UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

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

Well, I guess if you say it is not plausible then I guess it is so. Oh wait, you appear to be a non-scientist claiming to be a scientist (who's field of expertise apparently has nothing to do with this sort of analysis). I guess your opinion is not worth much then. I think I will go with the panel of scientists (including a nobel prize winner) who disagree with that opinion and what the data from the film really shows.

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

They (an entire panel of well respected scientists!) stated it was not a good duplicate. It was a copy for goodness sakes. That alone will introduce errors. Any good scientist would understand that. I think that is adequate enough to question the measurements as being accurate. Feel free to demonstrate the copy was a good one that it did not affect the measurements.

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.

These were experts in the field (I believe Dr. Page was one of those who pointed this out since he was one of the astronomers on the panel) who were critical of the analysis and the measurements. They pointed out where errors were made but you are just ignoring them in favor of your desired conclusion. Just keep pressing that “I believe” button. It seems to be working for you quite well. As for Swords, his comments are biased because he is a member of the UFO community and he is not an expert on such analyses. He did not examine the film himself. These scientists did see the films. His OPINION is worthless.

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.

Sorry…He used the values made by those who did the measurements and demonstrated they were consistent with the Seagull hypothesis. Can you use these same values to demonstrate they aren’t birds? I don’t think you can.

I claimed that we may use the principles of perception to assess reliability in UFO cases.

And here is your chance to prove that claim. The database awaits your assessment.

I told you, that ain’t gonna happen. Either you have a case we might analyse or you don’t.

I just hear a lot of excuses being made. It certainly isn't a question of having enough time to examine them since you spend a great deal of time rehashing these old cases here. I have roughly 400 new raw cases for you to examine. What is stopping you? This is a chance to demonstrate what you claim you can do.

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

I have proposed them. Apparently, you are uninterested in performing real research on the subject. Cutting and pasting the arguments from UFO websites is nothing more than being a parrot or a sock puppet for these websites. It is not scientific and it requires no thought or effort on you part.

 

[R.A.F.]

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

Seems like the perfect choice of words for someone seeking to avoid that burden.

 

[Access Denied]

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.

I tend to agree, my first impression was a possible misperception of a meteor breaking up (fireballs) and skipping down low on the horizon from their perspective but that may be ruled out with a closer examination of the case however this from an article written by the pilots (from your link, thanks) for TRUE Magazine doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in their objectivity in this case…

We Flew Above Flying Saucers
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=94

[caution, link spawns popups]

Though we don't know what they were, what they were doing or where they came from, we are certain in our minds that they were intelligently operated craft from somewhere other than this planet.

And the last sentence…

One thing we know: mankind has a lot of lessons to learn . . . from somebody.

I hate to say it but that kind of certainty is always a red flag in my opinion.

[shrugs]

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, as you've continued to fail to answer my question about using your version of a process of elimination, I'll assume that you have and are just too embarrassed by your previous documented failures using it to admit to it.

I'll also have to assume that your previous documented failures in your research abilty is why you are now too embarrassed to actually attempt research at all in a case that isn't spoon fed to you by your creduloid UFO web sites.

Thank goodness we have a real researcher in Astrophotographer who is freely giving you an education. Let's hope that you are gracious enough to thank him.

 

[TjW]

I tend to agree, my first impression was a possible misperception of a meteor breaking up (fireballs) and skipping down low on the horizon from their perspective but that may be ruled out with a closer examination of the case however this from an article written by the pilots (from your link, thanks) for TRUE Magazine doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in their objectivity in this case…

We Flew Above Flying Saucers
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=94

[caution, link spawns popups]


And the last sentence…


I hate to say it but that kind of certainty is always a red flag in my opinion.

[shrugs]

In all fairness to the pilots, that may or may not have been a direct quote from the pilots. This was from True magazine in the 60's, and I remember reading True while at the barber shop with my dad. It wasn't quite Weekly World News, but as I recall, the editorial position could be characterized as not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
They also ran stories on Bigfoot.

 

[Stray Cat]

Aaah good... I see the "draftsman" issue has now been resolved.
I don't feel a need to reply to your nonsense evaluation of my objectives as I'm confident enough that anyone reading this thread will realise your response is not an honest reflection of them.

So, on to the next errr... flying saucer story.

