UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

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.

So how about that poster request stray? Any chance on that?

 

[23_Tauri]

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

No, it was you that came out with some ludicruous statement about plasma, why don't you answer your critics?

Let me try again: which crop circle could not have been made by humans and requires an explanation based on something other than surveyor's tape, stomper boards and some forethought?

 

[ufology]

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

Roger that.

 

[ufology]

No, it was you that came out with some ludicruous statement about plasma, why don't you answer your critics?

Let me try again: which crop circle could not have been made by humans and requires an explanation based on something other than surveyor's tape, stomper boards and some forethought?

Go ask the cereologists on the crop circle thread. We're supposed to be talking about extraterrestrials here.

 

[23_Tauri]

Go ask the cereologists on the crop circle thread. We're supposed to be talking about extraterrestrials here.

Couldn't back up your assertion, then? Forgive me, but that's lame. I don't think there are any cereologists on the crop circle thread. The only cereologist I know personally is quite disdainful of JREF.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Roger that.

You've been rather upsetting his script. That's why he was screeching so loudly whenever I asked you about a null hypothesis. Just trying to keep you from getting in trouble with him.

 

[Stray Cat]

So how about that poster request stray? Any chance on that?

Sorry you really need to take that over to the 'Stray Cat's Poster Collection' thread.

 

[ufology]

Sorry you really need to take that over to the 'Stray Cat's Poster Collection' thread.

Nice backhand there stray ... got a good laugh out of it ... thanks.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Nice backhand there stray ... got a good laugh out of it ... thanks.

j.r.

now you've finished chuckling
heres a link to 'Stray Cat's Poster Collection' thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...557&highlight='Stray+Cat's+Poster+Collection'

 

[Rramjet]

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…

If only that were true. But you lead in with the phrase “invested in this crap” – which of course reveals your true state of mind. You are simply not “content” – and as your persistent presence in this (and a number of similar threads) testifies, you are simply driven to debunk.

…but you two are unable to afford yourselves that luxury.

Actually, my stance, since the very beginning has been precisely what you erroneously claim your own position to be: I have consistently stated that my position is simply that the cases I am presenting defy plausible mundane explanation – and have always maintained that does not mean ET – meaning of course when it comes to explanations my position has always been “I don’t know and neither do you”…perhaps we should then investigate?

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.

Maybe you will never be able to understand – but others do get it. The motivation that drives us is the same that has driven mankind throughout the ages to explore his environment and to want to understand it – intellectual curiosity. What are these things? Where do they come from? Etc.

Eventually everyone here will grow bored with your incessant, repetitive chatter and wander off to find something more interesting to do…

Eventually, anything is possible…

…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.

You are of course free to speculate about “Mars attacks” (or whatever other fantasies might appeal to you) – but as far as it is possible, I wish to stick to reality and the facts, the science and the evidence.

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

LOL. You are far too predictable. Did I not say about the case ufology presented that it would be “ignore(d) altogether with some snide comment or other” ? Why yes, so I did.

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.

Does the fact that it seems to defy plausible mundane explanation not pique the slightest interest in you? A curiosity perhaps? A desire to find out what all the fuss is about?

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

Why are UFO debunkers so rusted on to Wikipedia? Do they own the organisation or something? Have they taken control of it to use for their own personal playground? The UFO debunkers continually bemoan the lack or evidence for UFOs, stating (erroneously of course) that all we have is the anecdotal evidence – yet they continually cite Wikipedia – the greatest anecdotal website in the history of mankind! It kind of beggars belief… that they would rather cite such a gossip site than go to the original source material… Wikepedia is just like a giant anecdote – it might be reliable – but often it is not.

My first guess on reading the pilots' reports was internal cockpit reflections.

Then you simply have not read the case evidence.

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.

Oh, yeah, right. (aside for the fallacious appeal to authority) - “another aircraft surreptitiously flying in company”? We need plausible mundane explanations Akhenaten – but of course so the obfuscation will begin. There will be a vigorous defence of the “other aircraft” hypothesis – despite the evidence – and it will get to the point where the debunkers will have convinced themselves that this IS the explanation while at the same time so confusing the case with mere possibilities (at the expense of plausibility) that, reading the debunker’s conceptualisations, people will begin to doubt whether Fortnenberry and Nash could even have been flying an airplane that night! LOL.

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

What we DO know is that the case defies plausible mundane explanation. And that certainly piques my interest, especially as it is not an isolated case. What are these things?

