UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[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…

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.

If only what were true? I'm not entirely sure what you're on about here, but I get the impression you're trying to claim that debunking this ufailogy nonsense is as important to me as supporting it is to you on the basis of your perception that I post lots in silly flying saucer threads.

Is that it?

Maybe a quick glance at your post count and mine would tell you that even if I'd responded to every single one of your posts (Isis forbid) you'd still have to wonder where the other 12,000 came from, now wouldn't you? Given that almost all of your posts are in "a number of similar threads" to this debacle, I think I'm pretty close to the mark with my comment on your investment in the topic.

I'm just here, as I've already pointed out, because I like train smashes.

…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?

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

my bolding​

That you wish to come up with some weird Rredefinition™ of aliens in flying saucers that excludes ETs hardly disguises your agenda. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

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.

Exploring and understanding the environment has precious little to do with trying to flesh out 60-year-old flying saucer stories that will never make a scrap of difference no matter what explanations are provided for them.

Pretending that your investigations are in some way going to advance humankind or whatever other silly, vapid piffle you wish to make up as justification for your hobby is no inducement whatsoever for anyone else to take it seriously.

You can claim that "others get it" if you want to, but it's really just one more aspect of a general misapprehension that you're doing something important.

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…

No, it's not, and thinking otherwise is probably the very root of your problems. There's only one reality, no matter what ufology has told you.

…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.

Yes you did, and since neither of those things happened I'm surprised you'd want to remind everyone about it.

 

[Rramjet]

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?

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

I am concluding they are foreign to our understanding of natural or technological objects – they simply defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

When are you going to explain to us exactly how we can tell the accurate instances from the inaccurate ones instead of just repeatedly asserting that there are ways to do so?

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

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

I am concluding they are foreign to our understanding of natural or technological objects – they simply defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pretty neat trick, putting your conclusion in your opening post.

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

my bolding​

Do you have a time machine?

 

[Rramjet]

That you wish to come up with some weird Rredefinition™ of aliens in flying saucers that excludes ETs hardly disguises your agenda. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

You really should learn to read further than your own confirmation bias:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(...)

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.

 

[Pixel42]

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?

As you actually quoted me using the word 'interesting' this is an odd question. I'd very much like to know what it was, I just recognise that I probably never will.

As for plausible mundane explanations, even if it's a completely accurate description I have no idea whether it defies them all or not, as I have no way of compiling a list of every possible mundane explanation with which to compare it.

Why are UFO debunkers so rusted on to Wikipedia?

ufology's original post implied (to me at least) that he was under the impression this was a case he had just found in the BlueBook files. Linking to it's wiki page was a way to point out that it's actually a well known case, as well as providing a helpful summary (and some additional references) for those unwilling to strain their eyes on the scanned documents.

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

No, it just means that there's a chance it might be. And that no firm conclusions can therefore be drawn based on eyewitness testimony alone.

There has to be a reason why any perception or observation might be considered erroneous

There is always a reason - the built-in cognitive biases of the human brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Yes, it's wiki again. So sue me.

In our everyday lives the margin of error in normal unimpaired human perception is fairly low. To deny this simple fact by proclaiming that data provided by human perception and judgment alone is completely useless translates to an assumed margin of error of 100%.

Nobody has said it's completely useless, only that it's not 100% reliable.

In our everyday lives we have plenty of experience to draw on which helps us assess how reliable the information our senses are recording is and interpret it accordingly. When we see something out of the ordinary we are at a disadvantage in that respect, so have to be much more careful to ensure we're not misinterpreting what our senses seem to be telling us.

For example, if I think I see a shed at the bottom of someone's garden I'm going to conclude it's a shed without hesitation. If I think I see fairies at the bottom of their garden, I should consider other explanations - like I'm drunk, have accidentally eaten some magic mushrooms and am stoned out of my mind, have hit my head or had a small stroke, have dozed off and am dreaming, am actually seeing dragonflies and need to visit the optician, etc etc. And if I relate seeing fairies to someone else without having any objective evidence to support my story I should expect them to consider all those possibilities plus the additional ones that am I having them on, conducting a little experiment to see if they'll believe me, or simply lying for the hell of it.

 

[Access Denied]

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

What makes you think I did?