Actually you are not “right”.

“Examination under a microscope shows the camera to be well focussed as the edges of the images are sharp and clear on many of the properly exposed frames.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-439)​

Errr... actually I am right.
You know that things which are out of focus can have sharp edges right?

But hey... I remember I never even mentioned the focus. What I actually said was:

I'm guessing what I'll see on the video is an ambiguous blob on some grainy film

Which oddly enough, is exactly what can be seen on the footage (with the exception that there is more than one ambiguous blob).

However, the fact that, by your own admission, you have not even bothered to view the film or the official reports surrounding it before commenting in such a manner does not surprise me in the least.

Yes and after I had made that prediction post, I went and watched the WooTube link you provided and read some stuff about it.

It seems to represent the typical UFO debunker mindset (“Don’t bother me with the facts, don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”).

lol!!!

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry, can't let this one pass...

NOTE: I've come up with theory that is probably as plausible as Klass' plasma discharge theory, but it would require science that I don't think we had back then. It could probably be done with technology we could build today though, and possibly explain some of the hard to resolve crop circle formations, particularly those that have suggested some sort of radiation exposure.

1) What hard to resolve crop circle formations?
2) Please provide evidence of measured and verified radiation exposure

ETA: But you might want to take it the Crop Circle thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182518

 

[ufology]

Sorry, can't let this one pass...

1) What hard to resolve crop circle formations?
2) Please provide evidence of measured and verified radiation exposure

ETA: But you might want to take it the Crop Circle thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182518

To answer the question above, the hard to resolve crop circle formations are the ones that according to the cereologists were very complex and formed in too short a time to have been done with conventional trampling methods, and in addition show evidence of radiation exposure similar to the effect of microwaves. The evidence is according to studies by the cereologists, and I'm not here to discuss that. If you want to know more about those incidents you'll have to ask them or look it up for yourself. Like you said, better discussed in the crop circles thread.

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

To answer the question above, the hard to resolve crop circle formations are the ones that according to the cereologists were very complex and formed in too short a time to have been done with conventional trampling methods, and in addition show evidence of radiation exposure similar to the effect of microwaves.

j.r.

Is cereology a pseudoscience? Discuss.

Shall we create a new thread for this, ufology, because it doesn't really fit in with extraterrtrials or 'crop circle debunking help needed'. Or just continue here? *shrugs*

So, which formations and which cerealogists would that be then, ufology?

 

[GeeMack]

To answer the question above, the hard to resolve crop circle formations are the ones that according to the cereologists were very complex and formed in too short a time to have been done with conventional trampling methods, and in addition show evidence of radiation exposure similar to the effect of microwaves. The evidence is according to studies by the cereologists, and I'm not here to discuss that. If you want to know more about those incidents you'll have to ask them or look it up for yourself. Like you said, better discussed in the crop circles thread.

So an argument from ignorance again. Did you look that up yet? You know, educational advice from a cooperative helpful skeptic and all.

Oh, and "cereologists"? Really? A bunch of pseudoscientists falling for the nonsense of another bunch of pseudoscientsts. And none of them realize how completely ridiculous the fantasy is?

 

[RoboTimbo]

To answer the question above, the hard to resolve crop circle formations are the ones that according to the cereologists were very complex and formed in too short a time to have been done with conventional trampling methods, and in addition show evidence of radiation exposure similar to the effect of microwaves. The evidence is according to studies by the cereologists, and I'm not here to discuss that. If you want to know more about those incidents you'll have to ask them or look it up for yourself. Like you said, better discussed in the crop circles thread.

j.r.

Would it be appropriate for Crop Circlology to have a null hypothesis?

 

[Stray Cat]

If you want to know more about those incidents you'll have to ask them or look it up for yourself. Like you said, better discussed in the crop circles thread.

Again you underestimate your audience.

I already know about all "those incidents" (and probably lots more that you are not aware of)
I also know that they are inaccurate, misleading and based upon exactly the same faulty logic and pseudo scientific methodology as Flying Saucery is.

So it's no surprise to me to find that you can "come up with a theory as plausable as Klass' plasma discharge theory" which is based entirely upon fiction which would also explain some non existent stuff that some faulty crop circle bloke wrote in an article at some point (Levengood or Hasselhof but take your pick from the bunch of them).