Anecdotes are useless.

Let’s clarify one thing up front:

The pilots have offered us first hand eyewitness testimony.

Such testimony does constitute anecdotal evidence.

Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that their observations were not substantially accurate. That is there is nothing in the context that would preclude the observations as related to us from being reliable.

Sure it was at night – but it was a clear night and the objects were lighted. The pilots were in a very good position to see that the objects were circular and flying in rough formation. The size is stated as an estimate only – which is understandable in the context. …and so on … we have no reason to suspect that the pilots did not observe precisely what they told us they observed.

When investigating a UFO report, you have to toss out all anecdotes before reaching a conclusion.

Actually, what you need to do is assess the reliability of the anecdotes. If we tossed out all observation evidence, then science itself could not progress.

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.

So how do you explain the pilot’s testimony then? Something caused their observations. They did not occur in a vacuum. This is what I mean by the UFO debunkers intention to obfuscate the evidence – to the point where we begin to wonder whether Fortneberry and Nash could have even been in an airplane that night…

This means that first-hand accounts are useless. It's a fact.

This is of course mere argument by (repetitive) proclamation. If you proclaim something often enough and loudly enough – then it must be true. LOL.

Take any case you have. Analyze everything, but leave out all anecdotal evidence.

This is of course typical of the UFO debunker mindset. They positively need to excise the evidence in order to maintain their believe system.

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.

That seems almost like a cry of desperation. Please don’t let it be true... Its like covering one’s eyes and ears and chanting “It’s all natural, it’s all natural, it’s all natural…”.

You won't run out of mundane explanations.

Go on then, what plausible mundane explanation have you “not run out of” for this case?

Even if you did eliminate all mundane explanations, there is no logic in jumping to a conclusion such as aliens.

While ET may be a plausible alternative explanation (nothing in science rules it out and we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings) – we still do not have any direct evidence to show that it might be true. We simply cannot conclude ET – but we are certainly free to speculate in the absence of plausible mundane explanations.

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

Yes there is – you jump in a spaceship, point it in the direction you want to go, accelerate it – and off you go. It may take time (according to our current knowledge – a great deal of time) but the universe has plenty of that it would seem.

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?

There is no logical reason for the universe itself – yet here it is. Besides, who are you to suppose to know the motivations of ET?

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.

Oh there are plenty of critically minded people, including scientists, who take UFOs very seriously indeed. That’s a fact - and no amount of you covering your eyes and ears and chanting “It’s all natural, it’s all natural…” will negate that fact.

Get rid of the anecdotes, stop accepting this type of evidence, and start over.

If anecdotes were all we had to go on, you might have the beginnings of a point (we would still have to explain the anecdotes) – but considering the supporting radar, film, photographic and physical trace evidence, then you have no point at all.

Otherwise, pseudoscience is a compliment compared to what I'd call this nonsense.

One can only label something as pseudoscientific if there is a false claim to be scientific. Can you demonstrate any such false claim?

...more later.

 

[Stray Cat]

Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that their observations were not substantially accurate. That is there is nothing in the context that would preclude the observations as related to us from being reliable.

We have plenty of reasons to believe that there is a high possibility that the observations were not substantially accurate and you know this already because it's pointed out to you countless times in this thread.

Eye witness testimony is often inaccurate.
There is no real and conclusive way to tell when it is accurate and when it is inaccurate unless there is other physical evidence with which to verify it. Like when a pilot "accurately" reports his plane is being followed by some flying saucers and he videos it with his FLIR system for instance.

 

[John Albert]

driven to debunk

I saw those guys last year on the side stage at Riot Fest. They ruled!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, my stance, since the very beginning has been precisely what you erroneously claim your own position to be: I have consistently stated that my position is simply that the cases I am presenting defy plausible mundane explanation – and have always maintained that does not mean ET – meaning of course when it comes to explanations my position has always been “I don’t know and neither do you”…perhaps we should then investigate?

And you've been incorrect every time you've erroneously asserted it, to the point that your dishonesty about it is leaving a puddle. I've used the process of elimination to rule out plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane". Unless you can think of one that I didn't? No?

Maybe you will never be able to understand – but others do get it. The motivation that drives us is the same that has driven mankind throughout the ages to explore his environment and to want to understand it – intellectual curiosity. What are these things? Where do they come from? Etc.