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

Definitely after however, that and his interpretation of the objects strongly suggest before in my opinion. From the intelligence report…

3. The following impressions were received by Nash and Fortenberry and are of interest:

[...]

g. The objects are definitely not of earthly origin.

[not to mention a. thru f.]

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.

Are you claiming sociology is irrevelant?

Here is a good source for the proceedings, summary and conclusions of the Panel itself quote…

Here’s a better one…

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-u.htm

Now, why did you ignore this post?

 

[Access Denied]

...for those unwilling to strain their eyes on the scanned documents.

http://www.footnote.com/image/#1|7482189

 

[Akhenaten]

That you wish to come up with some weird Rredefinition™ of aliens in flying saucers that excludes ETs hardly disguises your agenda. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

You really should learn to read further than your own confirmation bias:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(...)

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.

What the hell do you think I meant when I referred to your weird Rredefinition™ of aliens?

The bit you've quoted is exactly what I was talking about. Your pretence that 'alien' has some special meaning just for the purpose of this thread is in no wise binding on the rest of us.

 

[Rramjet]

What the hell do you think I meant when I referred to your weird Rredefinition™ of aliens?

The bit you've quoted is exactly what I was talking about. Your pretence that 'alien' has some special meaning just for the purpose of this thread is in no wise binding on the rest of us.

No redefinition required – you simply don’t understand the meaning of “alien” beyond ET – it can also mean “foreign” - as in foreign to our understanding of the natural or technological world.

 

[Akhenaten]

No redefinition required – you simply don’t understand the meaning of “alien” beyond ET – it can also mean “foreign” - as in foreign to our understanding of the natural or technological world.

Would you like to borrow a shovel?

 

[Access Denied]

No redefinition required – you simply don’t understand the meaning of “alien” beyond ET – it can also mean “foreign” - as in foreign to our understanding of the natural or technological world.

Speak for yourself... you mean UFOs are foreign to your understanding of the natural or technological world.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

No they don't.
Or at the very least, if they do, you'll have no trouble defining them in any given situation as a percentage (without simply making one up).

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

Sorry, that doesn't sound like a "scientifically defined parameter" to me.
It sounds like a guess.

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

I'm not saying it's completely useless though. I'm saying we can not tell when it is useless and when it is of use, therefore, when only anecdote is available it is so unreliable that we can not use it alone to redefine what science has spent centuries studying, falsifying, testing, measuring and amending.

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.

Yes, but sadly hundreds of car crashes happen everyday because people aren't always accurate and precise, people forget where they left their reading glasses, measure their timber incorrectly before sawing it, at least a few humans everyday also accurately and precisely see flying saucers which turn out to be mis-perceived mundane objects when investigated thoroughly.

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.

Well I thought only a few sentences ago you were talking sciency about "scientifically defined parameters"

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.

Yes, the wider reality that also includes stuff that's not real according to your special pleading definition.

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.

As long as we also redefine scepticism to include stuff that not sceptized™.

 

[Jocce]

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.

How did Nash/Fortenberry estimate speed, size, altitude and distance to unknown objects in 5-10 seconds? You believe it is substantially correct? On what grounds?

 

[Jocce]

And what about the color of the objects? They were definately amber-red in your opinion? No reason to believe that this is not substantially correct a short while after sunset?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip of the usual rinse, lather, repeat because it is accomplishing nothing.

The bottom line on this is that the measurements do support the Seagull hypothesis. You have yet to provide one item of analysis that falsifies the seagull hypothesis at this point. The angular speeds and angular sizes are compatible with Seagulls as noted by Hartmann. The only argument against seagulls in the film were the brightness values that were measured but those measurements are in doubt (as much as Rramjet wants everyone to believe they were precise) and could be within the values one would expect for seagulls. Even Baker could not completely rule out birds. He would give basic angular sizes and distances comparable to Hartmann's but then stated they could not produce round dots (ignoring the fact that reflections off the bodies could produce just round dots and the darker wings not be visible). I consider this explanation perfectly plausible. Until you can present better arguments to falsify the seagull hypothesis, it is the most likely explanation.

