UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

Gravity really doesn't have anything to do with the physical properties of a body displacing air and creating the shockwave that causes a sonic boom. We can suppose that it does, but in fact such conditions are merely suppository in nature.

The entire story smells like a big, fat suppository.

Wait--I think I've figured it out:

In the absence of gravity, there's no force holding the sound waves down near the ground, so they'd just float upward into the sky until a big enough breeze came by to blow the sound away and disperse it.

If you can't imagine how that would work, then it's your own fault for not having the proper skill set.

 

[Sledge]

And that's why there's no sound in space! There's no gravity to hold the sound down, so it just drifts away.

 

[GeeMack]

Careful with your pseudoscience there. A sonic boom is dependent on the production of a shock wave. A system capable of [...]

... doing anything any "ufologist" makes up can sidestep objective reality and still qualify as...

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

... the "truth".

​

 

[John Albert]

I think I just found the topic for my doctoral thesis in ufology!

All I can say is, it's a good thing I'll never have to submit it for peer review. That whole process is such a big waste of time, it only gets in the way of selling books.

 

[Akhenaten]

And that's why there's no sound in space! There's no gravity to hold the sound down, so it just drifts away.

Sounds on the Moon are only one fifth as loud as they are on Earth.

 

[Sledge]

Sounds on Jupiter travel too fast to be heard.

I think.

This is getting confusing.

 

[John Albert]

Seriously you guys, all you're doing is making proclamations and unfounded assertions.

"We've" already established that ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience, so your attempts to hold it to any measure of credibility whatsoever are rigid and unproductive in discerning the Truth that ET are living among us here on Earth piloting blimps and squid boats.

 

[Stray Cat]

[insert really funny joke here]...

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered thinking of one myself.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Just because I don’t cite a reference for anyone who might have investigated the Rogue River case also having recognised that size estimates in a clear blue sky can be unreliable - my application is somehow suspect?

…or is it that you have simply failed to look up the reference sources I gave you - to discover the underlying perceptual principles for yourself?

Do you intend to argue with the principle? Do you not understand it? What is it AstroP?

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).

What on earth are you talking about? What “selectively apply”? Have you not read any of my detailed explanations or examples in my preceding posts? What is it that you do not understand about those explanations and examples? You never quote them – so have you even read them? What do you want AstroP?

Either you simply do not understand the perceptual principles involved – and for a self- proclaimed amateur astronomer I find it extremely hard to believe that you would not have at least some conception of what I am talking about – or you are deliberately attempting to obfuscate – and that merely because you have dug yourself into a hole and cannot admit when you are wrong?

So what is it AstroP? What do you not understand here? I am almost at a complete loss as to how to respond rationally to you in respect of this subject.

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.

What do you mean? You never answer my questions about whether you believe the principle that the estimation of size in a clear blue sky is unreliable… or whether if such observational conditions exist in a UFO case then the principle will apply…

So why don’t you simply answer the question above and perhaps then you will be able to articulate your position rather more coherently?

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.

Do you not understand the meaning of “ in principle”? IN PRINCIPLE you can test observers for perceptual reliability - and I have just supplied you a reference for that. IN PRINCIPLE you can use perceptual and cognitive factors to test reports for reliability - and I have given you references for that (plus a number of applied and detailed examples). What don’t you get about that?

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

LOL. You want me to assess an unknown report from a month’s worth of reports from two databases? No way AstroP – I am not going to spend my time researching and presenting reports from such databases only to have you reject them. YOU pick a report and we’ll go from there. YOU claimed the principles do not (and cannot be) applied. YOU wanted a case for assessment. YOU pick that case.

I am not the one claiming to be conducting science.

Yes you are. “I am an amateur astronomer and I conduct science” is your claim. I have never claimed to be anything at all (well I did once, in a moment of rashness, claim to be a qualified scientist, which I am – but of course the evidence for that would mean I would have to reveal who I am – and given the level of vitriol and abuse that has been directed toward me in this forum - I am simply not prepared to do that – I have a family to protect and I do not want to expose them to such – even potentially).

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.

Again: You have never answered my questions about whether you believe the principle that the estimation of size in a clear blue sky is unreliable… or whether if such observational conditions are found to exist in a UFO report then the principle will apply…

Why don’t you answer that simple question and we can take it from there?

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.

I simply don’t care what label, in your opinion, your apply to what I am doing. What matters is whether the principles, the evidence and the logic is sound – and you have not demonstrated by evidence or logical argument that they are not sound.

AstroP: No matter how many arguments by proclamation you put forward; no matter how many unfounded assertions; no matter how much misrepresentation; no matter how many ad hominems; no matter how much obfuscation; no matter how many misleading statements you might make – I will simply respond with the facts, the evidence and the logical argument every time.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Blimp-Comparison.jpg[/qimg]

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?

Stray Cat – The witnesses, one of whom was a technical draftsman - and if you had read the case report (here (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)) you would know that - described a circular object – like a coin or pancake.

The technical draftsman drew the object they all observed.

Imagine a coin with a small fin on the upper surface and with the tail end of the fin meeting the edge of the coin.

In the first drawing imagine you are looking at that coin from underneath as it crosses your field of view at aright angles.

In the second drawing, imagine you are looking at that coin precisely edge on, but now the motion is into the page at a slight angle away from you (as indicated by the angle of the arrow in the drawing).

