UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Wudang]

Way to miss the point. The point is that draftsmen have conventional ways of drawing things to indicate size, perspective etc (e.g plan views, end elevations etc). The sketches claimed to be by a draftsman show none of these technical attributes which is puzzling.

 

[Akhenaten]

But that is not what was observed. What the draftsman drew was an accurate as possible representation of what was observed.

Stray Cat's drawing depicts exactly what you described:

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 that respect, if I was assessing the UFO reports of the same object as submitted by the draftsman and yourself - I would have to conclude yours to be less reliable and you not to be a particularly observant witness in comparison to the draftsman and less skilled in representing your observations.

Which is a perfect demonstration of why your subjective assessments are considerably less than useless.

Your representation contains none of the detailed features of the object and gives us no sense of what the object was actually like.

It's a representation of a professionally rendered engineering drawing (such as a draftsman might produce) that illustrates exactly what you yourself described.

One could look at the draftsman’s drawings and get a good sense of the object itself. One simply cannot get that from your sketchy, overly simplistic, plan drawings. In essence yours is almost a childlike representation, unsophisticated and lacking in detail while the draftsman’s drawings contain a wealth of detailed information about the object.

"a wealth of detailed information about the object"

"childlike representation"​

You have got to be kidding.

Quite simply, based on the drawings alone, I would rely on the draftsman as a witness over you any day.

That's why nobody is taking your word for anything.

 

[EHocking]

:d i wonder if squid fishing monthly has ever had an article discussing the interplanetary capabilities of the vw beetle?

i say it would be more adequate for sfm to discuss the vw type 2 (aka kombi or bus) streamlined interplanetary capabilities...

3, 2, ....

 

[SOdhner]

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).

I can't imagine that he needs to "protect" anyone from us, but then again I've always been a defender of people's right to be anonymous for whatever reason so long as it doesn't endanger anyone.

And besides, it doesn't matter who Rramjet "really" is, unless he's a troll (and while I go back and forth on it a lot, I do tend to think he's the genuine article). Whatever his profession, we can just look at the quality and content of his arguments.

...

Hmm. Well, we would be able to, if he would actually present evidence or properly answer anyone's questions rather than just dismiss them without explanation, ignore them, or lie and say he's already addressed them.

How many cases have we covered at this point? It's hard to count because some have been thrown out there but not really discussed, and others have come back with big breaks in-between. In addition to that, I didn't join in the discussion until the Cowgill letter.

At any rate, there are multiple cases that have been seriously looked at. For all of them Rramjet has declared they "defy mundane explanation" thereby clearly and deliberately implying that the answer must not be mundane. He has never shown that this is justified, nor has he detailed any way that he could even come to that conclusion. (He would refer to his own proclamation as an "unfounded assertion" if someone else said it - and in fact has!)

Also in all these cases, when a mundane explanation is put forth Rramjet declares it implausible. His standards, going off of the things that he does and does not find plausible, seem to be: "If it does not violate known laws of physics and is therefore at least theoretically possible - and if it supports my position - then it is plausible. Everything else is not plausible."

Also in all these cases, when errors in his reasoning are pointed out (he got the facts of the case wrong, there is ample evidence that the mundane explanation is plausible, witnesses are revealed to be unreliable, his evidence for the non-mundane is shown to be scientifically inaccurate) he uses a few predictable steps. He first claims that those who disagree with him are wrong, and cites something that doesn't actually support him or cites the original claim as if it has now been rendered correct. He then insists that the points have been addressed, and if it is shown that this is incorrect he just ignores the poster. If that doesn't work, he attempts to start over, re-stating his arguments without actually addressing the criticism. Failing that, he moves on to another case.

The title is "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" and so far all we've seen is that the research is shoddy and mostly wishful thinking, and the evidence is subjective when it exists at all.

Rramjet, rather than posting garbage case after garbage case, do you have anything at all that actually would count as research or evidence to someone who uses critical thinking skills?

 

[EHocking]

But that is not what was observed. What the draftsman drew was an accurate as possible representation of what was observed.