Eventually, anything is possible…


You are of course free to speculate about “Mars attacks” (or whatever other fantasies might appeal to you) – but as far as it is possible, I wish to stick to reality and the facts, the science and the evidence.

I suggest you start then.

LOL. You are far too predictable. Did I not say about the case ufology presented that it would be “ignore(d) altogether with some snide comment or other” ? Why yes, so I did.


Does the fact that it seems to defy plausible mundane explanation not pique the slightest interest in you? A curiosity perhaps? A desire to find out what all the fuss is about?

Does the fact that the process of elimination has ruled out plausible non-mundane explanations not pique the slightest interest in you? Have you no curiosity at all? You've leapt to your conclusion and have since surrounded your mind with immovable concrete so you can't change you mind?

Why are UFO debunkers so rusted on to Wikipedia? Do they own the organisation or something? Have they taken control of it to use for their own personal playground? The UFO debunkers continually bemoan the lack or evidence for UFOs, stating (erroneously of course) that all we have is the anecdotal evidence – yet they continually cite Wikipedia – the greatest anecdotal website in the history of mankind! It kind of beggars belief… that they would rather cite such a gossip site than go to the original source material… Wikepedia is just like a giant anecdote – it might be reliable – but often it is not.

Why are UFOlogists so stuck on pseudoscientific uncritical thinking? Why do they have to play act and make believe they are scientists? It beggars belief. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then you simply have not read the case evidence.

You've simply read too much into the case evidence. Par for the course considering your admission of your shoddy substandard "research" ability.

Oh, yeah, right. (aside for the fallacious appeal to authority) - “another aircraft surreptitiously flying in company”? We need plausible mundane explanations Akhenaten – but of course so the obfuscation will begin. There will be a vigorous defence of the “other aircraft” hypothesis – despite the evidence – and it will get to the point where the debunkers will have convinced themselves that this IS the explanation while at the same time so confusing the case with mere possibilities (at the expense of plausibility) that, reading the debunker’s conceptualisations, people will begin to doubt whether Fortnenberry and Nash could even have been flying an airplane that night! LOL.

What non-mundane explanation are you thinking is the answer, since the process of elimination has ruled out all the plausible ones?

What we DO know is that the case defies plausible mundane explanation. And that certainly piques my interest, especially as it is not an isolated case. What are these things?

Well, no. You and your pseudoscientist friends play act with your version of a process of elimination. As has been well documented in this thread, your version is fatally flawed and useless to real science. Have you forgotten your shamefully embarrassing failures with the HOAX at Delphos, Campeche, the Blimp at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle?

Let’s clarify one thing up front:

The pilots have offered us first hand eyewitness testimony.

Such testimony does constitute anecdotal evidence.

You'll have to argue that with ufology. He says it's firsthand.

Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that their observations were not substantially accurate. That is there is nothing in the context that would preclude the observations as related to us from being reliable.

Nor do we have any reason to believe them to be substantially accurate. They are unfalsifiable. Do you see the problem yet with pseudoscientists relying on anecdotes to fuel their religion like beliefs?

Sure it was at night – but it was a clear night and the objects were lighted. The pilots were in a very good position to see that the objects were circular and flying in rough formation. The size is stated as an estimate only – which is understandable in the context. …and so on … we have no reason to suspect that the pilots did not observe precisely what they told us they observed.

Nor any reason to not suspect. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable. The process of elimination has ruled out plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane".

Actually, what you need to do is assess the reliability of the anecdotes. If we tossed out all observation evidence, then science itself could not progress.

Let's look at that then. The null hypothesis is that all UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations. The process of elimination has ruled out plausible non-mundane explanations. What else do you have?

So how do you explain the pilot’s testimony then? Something caused their observations. They did not occur in a vacuum. This is what I mean by the UFO debunkers intention to obfuscate the evidence – to the point where we begin to wonder whether Fortneberry and Nash could have even been in an airplane that night…

Anecdotes are unfalsifiable but pseudoscientists hang their hat on them. What plausible non-mundane explanation can you think of that the process of elimination hasn't ruled out?

This is of course mere argument by (repetitive) proclamation. If you proclaim something often enough and loudly enough – then it must be true. LOL.

You seem to live by those words. When will you stop?

This is of course typical of the UFO debunker mindset. They positively need to excise the evidence in order to maintain their believe system.

Typical creduloid pseudoscientist mindset used to fuel their religion like belief in OMG PseudoAliens!

