UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

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 copying will introduce errors, since you are actually producing a new image it will be subject to all of the potential errors of any image exposure, as well as transmitting any errors in the original image. The mere fact that it is a copy automatically reduces the reliability of any readings taken from it. Anyone who has studied image analysis would be aware of this simple fact.

Any good scientist would understand that.

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

Any good scientist would understand the need for caution when dealing with copies of images, i.e. non-primary data.

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).

It only has to partially deteriorate contrast to render the measurements worthless in terms of accuracy. Was the copy overexposed, and if so how much?
How linear is the response of the film used in the copy? If it isn't linear at the bright end and the copy was overexposed then the contrast is effectively wrecked in terms of any meaningful measurement.
How close to the exposure limit are the brightest sections that they measured? There's only so much light that a film can absorb before it simply stops absorbing light at all, and that renders the measurements useless.

Do you know the answers to any of these questions? If not, how can you be certain that the copy was accurate or that the measurements are any good at all?

All Astrophotographer did was call attention to the fact that some experts questioned the reliability of the measurements under the circumstances. For you to dismiss those without a detailed assessment of the potential sources of error in the copying of the film is, at the very least, unscientific.

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

I just have.

No, you have, as usual, argued that it couldn't possibly be bad because you don't find it very likely that it was. You have offered no evidence that it was a good copy, merely asserted that it probably was.

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.

A large proportion of astronomers are extremely experienced and well trained in image analysis. It's a very important part of the job, for very obvious reasons.

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.

In your opinion.

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?

And yet you reject the opinions of some experts because they don't agree with your opinion or the findings of the experts that do. How do you pick and choose which experts to believe?

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.[/I]”

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).

"Rules against birds"?

Really?

Let's see what he actually said shall we -

Baker concluded that "no definite conclusion could be obtained" as the evidence remains rather contradictory

Hardly ruling anything out. He states that "no definite conclusion could be obtained", which isn't ruling things out at all. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved.

Neither is that. He says that no natural phenomenon "seems to completely account for the UFO". Hardly strong language. It's funny how you nitpick words like "appear" in the criticism of the quality of the film copy, but let this one pass as though it's definitive. That couldn't be confirmation bias could it?

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Okay, sure. So what is your interest in UFOs then?

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.

It really is not that difficult. The set of plausible mundane explanations is a very restricted set. All those things that cannot “fly” are ruled out for a start (leaving only those things that could plausibly have been in the air at the time and place). Then all one has to do is determine if other descriptive characteristics match any known flying objects – shape for example: Spherical rules out whole classes of flying objects (birds, airplanes, kites, etc). The options are then severely restricted to just a handful. Perhaps something astronomical, or a balloon… and so on. It is really not that difficult to rule out plausible mundane explanations if there is sufficient information to do so. If there is not sufficient information, then either that is how the case must be labelled – or it is admitted that plausible mundane explanations do exist.

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.

Indeed. He may have done just that.

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.

No, the original source is the only thing that counts (or a verified transcript of the original source). If you don’t begin with the original source you are very likely to pick up erroneous information about the case without even knowing you have done so.

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.

It might be. However, some conclusions can be drawn based on such testimony. We can answer such questions as: “Were the conditions or context such as to allow the observation or the description to be made with any accuracy?” For example an estimated size where depth cues are not present. And so on… we can assess the reliability of the observations and we can assess the reliability of the witnesses themselves. The more reliable we find the report and the witnesses, the greater weight we will place on the evidence.

If we had just one report – then it might easily be dismissed. But of course we have thousands of ostensibly reliable reports made by ostensibly reliable witnesses. These cannot be dismissed so easily.

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

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

Oh, there is no doubt that along side perceptual factors and witness reliability factors, cognitive factors must also be accounted for. Indeed I have been stating as much over the last number of posts. Once again we can assess the reports to see if any of those factors might plausibly have played a role.

However, if you can explain the Fortenberry/Nash case by cognitive factors alone – then please go ahead. It is no use making the unfounded assertion if you cannot back it with evidence or logical argument.

In relation to human perceptual abilities:

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

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.

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.

Yes indeed, and of course all those reasons must be considered and accounted for.

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.

And of course one of the factors that must be accounted for is witness reliability.

It’s not rocket science, but it does take some knowledge of the factors involved (and of course I am attempting, despite the opposition from people like AstroP to bring those factors to people’s attention).

 

[Pixel42]

Okay, sure. So what is your interest in UFOs then?

When I was young I bought into the whole thing lock stock and barrel. I suppose that's left me with a residual interest in unusual sightings and their explanations. Plus I'm fascinated by all the ways in which people can convince themselves of things which are almost certainly not true.