In that respect, if I was assessing the UFO reports of the same object as submitted by the draftsman and yourself - I would have to conclude yours to be less reliable and you not to be a particularly observant witness in comparison to the draftsman and less skilled in representing your observations.

Your representation contains none of the detailed features of the object and gives us no sense of what the object was actually like. One could look at the draftsman’s drawings and get a good sense of the object itself. One simply cannot get that from your sketchy, overly simplistic, plan drawings. In essence yours is almost a childlike representation, unsophisticated and lacking in detail while the draftsman’s drawings contain a wealth of detailed information about the object. Quite simply, based on the drawings alone, I would rely on the draftsman as a witness over you any day.

Way to ignore the evidence that the witness to the event who drew the illustrations in the report was NOT the draftsman.

 

[RoboTimbo]

"childlike representation"​

You have got to be kidding.

Obviously what he meant was that he had given a childlike description of a blimp. Sort of like a childlike pretense of being a scientist.

That's why nobody is taking your word for anything.

I have to take exception to this. I do believe Rramjet when he admitted that his research ability was so shoddy and substandard that his unfounded assertions that any UFO claims defy plausible mundane explanation is no more than his dishonest wishful thinking seen through his agenda driven biases. I only believe that because that's the only thing for which he has actually presented evidence. Remember his proudly squalling about Delphos defying plausible mundane explanations and his subsequent climb down when overwhelming evidence of other HOAXING attemtps was shown? He won't soon forget his shame in that incident.

 

[tsig]

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).


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.


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).


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.


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.


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!


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 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.


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.


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.

Since you can't prove it wasn't a blimp. I say blimp.

 

[Rramjet]

In reference to AstroP’s post here: (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7416020#post7416020):

I stated:
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

However, when it comes to Rogue River:

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). (and) they also had reference to the terrain surrounding them…

All of those visual cues taken singly will not be able to provide a particularly reliable size estimate. However, when taken together they provide a better representation than any single factor could – especially considering they had reference to the surrounding terrain. Nevertheless the size of the object as reported by the witnesses ranged from 25 feet to 65 feet – it is also interesting to note that the witnesses aided by binoculars both estimated around 30 feet, while the witnesses unaided by binoculars estimated around double that.

What we can then say is that the observations made against a clear blue sky definitely contributed to some unreliability in the estimates – and that explains the range of size estimates we get (it also indicates that the witnesses did not collude in their statements beforehand – suggesting hoax is not a plausible explanation). Nevertheless given the other visual cues that were available we can say that the size would hardly be likely to be less than 20 odd feet or more than 100. There are of course other cues as to the reliability of those estimates that would suggest that around 30 odd feet would be a reasonable estimate.

Now we return to previous statements I have made that AstroP quotes – this time on the topic of time estimates:

However, in the context of an event like Rogue River, exactly the opposite occurs. Here the witnesses are not only busy trying to determine what the object might be, they were probably somewhat excited that they could not identify it and would have been pondering what THAT meant. In THAT context, as the research has shown, time “speeds” up. That is the observer believes a shorter interval has passed than reality. THAT is the research. THOSE are the findings.

What I meant of course is that when people are excited, perceived time varies from actual time where for example the witness might estimate 30 seconds perceived time, while in fact a minute has passed. That is, to an excited observer, time seems to pass quickly and they estimate a shorter interval than is actually the case – they estimate 10 minutes while 20 may have passed. To a concentrating observer time passes quickly – they estimate a shorter interval than is actually the case – they estimate 10 minutes while 20 may have passed. The same with a busy observer. Simply, the more our attention is absorbed by a task, the greater the underestimate of time will be.

Anyone who has been excited or busy or absorbed in a task will be able to confirm that basic fact. AstroP then qutes Loftus in seeming opposition to that. So what is Loftus talking about when she seems to suggest the opposite might occur?

