UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, you failed to answer this.

Yes, finally. At least you properly qualified it by saying it is simply your belief.

Did you use your version of a process of elimination on it?

This time I'll preface it by asking that you answer without weasel words. Yes or no will be adequate.

 

[Astrophotographer]

That’s a strawman argument AstroP. No-one is claiming “alien spaceships” here. All that is being claimed is that the case defies plausible mundane explanation.

But there is a plausible explanation that you have not eliminated. Apparently, you have problems recognizing this.

They did not say they were “wrong” at all! They simply “…could not accept the conclusions reached.”.

Why do you ignore (and fail to mention) what they actually stated about the readings:

i. Method of obtaining data of light intensity appeared faulty because of unsuitability of equipment and questionable assumptions in making averages of readings
(page 13 for the link you provided)
You also can't make readings on a duplicate copy and expect them to be reliable (especially if the duplicate had a different level of brightness associated with it). I think that is adequate enough to indicate these densitometer readings were incorrect/inaccurate (i.e. wrong).
As a result, we can conclude the analysis had flaws and can not be considered as a valid method of falsifying the seagull hypothesis by proclaiming the images were too bright.

Another strawman argument. No-one is contending that these authors are “trying to deceive the american public”. Merely that their work contains some erroneous assumptions and was not scientific in approach or application.

Really?? And who are you to preach a "scientific approach"? Since your scientific credentials have never been established, it is just your uninformed opinion, which is biased by your belief about UFOs.

I am merely noting the results of the official AF and Navy investigations. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are using it to falsify the seagull hypothesis. It is not valid.

And YOU were the one who brought up all of Hartmann’s allegedly “scientific” analyses – which of course I demonstrated were simply not scientific in the least

He actually performed measurements and analyzed the film, which is something you haven't done. Let us know when you get done with that.

LOL. Not a chance AstroP. Either you have a case we might analyse or you do not. The suggestion that you would have me trawling through a whole database of cases on the off chance I might select one suitable for your requirements is silly - it is simply not going to happen. Suggest a case AstroP and we may be able to take it from there.

And the "clucking" continues. It is your claim that you can establish which cases are reliable. I gave you a sampling of UFO reports. It is up to you to prove you can identify which ones are reliable and which ones are not. Failure to accept such a challenge indicates you really don't think you can do it and your methodolgoy, as unproven as it is, won't work.

You actions indicate that you are not really doing research as you proclaim because the only thing you rely upon is what these UFO websites have told you to think. You are nothing more than a parrot.

 

[Rramjet]

But there is a plausible explanation that you have not eliminated. Apparently, you have problems recognizing this.

Have a look at this film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page) from about 2:11.

The key factors indicating that it could not be birds is the precise “rectilinear” path and unwavering separation distance – not to mention the 28mph headwind…

“Birds” or “seagulls” is just not a plausible explanation…

Why do you ignore (and fail to mention) what they actually stated about the readings:

I was merely responding to your post and the specific point you made. You want other considerations brought in that’s fine with me.

i. Method of obtaining data of light intensity appeared faulty because of unsuitability of equipment and questionable assumptions in making averages of readings
(page 13 for the link you provided)

There is that “appeared to be” again. These people are speculating. They are in essence asking “What if…?” questions – but stating them as (almost) positive (yet for all that unfounded) assertions.

You also can't make readings on a duplicate copy and expect them to be reliable (especially if the duplicate had a different level of brightness associated with it). I think that is adequate enough to indicate these densitometer readings were incorrect/inaccurate (i.e. wrong).

Maybe- maybe not – depends on the quality of the copy. The mere possibility does not allow for a categorical conclusion of “wrong”

As a result, we can conclude the analysis had flaws and can not be considered as a valid method of falsifying the seagull hypothesis by proclaiming the images were too bright

Maybe it had flaws – maybe it did not – I do however find myself having to defer to the expertise of the analysts rather than the mere speculations of people who undertook no analysis themselves.

As Dr Swords notes: “… one feels that it is appropriate to disagree with these allegedly competent professionals, who unlike ourselves actually worked on the primary copy at the time, with some humility.” (http://www.nicap.org/utah8.htm)

Really?? And who are you to preach a "scientific approach"? Since your scientific credentials have never been established, it is just your uninformed opinion, which is biased by your belief about UFOs.

My qualifications have nothing to do with it. If there are errors and unscientific procedures being passed off as scientific – then it is legitimate for me to point that out. You should address yourself to the arguments AstroP, not to an unfounded ad hominem attack on the messenger.

You are using it to falsify the seagull hypothesis. It is not valid.