I can understand your initial confusion about what those drawings represent (after all, they are very sophisticated three dimensional representations - and lay people, such as you have demonstrated yourself to be in this context, simply might not initially understand the intended perspective -as clearly, initially, you did not) – but your continual misrepresentation of those drawings - even after the correct perspective on them has been drawn to your attention – simply beggars belief.

 

[Akhenaten]

..

_Boom!​

 

[Stray Cat]

I can't hear it, I can't hear it, I can't hear it.

 

[Stray Cat]

No Rramjet, a draftsman knows how to unambiguously draw perspective and depth.

And as you know, I am not a lay person at all, I am a professional graphic designer with 30 years experience of illustrating stuff.

 

[Akhenaten]

Stray Cat – The witnesses, one of whom was a technical draftsman - and if you had read the case report (here (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)) you would know that - described a circular object – like a coin or pancake.

The object in the drawings looks nothing like either of those things.

The technical draftsman drew the object they all observed.

Yes. A blimp.

Imagine a coin with a small fin on the upper surface and with the tail end of the fin meeting the edge of the coin.

Easily.

It would look nothing like the above drawings.

In the first drawing imagine you are looking at that coin from underneath as it crosses your field of view at aright angles.

It doesn't look anything like a coin.

In the second drawing, imagine you are looking at that coin precisely edge on, but now the motion is into the page at a slight angle away from you (as indicated by the angle of the arrow in the drawing).

It doesn't look anything like a coin.

I can understand your initial confusion about what those drawings represent (after all, they are very sophisticated three dimensional representations - and lay people, such as you have demonstrated yourself to be in this context, simply might not initially understand the intended perspective -as clearly, initially, you did not) – but your continual misrepresentation of those drawings - even after the correct perspective on them has been drawn to your attention – simply beggars belief.

"very sophisticated three dimensional representations"???

You've got to be kidding.

 

[Akhenaten]

No Rramjet, a draftsman knows how to unambiguously draw perspective and depth.

And as you know, I am not a lay person at all, I am a professional graphic designer with 30 years experience of illustrating stuff.

I get the impression that Rramjet thinks he can simply cast a few aspersions about your abilities and his adoring (yet strangely silent) fans who are reading along at home will be convinced that they've never seen any of your masterfully crafted illustrations.

 

[Rramjet]

No Rramjet, a draftsman knows how to unambiguously draw perspective and depth.

And as you know, I am not a lay person at all, I am a professional graphic designer with 30 years experience of illustrating stuff.

Okay, then with all your experience, you will be able to better represent a circular object with a small fin on its back (like a coin or pancake - for there can be no denying that was what the drawings were intended to represent), on a two dimensional surface while maintaining all the observed characteristics of the described object? No? I did not think so. Then please don't criticise something that you, with all your alleged experience, cannot do better.

 

[Akhenaten]

Okay, then with all your experience, you will be able to better represent a circular object with a small fin on its back (like a coin or pancake - for there can be no denying that was what the drawings were intended to represent), on a two dimensional surface while maintaining all the observed characteristics of the described object? No? I did not think so. Then please don't criticise something that you, with all your alleged experience, cannot do better.

Stray Cat's will be much better than a scribbler like myself can do.

One of these was not drawn by a draftsman, and so was the other​

 

[Akhenaten]

Another quick sketch to help you out, Rramjet.

As any draftsman kid with a crayon will tell you, a flat disk when viewed obliquely will appear as a perfectly symmetrical elipse.

Or do you know something that the rest of us don't?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have never claimed to be anything at all (well I did once, in a moment of rashness, claim to be a qualified scientist, which I am

No, all the evidence says that you are pseudo scientist engaged in the pseudoscience of UFOlogy. You've shown no evidence that you understand anything about the scientific method or critical thinking. You tried repeatedly to switch the burden of proof but were stopped at every turn you tried to take.

 

[23_Tauri]

Careful with your pseudoscience there. A sonic boom is dependent on the production of a shock wave. A system capable of maipulating gravity wouldn't have to create a shock wave. The air molecules could simply be held in place up to a point near the object and then compressed together in place to compenstae for object's volume and then decompressed behind it without any change in the surrounding air pressure ... hence no sonic boom. And maybe the plasma glow or whatever it was has something to do with it as well ... some sort of ionization effect. But again this is simply speculation and I make not claim to it being actual science, just something to consider.

j.r.

Boom boom!

That's funny. Really.

Is this why is space, no one can hear you scream?

I loved the bit where you brought in yet another unsubstantiated but cool sounding, sciency-sounding term with 'plasma glow' towards the end. Did it have a cloaking device too? Or maybe the aliens have mastered quantum teleportation as well, having gleaned the basics from watching too much Star Trek.

I think we might need a vacuum to come and clean up some misunderstandings, ufology.

 

[Rramjet]

Another quick sketch to help you out, Rramjet.

As any draftsman kid with a crayon will tell you, a flat disk when viewed obliquely will appear as a perfectly symmetrical elipse.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/FlyingCoin2.jpg[/qimg]​

Or do you know something that the rest of us don't?

Only that the bottom of the object was not flat and thus the ellipse dawn by the draftsman is slightly distorted on the underside to indicate that.

Oh and this…

“On June 24, a month after the sighting, Agent Brooks interviewed Mr. XXX (We’ll call him “Mr. B”) who worked in the Drafting Section of the National Advisory Committee, Ames Laboratory, Moffett Field.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Nice try though...