That seems almost like a cry of desperation. Please don’t let it be true... Its like covering one’s eyes and ears and chanting “It’s all natural, it’s all natural, it’s all natural…”.

LOL. OMG PseudoAliens, OMG PseudoAliens, OMG PseudoAliens. LOL.

Go on then, what plausible mundane explanation have you “not run out of” for this case?

The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." What have you go to falsify that?

While ET may be a plausible alternative explanation (nothing in science rules it out and we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings) – we still do not have any direct evidence to show that it might be true. We simply cannot conclude ET – but we are certainly free to speculate in the absence of plausible mundane explanations.

Ah, I see where you are making your egregious blunder now. You simply believe in OMG PsuedoAliens and that makes them plausible.

Yes there is – you jump in a spaceship, point it in the direction you want to go, accelerate it – and off you go. It may take time (according to our current knowledge – a great deal of time) but the universe has plenty of that it would seem.

Cool! Should be easy to present that extraordinary evidence of an OMG PseudoAlien spaceship then.

There is no logical reason for the universe itself – yet here it is. Besides, who are you to suppose to know the motivations of ET?

Who are you to suppose they're here when there is no evidence?

Oh there are plenty of critically minded people, including scientists, who take UFOs very seriously indeed. That’s a fact - and no amount of you covering your eyes and ears and chanting “It’s all natural, it’s all natural…” will negate that fact.

If anecdotes were all we had to go on, you might have the beginnings of a point (we would still have to explain the anecdotes) – but considering the supporting radar, film, photographic and physical trace evidence, then you have no point at all.

You've forgotten FLIR again. LOL! Only a dishonest pseudoscientist would do that. The other stuff, we don't have. You've still not falsified the null hypothesis. Will you be making an attempt soon?

One can only label something as pseudoscientific if there is a false claim to be scientific. Can you demonstrate any such false claim?

...more later.

Yep. See your posts.

 

[Access Denied]

In all fairness to the pilots, that may or may not have been a direct quote from the pilots.

“True”…

This was from True magazine in the 60's…

Actually, the original story ran in October of 1952, 3 months after the sighting in June. Proper citation here…

http://www.nicap.org/reports/nash-tulien.htm

Nash, William B. and Fortenberry, William H. “We Flew Above Flying Saucers.” True Magazine, October 1952: p. 65, 110-112.

My apologies for the confusion, I’ve discovered misleading information at that “UFO Evidence” site before and shouldn’t have used it as a source. The NICAP site has a much better case file to start with…

Nash / Fortenberry Case
http://www.nicap.org/520714norfolk_dir.htm

Also, it should be noted the pilot William Nash was a UFOlogist…

Re: Historical Figures: Capt. William B. Nash (Jan Aldrich, Project 1947)
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/1997/sep/m29-017.shtml

Capt. Nash, was an early supporter and member of Civilian Saucer Intelligence (CSI-NY). Capt. Nash served as an adviser to both National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO). He was able to help investigate a number of PAA employees' UFO sightings and recruited interested pilots for NICAP membership.

Of course, the summer of 1952 is regarded by UFOlogists as the second big UFO “wave” after 1947, no doubt due in no small part to the establishment of Project Blue Book in March soliciting UFO reports from the public and culminating in the famous “Washington flap” in July that received widespread attention in the press…

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

As a result of the ensuing “mass panic” the CIA convened the infamous Robertson Panel to try and figure out a way to deal with the problem in January of 1953.

But, I digress…

 

[Akhenaten]

Scientific experiments and human perception both have scientifically defined parameters and margins of error.

You'll be able to tell us then exactly what the scientifically defined margin of error for a bloke standing in a boat in a river looking at a distant blimp through some mediocre binoculars 60 years ago is then, will you?

BTW, what's with all the redundant formatting stuff in your posts? It's what causes all the odd blank quotes in responses like this one and frankly I'm sick of removing it all.

In our everyday lives the margin of error in normal unimpaired human perception is fairly low.

That's one of those scientifically defined parameters, is it? Why does it look so much like a meaningless generalisation?

To deny this simple fact by repeated proclamations that data provided by human perception and judgment alone is completely useless translates to an assumed margin of error of 100%.

Is your main hobby ufailogy or building strawmen? You seem to do rather more of the latter.

If you're trying to say that anecdotes aren't evidence then you'd be right, but I don't think that's what you were attempting, is it?

Pity. Being right just once would at least have been a change.