It really is not that difficult. The set of plausible mundane explanations is a very restricted set. All those things that cannot “fly” are ruled out for a start

OK, let me stop you there. Reflections can't fly. Planets and stars (whose light might be refracted by atmospheric effects) can't fly. And that's just off the top of my head.

Just because you or I have eliminated all the plausible mundane explanations we can think of doesn't mean there isn't another one we haven't thought of. There are plenty of cases where mundane explanations were eventually found for observations which seemed inexplicable to those who experienced them. There's a poster here who tells a great story about a ghost which turned out to be a cow, and who admits that not only would he never have thought of that explanation if he hadn't had the courage to investigate further at the time but he would certainly have laughed in the face of anyone who suggested it.

The more reliable we find the report and the witnesses, the greater weight we will place on the evidence.

But we can never place sufficient weight to justify reaching a conclusion based on such testimony alone, because of its inherently unreliable nature.

If we had just one report – then it might easily be dismissed. But of course we have thousands of ostensibly reliable reports made by ostensibly reliable witnesses. These cannot be dismissed so easily.

Of course they can. Lots of unreliable reports doesn't magically make a reliable total. See ghosts, Bigfoot, religious experiences etc etc. This has been pointed out to you multiple times.

Oh, there is no doubt that along side perceptual factors and witness reliability factors, cognitive factors must also be accounted for. Indeed I have been stating as much over the last number of posts. Once again we can assess the reports to see if any of those factors might plausibly have played a role.

They always play a role. They're inescapable. And the more out of the ordinary an observation is the less experience can help us in compensating for such biases, and the more unreliable is any conclusion reached by either the witness themselves or those to whom they relate what they think they saw.

 

[Rramjet]

Any copying will introduce errors, since you are actually producing a new image it will be subject to all of the potential errors of any image exposure, as well as transmitting any errors in the original image. The mere fact that it is a copy automatically reduces the reliability of any readings taken from it. Anyone who has studied image analysis would be aware of this simple fact.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Any good scientist would understand the need for caution when dealing with copies of images, i.e. non-primary data.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

It only has to partially deteriorate contrast to render the measurements worthless in terms of accuracy. Was the copy overexposed, and if so how much?
How linear is the response of the film used in the copy? If it isn't linear at the bright end and the copy was overexposed then the contrast is effectively wrecked in terms of any meaningful measurement.
How close to the exposure limit are the brightest sections that they measured? There's only so much light that a film can absorb before it simply stops absorbing light at all, and that renders the measurements useless.
Do you know the answers to any of these questions? If not, how can you be certain that the copy was accurate or that the measurements are any good at all?

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

All Astrophotographer did was call attention to the fact that some experts questioned the reliability of the measurements under the circumstances. For you to dismiss those without a detailed assessment of the potential sources of error in the copying of the film is, at the very least, unscientific.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

No, you have, as usual, argued that it couldn't possibly be bad because you don't find it very likely that it was. You have offered no evidence that it was a good copy, merely asserted that it probably was.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

A large proportion of astronomers are extremely experienced and well trained in image analysis. It's a very important part of the job, for very obvious reasons.

Yet he conducted no analysis of his own.

And yet you reject the opinions of some experts because they don't agree with your opinion or the findings of the experts that do. How do you pick and choose which experts to believe?

I am simply deferring to the expertise of those who actually analysed the film in detail (three such independent analyses came to basically the same conclusion – no birds, no manmade objects, etc). The only people who seem to have come to an opposite conclusion are people who did not analyse the film.

”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)​

"Rules against birds"?

Really?

Let's see what he actually said shall we –

Ummm…the above is precisely (and incontrovertibly) “what he actually said”…

Baker concluded that "no definite conclusion could be obtained" as the evidence remains rather contradictory

Hardly ruling anything out. He states that "no definite conclusion could be obtained", which isn't ruling things out at all. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved.

Neither is that. He says that no natural phenomenon "seems to completely account for the UFO". Hardly strong language. It's funny how you nitpick words like "appear" in the criticism of the quality of the film copy, but let this one pass as though it's definitive. That couldn't be confirmation bias could it?

Apart from the fact that you have “cherry picked” those statements out of the whole – Baker’s statements (as paraphrased in Condon by Hartmann) do rule against the “birds” hypothesis – but I guess if you have a confirmation bias toward “birds” it is possible you may not see it that way.

 

[Stray Cat]

shape for example: Spherical rules out whole classes of flying objects (birds, airplanes, kites, etc).

No.
There are plenty of situations where a bird or a plane will appear as a round object.

The options are then severely restricted to just a handful. Perhaps something astronomical, or a balloon… and so on. It is really not that difficult to rule out plausible mundane explanations if there is sufficient information to do so.

No.
They are only restricted to how many you want them to be for prove "OMG! Aliens" for everyone else the list seems to be quite infinite.