Both males and females overestimated the amount of time they thought they had viewed the target. Females reported that they had viewed him for an average of twenty-five seconds while males claimed it had been seven seconds on the average. Thus we have ample evidence that people overestimate the amount of time that a complex event takes. Furthermore, there is evidence that when a person is feeling stress or anxiety, the tendency to overestimate the passage of time is increased even further

It must be noted that AstroP has once again not provided a source for this quotation. What does he want to hide from us about that quote? Nor does he provide the critical context in which Loftus’ findings were made – Ah, so that’s what he wants to hide - it was of course:

In order to study the effects of eyewitness testimony in a realistic setting, Buckhout and his colleagues staged and assault on a california state university campus (Buckhout 1977; Buckhout et. al. 1975). A distraught student "attacked" a professor in front of 141 witnesses.

I did however reply to that:

“ And so it is PRECISELY as I contended. In traumatic events, subjective time is dilated (slowed). In exiting or otherwise normal, but busy events, time is compressed. This is exactly as the research has found and also exactly as common conception (or folklaw) suggests it is so. So my contention that in an event like Rogue River, where "busyness" is apparent (trying to work out what the object is) plus a degree of excitement (what the hell IS that thing?) actually compressed subjective time, making the duration seem shorter than it actually was.”

Once again common experience supports this. How often do you hear people involved in traumatic events claim that seconds seemed to pass like hours (or words to that effect)?

AstroP has tried his best to make out there is an inconsistency in my statements on the matter…

On my statements:

What Rramjet says here is that if somebody says it took 5 minutes, then it must have been more like 10 minutes. (note the lack of any supporting documentation)

In reference to Loftus:

This means when a witness states it took 5 minutes it was probably less than that. That is the exact opposite of what Rramjet says his unknown research states.

And the false conclusion:

You selectively read what you wanted to read even though your conclusion is 180 degrees out of phase with what Loftus stated.

…clearly there are no inconsistencies in my statements - as demonstrated above.
…and of course if you do as he does and snip things out of their contextual whole and also do not provide context for comparator statements, you can make out that even the most saintly of persons are evil. It is an utterly disingenuous tactic and I hope the above has simply shown up AstroP’s tactics for what they actually are.

 

[tsig]

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.

Taken up mind reading now?

 

[Astrophotographer]

All of those visual cues taken singly will not be able to provide a particularly reliable size estimate. However, when taken together they provide a better representation than any single factor could – especially considering they had reference to the surrounding terrain. Nevertheless the size of the object as reported by the witnesses ranged from 25 feet to 65 feet – it is also interesting to note that the witnesses aided by binoculars both estimated around 30 feet, while the witnesses unaided by binoculars estimated around double that.

Once again, you fail to present anything that supports these conclusions and ensure that these witnesses are reliable. I see no effort to present how the principles of perception apply here. Additionally, do you still think that you reference surrounding terrain will allow somebody to judge sizes/distances/speeds of something in the sky (unless the object passed in front of that terrain)? Where do the principles of perception state this is possible?

Big snip

It must be noted that AstroP has once again not provided a source for this quotation. What does he want to hide from us about that quote? Nor does he provide the critical context in which Loftus’ findings were made – Ah, so that’s what he wants to hide - it was of course:

I gave the source but you clipped it off.

Both males and females overestimated the amount of time they thought they had viewed the target. Females reported that they had viewed him for an average of twenty-five seconds while males claimed it had been seven seconds on the average. Thus we have ample evidence that people overestimate the amount of time that a complex event takes. Furthermore, there is evidence that when a person is feeling stress or anxiety, the tendency to overestimate the passage of time is increased even further (Sarason and Stoops 1978)...... (Loftus Eyewitness testimony 30-31) Post 2277

The bold part is the section you seemed to intentionally remove to paint a certain picture. Why am I not surprised?

Once again common experience supports this. How often do you hear people involved in traumatic events claim that seconds seemed to pass like hours (or words to that effect)?

You use "the common experience" vice what was shown in the study. That being people overestimate time and not underestimate it as you claimed. I am not surprised that you would draw such an inaccurate conclusion.

..you can make out that even the most saintly of persons are evil. It is an utterly disingenuous tactic and I hope the above has simply shown up AstroP’s tactics for what they actually are.