That baseline assumption is completely unreasonable and illogical. Human perception and judgment allow us to do many amazing things on a daily basis with accuracy and precision.

I'm inclined to agree that it's an unreasonable and illogical baseline. Why then did you make it up?

"What a piece of work is man" has already been done, ufology, far better than you'll ever manage. What ever else Hamlet is, it's not a treatise on the allowability of anecdotes as evidence, and your poor imitation won't cut it either.

Our experiences alone are therefore valuable for providing meaningful data. Proclamations to the contrary are simply not valid other than in the very narrow context of the scientific method.

If you're going to quote Rramjet you should provide a link to the original post.

Outside that context is the wider reality ... that part of the human experience that is not part of our margin of error, and within that range of experience is the UFO experience.

Back on to your multiple realites, are we? We can't explain things in the UFOverse in terms of our human experiences because they're limited to this reality, or some such balderdash?

Are you familiar with the expression "jumping the shark"?

This is where the tools of genuine skepticism can be useful as a tool to examine these experiences and glean what knowledge we can. Sure there are some risks involved in these investigations, but it's not something that any genuinely curious mind could regret.

j.r.

You have no idea what the tools of genuine skepticism are, so you're in no position to be lecturing anyone else about their employment.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

LOL. Once again, my qualifications have absolutely nothing to do with it. I was merely pointing out that I would defer to the qualified experts in their field who actually analysed the film than to speculation by anyone – no matter how well qualified in other areas they may be. The qualified experts ruled out birds. And 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)​

They (an entire panel of well respected scientists!) stated it was not a good duplicate.

Once again you have simply failed to read what they stated:

“ The original film was noted to have a much lighter background (affecting relative brightness of object) and the objects appeared much less bright.” (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)​

The key words to note are “relative” and “appeared” (to be).

It was a copy for goodness sakes. That alone will introduce errors.

Maybe - maybe not. It seems the brightness of the copy was different – but that does not affect the overall calculations because the brightness (presumably the result of overexposure during copying) affects the whole film - thus the key word “relative” (that is relative to the original).

Any good scientist would understand that.

“Any good scientist” would not leap to unfounded conclusions about anything.

I think that is adequate enough to question the measurements as being accurate.

Since the “measurement” is a relative one (object and background) then it does not really matter what the exposure of the film actually is (as long as it is not too over or underexposed so as to completely destroy contrast).

Feel free to demonstrate the copy was a good one that it did not affect the measurements.

I just have.

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.

And yet he is not an expert on film analysis, nor did he undertake any calculations of his own. It is like advertising on TV where they get a famous person to sell you something – as if the mere fact that they are famous somehow magically confers an expertise on them.

They pointed out where errors were made but you are just ignoring them in favor of your desired conclusion.

I am merely pointing out that some of the statements considering the alleged “errors” are not well founded.

Just keep pressing that “I believe” button. It seems to be working for you quite well.

LOL. You might as well keep making those irrelevant statements without addressing the substance of the debate – for they actually do seem to be working quite well for me.

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.

Ah, nice switch –up to a fallacy there. He did not comment on anything outside his expertise. In fact he did, as I do, defer to the opinions of the experts. And should we also disqualify you from comment because you are a member of the debunker community?

He did not examine the film himself. These scientists did see the films. His OPINION is worthless.

He deferred to the opinions of the expertswho actually analysed thefilm – in that at least his opinion is then worth that much more than your own.

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.

Sorry because you were caught out, or genuinely sorry for misleading us?

As for the “values made by those who did the measurements”:

“ R.M.L. Baker, Jr. made an independent analysis in 1955 under the auspices of Douglas Aircraft Co. He ruled out airplanes and balloons for reasons similar to those of the Air Force. In addition he argues against anti-radar chaff (bits of aluminum foil) or bits of airborne debris because of the persistence of non-twinkling "constellations," the small number of objects, and the differential motions. Soaring insects, such as "ballooning spiders" are unsatisfying as an explanation, as the objects were observed a short time from a moving car, indicating a considerable distance, and there were no observed web streamers.

Baker points out that since the tendency of the observer would be to pan with the object, not against its motion, the derived velocities are lower limits (unless the key witness panned with the group, not the single object). Thus the suggestion of panning could compound the difficulty with the bird hypothesis. Baker concluded that "no definite conclusion could be obtained" as the evidence remains rather contradictory and no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved.” (http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm)​

So even the independent person (Baker) who Hartmann relies upon for his film analysis - rules against birds! (and of course this is the THIRD independent film analysis to do so).