Of course, that brings us to the problem we have here. I call an explanation plausible and you say it is implausible. Since we are both biased in our approach (you a believer and me a "disbeliever") and your statement that your scientific background has no bearing on this matter (of course, we have not even established if you really are what you claim to be), we are at an impasse.

I think I know how we can resolve this constant "rinse, lather, repeat". I propose what should be done from now on is that you present your case in a manner that is not just a bunch of UFO links and, instead, a carefully thought out and well presented argument. Then we can allow a two (or four) week "discussion" period, where you can ridicule all explanations offerred by the various members endlessly. At precisely the end of the two (or four) week period, the entire forum can vote on the offerred explanations as implausible or plausible. They can also declare it as "identified", "probable identification", "insufficient information", or "unknown". This will move this thread along at a better pace and it will not get mired down. You have had two years of this endless nonsense and you have failed to sway anybody's opinion here. Perhaps this approach will get people looking at the evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Nevertheless, we have no reason to beleive that their observations were substantially accurate. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable and useless as evidence for proving extraordinary claims. As Sagan so rightly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Only a pseudoscientist would want to use anecdotes as evidence for OMG PseudoAliens.

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

Nor does it mean it won't be. Do you see yet why only a pseudoscientist would rely on unfalsifiable anecdotes?

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.

They haven't been well-documented in this thread, despite you being asked to show your working. You continue to pseudoscientifically spout sciencey sounding words but you've proven that you really don't know what they mean. Don't feel bad, it's very common in the pseudosciences.

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.

What this sentence means is, "If they claim to see OMG PseudoAliens, I'm going to believe them." Pseudoscientists such as yourself already have your conclusion, you just have to work at shoehorning in the evidence.

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.


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





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.


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.

We have the research to back it up. You should study up on it. Cognitive bias, appeal to popular myth, perceptual aberrations, etc. Go ahead, look it up.

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.


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).

How many OMG PseudoAliens did any of them come up with?

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings have mundane explanations."​

Do you have even one case that falsifies the null hypothesis?

Also, since you still have the burden of proof, what do you think the answer is for the seagulls?

 

[Access Denied]

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

Nope...

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-u.htm

PART I: HISTORY OF MEETINGS

GENERAL

After consideration of the subject of "unidentified flying objects" at the 4 December meeting of the {Intelligence Advisory Committee,} the following action was agreed: {"The Director of Central Intelligence} will:

a. Enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories...." Following the delegation of this action to the {Assistant Director for Scientific Intelligence} and preliminary investigation, an Advisory Panel of selected scientists was assembled. In cooperation with the Air Technical Intelligence Center, case histories of reported sightings and related material were made available for their study and consideration.

[…]

WEDNESDAY MORNING

The {AD/SI} opened the meeting, reviewing CIA interest in the subject and action taken. This review included the mention of the {O/SI} Study Group of August 1952 {(Strong, Eng and Durant)} culminating in the briefing of the {DCI}, the ATIC November 21 briefing, 4 December {IAC} consideration, visit to ATIC ({Chadwell}, Robertson and {Durant}), and {O/SI} concern over potential dangers to national security indirectly related to these sightings. Mr. {Strong} enumerated these potential dangers. Following this introduction, Dr. {Chadwell} turned the meeting over to Dr. Robertson as Chairman of the Panel.​

 

[RoboTimbo]

No redefinition required – you simply don’t understand the meaning of “alien” beyond ET – it can also mean “foreign” - as in foreign to our understanding of the natural or technological world.

Maybe one of these days you'll get around to providing evidence for it then? The null hypothesis is that "All UFO reports are the result of mundane explanations."

When will you be falsifying that null hypothesis?

 

[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?

When will you be presenting evidence for any of your cases defying plausible mundane explanation? As you know, the real process of elimination has determined that all of the cases you've presented positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". Your version of a process of elimination is known to be fatally flawed as you've proven in this thread. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, the blimp at Rogue River, your total embarrassment at the HOAX at Delphos, Campeche, your admission of how shoddy and substandard your research ability is, and your latest Seagull See Gullible? I would think that your abject documented failures would be seared into your memory.

I am concluding they are foreign to our understanding of natural or technological objects – they simply defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

They simply don't. They simply defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". You have proven you are a failure with your version of a process of elimination and I've never been shown to be wrong.

Nothing more, nothing less.