But of course we have thousands of ostensibly reliable reports made by ostensibly reliable witnesses. These cannot be dismissed so easily.

Agreed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Yes, who PRECISELY did the original analysis? What individuals were involved? Can you give us names and qualifications? What was their SPECIFIC expertise? Who did the measurements? A technician? A scientist? What was their proficiency with the densitometer? Supposedly this took many man-hours, which means you had many people working on it. How much double-checking was involved?

All these questions need to be answered. Just saying a photo lab did it does not mean that it was done correctly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Have you forgotten Campeche, the pseudoscientist's Waterloo?

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Have you forgotten the Blimp at Rogue River?

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Have you forgotten your embarrassment at the HOAX at Delphos?

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Have you forgotten your shame in your Debri^WP Debacle?

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Have you forgotten your shame faced admission of your substandard research abilities?

I'm glad you asked for so many reminders.

Remember that you are an abject failure at eliminating mundane explanations and how many times you have proven yourself wrong?

Remember that the null hypothesis is that all UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations and you've never been able to falsify that?

Remember that you've not provided extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims?

Remember that the real process of elimination has ruled out plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane"

Remember that I've never been shown to be wrong using the real process of elimination?

Remember that you still have the burden of proof?

Remember that you are a pseudoscientist engaged in the pseudoscience of UFOlogy?

 

[Akhenaten]

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?


Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?


Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?


Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?


Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Rramjet?

Rramjet?

Rramjet?

Rramjet?

Rramjet?

Yet he conducted no analysis of his own.

Apparently not.

 

[Akhenaten]

It’s not rocket science, but it does take some knowledge of the factors involved (and of course I am attempting, despite the opposition from people like AstroP to bring those factors to people’s attention).

And yet pretty near everyone believes Astrophotographer and nobody with any sense at all believes a word you say.

What's going on with that, Rramjet?

 

[Rramjet]

When I was young I bought into the whole thing lock stock and barrel. I suppose that's left me with a residual interest in unusual sightings and their explanations.

That’s interesting, I was completely the opposite. When I was young I bought completely into the debunker mentality. It was all natural phenomenon. People were deluded, misinformed, outright fabricators – the whole bit. But then I gained a formal education - and then had a couple of experiences of my own. Try as I might I could not rationalise them away. Then recently I began to look more closely at some of the “established” cases – and found they could not be rationalised away either. I began to wonder how the debunker mindset actually came about – how it worked – and I became a member of the JREF to find out. What I found startled me. There seemed to be no critical thought – just denial and ridicule. The whole thing seemed to be dismissed under a blanket of obfuscation and over-generalisation.

Plus I'm fascinated by all the ways in which people can convince themselves of things which are almost certainly not true.

..and I am too – only it is the JREF where my attentions are currently focussed in that regard. LOL

It really is not that difficult. The set of plausible mundane explanations is a very restricted set. All those things that cannot “fly” are ruled out for a start

OK, let me stop you there. Reflections can't fly. Planets and stars (whose light might be refracted by atmospheric effects) can't fly. And that's just off the top of my head.

You did notice I placed quotation marks around “fly” didn’t you? Reflection, refraction, etc are all counted in that category.

Just because you or I have eliminated all the plausible mundane explanations we can think of doesn't mean there isn't another one we haven't thought of.

That is why cases that have withstood the test of time are more interesting to me – simply because no-one has been able to come up with plausible mundane explanations for them – often despite years of concerted effort from all sides of the debate.

There are plenty of cases where mundane explanations were eventually found for observations which seemed inexplicable to those who experienced them. There's a poster here who tells a great story about a ghost which turned out to be a cow, and who admits that not only would he never have thought of that explanation if he hadn't had the courage to investigate further at the time but he would certainly have laughed in the face of anyone who suggested it.

Oh, there is no doubt the majority of cases do have mundane explanations. And people so become convinced on the slightest (or no) evidence. That is why my concentration is on reliable cases with reliable witnesses.

The more reliable we find the report and the witnesses, the greater weight we will place on the evidence.

But we can never place sufficient weight to justify reaching a conclusion based on such testimony alone, because of its inherently unreliable nature.

It depends on the conclusions one is drawing. You see it is just this type of over-generalisation that I find perplexing coming from members of an organisation that professes to promote rational and critical thinking.

It also perplexes me that the debunkers can consider some cases to be reliable enough to conclude mundane explanations… yet whenever no explanation is found the case suddenly become unreliable…

Of course they can. Lots of unreliable reports doesn't magically make a reliable total. See ghosts, Bigfoot, religious experiences etc etc. This has been pointed out to you multiple times.