However, Hartmann does go on to state who did raise the “birds” issue:

” Menzel and Boyd (3) dismiss the objects as birds. Their conclusion, however, is phrased in a way inconsistent with the facts…” (http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm)​

Now isn’t that interesting?

Can you use these same values to demonstrate they aren’t birds? I don’t think you can.

I can conclude that the “birds” hypothesis, in the face of the expert evidence, seems implausible. It also seems implausible when one actually views the film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page).

 

[Akhenaten]

LOL. You might as well keep making those irrelevant statements without addressing the substance of the debate – for they actually do seem to be working quite well for me.

Your posts are increasingly peppered with attempted condescensions like this so I have to ask: on what basis do you figure that you're ahead on points in this debate? In the almost two years since you started this fiasco to present your evidence and research, how many people would you say you've managed to bring over to your side of the argument?

 

[Access Denied]

I can conclude that the “birds” hypothesis, in the face of the expert evidence, seems implausible.

So... "aliens"?

It also seems implausible when one actually views the film...

Tell us… what do you see?

 

[Jocce]

Actually, my stance, since the very beginning has been precisely what you erroneously claim your own position to be: I have consistently stated that my position is simply that the cases I am presenting defy plausible mundane explanation

In other words. You start with the assumption that they are "alien" objects.

Maybe you will never be able to understand – but others do get it. The motivation that drives us is the same that has driven mankind throughout the ages to explore his environment and to want to understand it – intellectual curiosity. What are these things? Where do they come from?

And so far, no case has been discussed where the data is reliable enough to draw any conclusions.

Does the fact that it seems to defy plausible mundane explanation not pique the slightest interest in you? A curiosity perhaps? A desire to find out what all the fuss is about?

The fact is that it's a few seconds of observation with no corroborating evidence. I.e. we have no reliable data to work with in forming any conclusions.

Why are UFO debunkers so rusted on to Wikipedia? Do they own the organisation or something? Have they taken control of it to use for their own personal playground?

What's wrong with supplying more information sources? Would you prefer if we just used tinfoil sites?

The UFO debunkers continually bemoan the lack or evidence for UFOs, stating (erroneously of course) that all we have is the anecdotal evidence

But that is all we have in this case.

– yet they continually cite Wikipedia – the greatest anecdotal website in the history of mankind!

Actually, there is this other site that is a worse source of anecdotes... brumac.something.

Then you simply have not read the case evidence.

Oh, yeah, right. (aside for the fallacious appeal to authority) - “another aircraft surreptitiously flying in company”? We need plausible mundane explanations Akhenaten – but of course so the obfuscation will begin.

Why is it implausible? Because you say so? There is nothing in the natural or technological world that rules it out.

There will be a vigorous defence of the “other aircraft” hypothesis – despite the evidence – and it will get to the point where the debunkers will have convinced themselves that this IS the explanation while at the same time so confusing the case with mere possibilities (at the expense of plausibility) that, reading the debunker’s conceptualisations, people will begin to doubt whether Fortnenberry and Nash could even have been flying an airplane that night! LOL.

I understand that it must be frustrating for you to discuss these cases with sceptics rather than believers but you came here and started the discussion. Don't complain now.

What we DO know is that the case defies plausible mundane explanation. And that certainly piques my interest, especially as it is not an isolated case. What are these things?

So, we're starting with a conclusion. Why am I not surprised.

Let’s clarify one thing up front:

The pilots have offered us first hand eyewitness testimony.

Such testimony does constitute anecdotal evidence.

Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that their observations were not substantially accurate. That is there is nothing in the context that would preclude the observations as related to us from being reliable.

There is nothing that would preclude the pilots interpretation of the observation as physical objects from being inaccurate.

Actually, what you need to do is assess the reliability of the anecdotes. If we tossed out all observation evidence, then science itself could not progress.

Your opinion does not equal evidence.

So how do you explain the pilot’s testimony then? Something caused their observations

You jump to the conclusion that it was "alien" objects. Maybe you could detail your process of elimination so we can see if it's more than "I don't believe they were mistaken".

This is of course mere argument by (repetitive) proclamation. If you proclaim something often enough and loudly enough – then it must be true. LOL.

I'll take your word for it since you seem to be the expert on proclamations.

This is of course typical of the UFO debunker mindset. They positively need to excise the evidence in order to maintain their believe system.