So on what scientific basis (as opposed to unfounded speculation) are you contending that the results of the official SCIENTIFIC AF and Navy investigations are not valid?

He actually performed measurements and analyzed the film, which is something you haven't done. Let us know when you get done with that.

Who? Hartmann? LOL. Perhaps you can show me where he did that? No? I did not think so. Let’s just stick to the facts shall we AstroP.

And the "clucking" continues.

So that’s what passes for “scientific” evaluation or critical assessment in your world?

It is your claim that you can establish which cases are reliable.

No. I claimed that we may use the principles of perception to assess reliability in UFO cases. It does not surprise me that you would attempt such a misrepresentation though.

I gave you a sampling of UFO reports. It is up to you to prove you can identify which ones are reliable and which ones are not.

No, you simply stated (to paraphrase) “Here are some databases, go analyse and report your results.” I told you, that ain’t gonna happen. Either you have a case we might analyse or you don’t.

Failure to accept such a challenge indicates you really don't think you can do it and your methodolgoy, as unproven as it is, won't work.

If you have a case we might assess, then propose it. Otherwise you are simply wasting your breath.

 

[Jocce]

Ummm....

How's you argument travelling there Jocce?

Learn to read. Being meant to represent a pancake shape and looking like a blimp are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Jocce]

The suggestion that you would have me trawling through a whole database of cases on the off chance I might select one suitable for your requirements is silly - it is simply not going to happen. Suggest a case AstroP and we may be able to take it from there.

Yeah well. I guess it's a lot easier to post links to tinfoil websites where someone already told you what to believe.

 

[Access Denied]

If you have a case we might assess, then propose it. Otherwise you are simply wasting your breath.

No he’s not, you proved his point. You can’t assess a case without parroting somebody else’s assessment. I know for a fact Tim can, calculations and all…

 

[ufology]

Pilot Sighting - July 14 1953

This case is pretty interesting. It comes directly from declassified USAF files. The links below only represent 2 pages of several files in the archive. Once you are into the site you can navigate back and forth to pick out more information.

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-177

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-200

 

[Rramjet]

This case is pretty interesting. It comes directly from declassified USAF files. The links below only represent 2 pages of several files in the archive. Once you are into the site you can navigate back and forth to pick out more information.

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-177

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-200

Great case ufology!

Let's see them scramble to fit a plausible mundane explanation to that one (or ignore it altogether with some snide comment or other)! LOL.

 

[ufology]

Great case ufology!

Let's see them scramble to fit a plausible mundane explanation to that one (or ignore it altogether with some snide comment or other)! LOL.

Ya it'll be interesting to see how they handle the microfilm. Some of it is provided directly by the pilot, so arguably, portions don't even qualify as anecdotal, but as a true reflection of firsthand knowledge. And the follow up investigations don't lessen the validity of the case in any way. There are a few gems like this in the microfilm, but you really have to dig.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think you're kind of forgetting who has the most invested in this crap. At the end of the day I'm content to simply say, "I don't know and neither do you, but that's OK because it doesn't matter" but you two are unable to afford yourselves that luxury. For reasons that I'm never likely to understand, you're both driven to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that some 60 year old unidentified things are in fact things that we can't identify. Well, knock yourselves out.

Eventually everyone here will grow bored with your incessant, repetitive chatter and wander off to find something more interesting to do, leaving you here to swap campfire stories and speculate about what might have been if only you'd been able to convince someone that Mars is about to attack, or whatever it is that you're fantasizing about.

Scrambling? Ignoring? Nah. I'm just here for the train smash. I'm sure you won't disappoint.

 

[Akhenaten]

Some of it is provided directly by the pilot, so arguably, portions don't even qualify as anecdotal, but as a true reflection of firsthand knowledge.

First hand knowledge of what?

 

[Pixel42]

Some of it is provided directly by the pilot, so arguably, portions don't even qualify as anecdotal, but as a true reflection of firsthand knowledge

It's firsthand knowledge to the pilot, to everybody else it's an anecdote. It beggars belief that you still haven't grasped this.

As for this case: it's an interesting 12-15 seconds of observations, there's no doubt of that. No way to tell what it was, of course. Not much else to say, really.

Here's its wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash-Fortenberry_UFO_sighting

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, having read all that I'm also quite happy to give it a rating of 'interesting'.

My first guess on reading the pilots' reports was internal cockpit reflections. My own night flying experience tells me that the damned things are nearly impossible to get rid of, but seeing that the Wiki article says that this suggestion was specifically rejected by the pilots then I'll modify my guess to external reflections - maybe from their own nav lights onto another aircraft surreptitiously flying in company with them.

Or not.

I suppose we'll never know, and I'm good with that.

 

[wollery]

Some of it is provided directly by the pilot, so arguably, portions don't even qualify as anecdotal, but as a true reflection of firsthand knowledge.

Do you have a team of comedy writers or do you come up with your own material?

 

[ufology]

It's firsthand knowledge to the pilot, to everybody else it's an anecdote. It beggars belief that you still haven't grasped this.

As for this case: it's an interesting 12-15 seconds of observations, there's no doubt of that. No way to tell what it was, of course. Not much else to say, really.

Here's its wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash-Fortenberry_UFO_sighting

Just to clarify, I did say a "true refection of firsthand experience", and "arguably" not anecdotal. Why do I say "arguably"? Because we are looking at a microfilm of the pilot's own words as written and signed by him, they must have been in his mind at the time they were written and therefore were not annecdotal to him, and because there is no practical difference at all between what was in his mind and what he put in writing, the information has exactly the same value ... therefore equivalency applies. Technically you can call it anecdotal, but for all practical purposes, it's not. When we read his words we are envisioning exactly the same words that were in his mind as a firsthand experience, not a second or thirdhand account. It is no more annecdotal than a genuine scientifc report where a scientist writes, I did this and that and observed this and that and such and such happened.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Do you have a team of comedy writers or do you come up with your own material?

I have it on good authority (the person who told me promised it wasn't an anecdote) that it's 100% original, except for some of it.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

We interrupt this board for an emergency news bulletin. This just in: All first-hand accounts are anecdotes.

Also:
Anecdotes are useless. When investigating a UFO report, you have to toss out all anecdotes before reaching a conclusion. This is apparently a huge hurdle for some people in this thread, but it must be understood. Anecdotes carry absolutely no weight whatsoever. It's sad, but it's like that.

This means that first-hand accounts are useless. It's a fact. Take any case you have. Analyze everything, but leave out all anecdotal evidence. What sort of conclusion can you reach? That's right. No aliens. No skydaddy. No OBE's. No ghosts. Everything is natural or man-made.

You won't run out of mundane explanations. Even if you did eliminate all mundane explanations, there is no logic in jumping to a conclusion such as aliens.

They would come from very far away. There is no known mechanism for space travel that far.

There is no logical reason for a spaceship to travel this far, and then fly around at night with exterior lights on. Who are they signaling? You? Me? Raël?

Ufologists can continue to gather anecdotes and have a ball. but they will neve be taken seriously by people who think critically, let alone science. Get rid of the anecdotes, stop accepting this type of evidence, and start over. Otherwise, pseudoscience is a compliment compared to what I'd call this nonsense.

 

[Pixel42]

Just to clarify, I did say a "true refection of firsthand experience", and "arguably" not anecdotal. Why do I say "arguably"? Because we are looking at a microfilm of the pilot's own words as written and signed by him, they must have been in his mind at the time they were written and therefore were not annecdotal to him, and because there is no practical difference at all between what was in his mind and what he put in writing, the information has exactly the same value ... therefore equivalency applies. Technically you can call it anecdotal, but for all practical purposes, it's not. When we read his words we are envisioning exactly the same words that were in his mind as a firsthand experience, not a second or thirdhand account.

For goodness' sake.

Person A has an experience. For person A, it's a firsthand experience.

Person A then conveys an account of that experience to person B. For person B, that account is an anecdote.

It doesn't matter whether person A conveyed the account to person B verbally, or wrote it down immediately or after thinking about it and doing some research, or engraved his damn account on golden plates. It's an anecdote. Person B has no way of knowing how accurately person A recalled what happened, what influences person A was under when he had the experience or recalled it later - for all person B knows, person A could have made the whole thing up for laughs.

It is no more annecdotal than a genuine scientifc report where a scientist writes, I did this and that and observed this and that and such and such happened.

Good grief. Is there no way of ever getting though to you how absurd you're being?

When a scientist writes down what he did and what he observed it's so that someone else can repeat the exact same steps and get the exact same result. That's science.

When a scientist writes down something he saw, a nonrepeatable experience for which he has no objective evidence, then it's an anecdote, and then it's equivalent to the pilot's experience. And no scientist would expect such an anecdote to be considered credible evidence for anything.

 

[Resume]

It is no more annecdotal than a genuine scientifc report where a scientist writes, I did this and that and observed this and that and such and such happened.

j.r.

No, that's an anecdote. A single data point. What would make it significant would be replication.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Great case ufology!

Let's see them scramble to fit a plausible mundane explanation to that one (or ignore it altogether with some snide comment or other)! LOL.

What an odd choice of words for the person who has the burden of proof. What do you and ufology think it is?