Evil??? Wow....if that isn't a step in the direction of being nasty....BTW, Is snipping the reference I gave off and then stating I did not give a reference being honest? I guess that goes right next to the quote you stated I made but didn't about conducting science because I was an amateur astronomer.

Let us know when you get done with analyzing the database.

 

[Jono74]

EHocking - thanks - I havent looked at the site, but will do so when time permits later today. Oh no... I hope Im not going to find the tings there that you listed...

 

[John Albert]

I say it would be more adequate for SFM to discuss the VW Type 2 (AKA Kombi or Bus) streamlined interplanetary capabilities...

That's the "generation ship" immortalized by The Who in such songs as "The Magic Bus" and "My Generation."

 

[Stray Cat]

3, 2, ....

Blast off!!

What happened to that rule I used to have about not doing requests?

 

[George 152]

Boom boom! [qimg]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/childrens70s_basil_brush_gal.jpg[/qimg]

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.

Ah. some-one with a discerning taste in puppets

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thank you, MST3K, for anticipating the need for a 50,000 mph VW bus that doesn't create a sonic boom due to its anti-gravity drive.

 

[Agatha]

Blast off!!

<snip for sheer awesomeness>
What happened to that rule I used to have about not doing requests?

Chapeaux!

 

[Stray Cat]

But that is not what was observed.

I know that's not what he obsevered... It is however an accurate drawing of what he desribed from the memory of his position on an unstable boat in the estuary of a river, whilst looking through some rather standard binoculars on a hazy day.

What the draftsman drew was an accurate as possible representation of what was observed.

Apart from the fact that he wasn't a draftsman, no it is not an accurate representation. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion about it.
As his drawing leaves it open to ambiguity, it is not a good drawing.
Mine on the other hand, leaves no doubt what-so-ever as to the shape it represents.

In that respect, if I was assessing the UFO reports of the same object as submitted by the draftsman and yourself - I would have to conclude yours to be less reliable and you not to be a particularly observant witness in comparison to the draftsman and less skilled in representing your observations.

Then it's lucky the world doesn't rely on your opinion about stuff.

Your representation contains none of the detailed features of the object and gives us no sense of what the object was actually like.

There is only so much trouble I'll go to Rramjet in order to make a point.
There is ample room on the drawing for details to be added, it was a simple demonstration of how one can unambiguously draw a quick drawing to better represent a shape, something a draftsman would know and understand very well.
That's why draftsmen/architects/engineers etc. use exactly these kinds of drawings all the time.

One could look at the draftsman’s drawings and get a good sense of the object itself.

Except what shape it was.

One simply cannot get that from your sketchy, overly simplistic, plan drawings.

Lol.

In essence yours is almost a childlike representation, unsophisticated and lacking in detail while the draftsman’s drawings contain a wealth of detailed information about the object.

Except what shape it was.

Quite simply, based on the drawings alone, I would rely on the draftsman as a witness over you any day.

If only he was a draftsman.

But on the bright side, we can add 'draftsmen' to that list of people you think are reliable (even when they aren't draftsmen). Do they have to be wearing a uniform whilst drafting or will jogging pants and a T shirt be OK?

 

[ufology]

Id still like to discuss whatever it was you saw. First up - I need to know if you are one of those indviduals who are 'magnets' for these type of things/ufo sightings, or was this a one off, or are there one or more?

Am I a "UFO magnet"? I've had more weird experiences over the years than most people, but it's probably just coincidental, and this one UFO sighting is the only one I don't have any other explanation for other than alien technology and/or intelligence. The other sightings I've had were probably manmade objects, most likely the ISS and/or satellites. BTW, objects in low Earth Orbit are at least 160 Km up and are illuminated only by reflected sunlight, so the critics might want to take that into consideration before they say it isn't possible to see a brightly illuminated object only 25Km away.

j.r.

 

[Sledge]

Am I a "UFO magnet"?

It seems more likely that you just jump to conclusions more than most people.

 

[Audible Click]

The step by step guide for all your anti-gravity needs.