Typical tinfoil mindset to pretend as if there is good evidence when all we have is a story.

That seems almost like a cry of desperation. Please don’t let it be true... Its like covering one’s eyes and ears and chanting “It’s all natural, it’s all natural, it’s all natural…”.

Pot, meet kettle.

Go on then, what plausible mundane explanation have you “not run out of” for this case?

There is NOT ENOUGH (i.e. there is no) corroborating evidence to form any conclusion.

If anecdotes were all we had to go on, you might have the beginnings of a point (we would still have to explain the anecdotes) – but considering the supporting radar, film, photographic and physical trace evidence, then you have no point at all.

Remind me again. That physical trace evidence you're talking about. Is that the human hair, the dented car or the known fungus?

One can only label something as pseudoscientific if there is a false claim to be scientific.

Fine then. The other option was nonsense and I can go with that.

 

[Rramjet]

Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that their observations were not substantially accurate. That is there is nothing in the context that would preclude the observations as related to us from being reliable.

We have plenty of reasons to believe that there is a high possibility that the observations were not substantially accurate and you know this already because it's pointed out to you countless times in this thread.

Eye witness testimony is often inaccurate.
There is no real and conclusive way to tell when it is accurate and when it is inaccurate unless there is other physical evidence with which to verify it.

First, just because it is possible for eyewitness testimony to be inaccurate, does not mean that in any particular instance it will be.

Second, we can use (for example) the well documented principles of perception to assess reliability. For example – people don’t see very well in the dark. However, in this case the objects were well illuminated. Also for example, people cannot judge size without depth cues – but in this case the ground was well illuminated (the city below) and the pilots knew their own altitude – even so the best they could do was an “estimate”. Etc and so on. We can positively use these principles (eg; Visual acuity, Adaptation and brightness discrimination, Perception of colour, Perceptual constancies, Space perception, Figure and form, Movement, Body position and posture, Perceptual learning, etc and so on) to asses reports for factors that could have affected perception.

There has to be a reason why any perception or observation might be considered erroneous – and if we can find no factors that would provide that reason – then we work on the principle that visual perception is accurate unless any of the (following conditions) apply.

Like when a pilot "accurately" reports his plane is being followed by some flying saucers and he videos it with his FLIR system for instance.

That conceptualisation is so misleading and inaccurate one now has to turn to cognitive heuristics and biases to explain why it is so. Tversky and Khaneman is a good place to start in that regard. Just as in perceptual observation we can use cognitive biases to explain statements such as the above from you.

My apologies for the confusion, I’ve discovered misleading information at that “UFO Evidence” site before and shouldn’t have used it as a source. The NICAP site has a much better case file to start with…

Your “apologies for the confusion”? Why then do you completely ignore the original source that ufology supplied to you?

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

Also, it should be noted the pilot William Nash was a UFOlogist…

You state that as if it has some relevance to his sighting. So was that before or after his experience?

Nash stated:

”Since the experience which was so vivid, I have maintained considerable interest in other reports of these phenomena.” (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-200)​

Which of course suggests it was after his experience (14 Jul 1953) that he developed a serious interest in UFOs.

Of course, the summer of 1952 is regarded by UFOlogists as the second big UFO “wave” after 1947, no doubt due in no small part to the establishment of Project Blue Book in March soliciting UFO reports from the public and culminating in the famous “Washington flap” in July that received widespread attention in the press…

So here we have the old debunker saw – that popular culture (in this case the establishment of Blue Book) affected the quality and number of UFO sightings.

That is of course a complete furphy. Blue Book merely provided an avenue for the public to record the sightings they were obviously already experiencing.

As a result of the ensuing “mass panic” the CIA convened the infamous Robertson Panel to try and figure out a way to deal with the problem in January of 1953.

Here is a good summary of why the Robertson Panel was convened:

“The Air Force had earlier commissioned the Battelle Memorial Institute to scientifically study the various UFO reports collected by Project Sign, Project Grudge and Project Blue Book, but Battelle insisted they needed more time to conduct a proper study. The CIA thought the question so pressing that it sent a group to Project Blue Book on Dec. 12, 1952. (See 1952 UFO Chronology) The CIA agreed with Battelle and tried to postpone the Robertson Panel for several months but got overruled by the AF which insisted on an immediate convening of the panel.” (http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2011/02/robertson-panel-overview.html)​

Here is a good source for the proceedings, summary and conclusions of the Panel itself (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm).