you sure about "Given these factors, the USI website consistently provides the most trustworthy UFO related information available."
Because your performance here doesn't instill me with confidence in your ability to provide trustworthy UFO information.

 

[ufology]

Sonic booms.

There was no sonic boom. I don't know why. Any proposed reason would be pure speculation based on technology that we haven't even shown to be plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ).

j.r.