 

[ufology]

So an argument from ignorance again. Did you look that up yet? You know, educational advice from a cooperative helpful skeptic and all.

Oh, and "cereologists"? Really? A bunch of pseudoscientists falling for the nonsense of another bunch of pseudoscientsts. And none of them realize how completely ridiculous the fantasy is?

Hey it's their thing ( the cereologists ), and all I did was envision a plausible explanation for what they say isn't possible using human technology. I don't claim that it's science or fact, but if I can imagine how it could be done with human technology, then why resort to aliens? Similar questions are posed here all the time by the skeptics, so why would you have a problem with it? Maybe some bias there Gee because I'm usually on the other side of fence?

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

So an argument from ignorance again. Did you look that up yet? You know, educational advice from a cooperative helpful skeptic and all.

Oh, and "cereologists"? Really? A bunch of pseudoscientists falling for the nonsense of another bunch of pseudoscientsts. And none of them realize how completely ridiculous the fantasy is?

Ooh, give 'im a chance, GeeMack, who knows what unexplainable acts of crop-crunching ufology might come up with.

Would it be appropriate for Crop Circlology to have a null hypothesis?

Yes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

but if I can imagine how it could be done with human technology, then why resort to aliens?

If only you could extrapolate.

 

[23_Tauri]

Hey it's their thing ( the cereologists ), and all I did was envision a plausible explanation for what they say isn't possible using human technology. I don't claim that it's science or fact, but if I can imagine how it could be done with human technology, then why resort to aliens? Similar questions are posed here all the time by the skeptics, so why would you have a problem with it? Maybe some bias there Gee because I'm usually on the other side of fence?

j.r.

No, stop avoiding the question. YOU implied that there were examples of crop circles that could not possibly be made by human beings. Now, tell which ones you are referring to. Don't tell me, SC or anyone else here to "go and do the research" because I think you'll find that we (I say 'we', others here have done loads more than me) have done the reading.

Now, back to that unexplainable crop circle you keep referring to...

ps: by the way, 'their thing' is pseudoscience and bolstering their belief in aliens, i.e. they start from the premise that "these crop circles couldn't possibly be made by human beings". Do you see the problem with that, ufology?

 

[Stray Cat]

Hey it's their thing ( the cereologists ), and all I did was envision a plausible explanation for what they say isn't possible using human technology. I don't claim that it's science or fact, but if I can imagine how it could be done with human technology, then why resort to aliens? Similar questions are posed here all the time by the skeptics, so why would you have a problem with it? Maybe some bias there Gee because I'm usually on the other side of fence?

Aaaaah, you thought you were being sceptical.

So scepticism means: Believing what stuff people say and then providing a just as outlandish counter argument.

No.

The sceptical PoV is arrived after getting all the facts. If you don't have all the facts concerning crop circles (and it's evidence that you don't) and you come up with "theories" you are not being sceptical at all.

 

[ufology]

If only you could extrapolate.

I dun dont need me no extra polates ... alredy got me too meny polates as it is ... an wonna theeze daze I'm gonna have me a geerage sale an git rid of 'em along with that ole wafflin' iron an battry powerd drink mixer ... them things never did wurk right ... also got a 4 speed tranny frum a '72 442 if yer intrested ... it'l make yer car go reel fast.

 

[ufology]

No, stop avoiding the question. YOU implied that there were examples of crop circles that could not possibly be made by human beings. Now, tell which ones you are referring to. Don't tell me, SC or anyone else here to "go and do the research" because I think you'll find that we (I say 'we', others here have done loads more than me) have done the reading.

Now, back to that unexplainable crop circle you keep referring to...

ps: by the way, 'their thing' is pseudoscience and bolstering their belief in aliens, i.e. they start from the premise that "these crop circles couldn't possibly be made by human beings". Do you see the problem with that, ufology?

Sorry but you really need to take this over to the crop circle thread.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I dun dont need me no extra polates ... alredy got me too meny polates as it is ... an wonna theeze daze I'm gonna have me a geerage sale an git rid of 'em along with that ole wafflin' iron an battry powerd drink mixer ... them things never did wurk right ... also got a 4 speed tranny frum a '72 442 if yer intrested ... it'l make yer car go reel fast.

Yes, it might be better if you were to wait for instructions from Rramjet on how to answer.