Again with the over-generalisations. Some reports are reliable, some not. It depends on many factors (including cognitive and perceptual biases and the character of the witness). We cannot simply state that all reports are unreliable and simply dismiss them out of hand on that basis alone. Each report must be assessed on its own merits and if they are considered to be unreliable – then there must be a legitimate reason provided as to why they might be so considered.

For example the psychology, history and even the evolutionary roots, chemistry and physics of religious experience have been well documented. We know what causes them and we can apply those causal explanations to all cases of religious experience. We cannot say the same for UFO experiences. They simply don’t fall into the pattern of religious experiences – although they may superficially seem to have some elements in common and some people construct religions based on the concepts “Scientology” for example…). However, religious experiences are not able to be tracked on radar, or photographed or filmed, nor do they leave physical trace evidence. As for Bigfoot… who knows, I have not studied the evidence so I have no opinion one way or other (but it does seem that those with opinions can bring evidence for their own side of the debate).

Oh, there is no doubt that along side perceptual factors and witness reliability factors, cognitive factors must also be accounted for. Indeed I have been stating as much over the last number of posts. Once again we can assess the reports to see if any of those factors might plausibly have played a role.

They always play a role. They're inescapable.

Again with the overgeneralisations! Not all, factors play a role in all contexts. Each factor is applicable only within its own specific context.

And the more out of the ordinary an observation is the less experience can help us in compensating for such biases…

More overgeneralisation… It depends on what you mean by “out of the ordinary” – such a statement can really only be made in reference to a particular cognitive or perceptual factor (or set of factors).

…and the more unreliable is any conclusion reached by either the witness themselves or those to whom they relate what they thik they saw.

That contention I presume is that the more “out of the ordinary” the object being viewed, the more unreliable the conclusions about what is being viewed will be.

But once again that is an overgeneralisation. You will have to define what you mean by “out of the ordinary”.

 

[Rramjet]

No.
There are plenty of situations where a bird or a plane will appear as a round object.


No.
They are only restricted to how many you want them to be for prove "OMG! Aliens" for everyone else the list seems to be quite infinite.


Agreed.
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Pretended.jpg[/qimg]

LOL.

Ostensible:

The very first and primary defintion encountered (and of course the definition I mean the word to be read as):

APPARENT, SEEMING

Of course it does not surprise me that you would totally ignore the primary meaning of the word to instead indulge in the obfuscation of a secondary meaning that suits your own particular agenda... that is after all precisely how the debunker mindset works isn't it? Never tackle the substance of the debate if it can be avoided with obfuscation...?

 

[Rramjet]

And yet pretty near everyone believes Astrophotographer and nobody with any sense at all believes a word you say.

What's going on with that, Rramjet?

You have resorted to the (fallacious) argumentum ad populum?

 

[R.A.F.]

And yet pretty near everyone believes Astrophotographer and nobody with any sense at all believes a word you say.

What's going on with that, Rramjet?

Well, it is kind of an unfair comparison. Astrophotographer is a military trained scientist whose internet writings on the UFO phenomena are rational and well reasoned.

...as opposed to Rramjet, who doesn't seem to understand the need for conclusive, credible evidence before belief.

Guess which one I take seriously.

 

[R.A.F.]

You have resorted to the (fallacious) argumentum ad populum?

Saying that it is more "popular" to agree with the side of the argument supported by evidence is "resorting" to what??...rational thinking??

 

[Akhenaten]

You have resorted to the (fallacious) argumentum ad populum?

It's not fallacious, Rramjet. Aren't you here to persuade people to your point of view?

If not, what are you trying to achieve?

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, who PRECISELY did the original analysis? What individuals were involved? Can you give us names and qualifications? What was their SPECIFIC expertise? Who did the measurements? A technician? A scientist? What was their proficiency with the densitometer? Supposedly this took many man-hours, which means you had many people working on it. How much double-checking was involved?

All these questions need to be answered. Just saying a photo lab did it does not mean that it was done correctly.

According to Hartmann:

“The witness had the film processed and submitted it to his Navy superiors (1). The letter from the witness to Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah, 11 Aug. 1952, transmits the film to the Air Force (4c).”

So the Navy got it first, then (as we know they analysed it) after the Navy was finished with it, they passed it over to the Air Force. It is reasonable to assume it made a copy before it did so.

Hartmann does not say how Baker got involved. However as Hartmann notes "In 1955 R.M.L. Baker's analysis of the case..." we might then assume, because it was obviously some time after, it was he who analysed the copy?

Now while you conceivably might have some quarrel with Baker (who was he, what was his expertise?) Do you really have any quarrel with the expertise of the Navy or Air Force?

ETA: Although Baker must have had some considerable expertise as Hartmann defers to him.

ETAA: And perhaps as Hartmann uses Baker's analysis, then the Robertson Panel does also - and that is why they drew a conclusion that a copy was analysed? It is hard to see how the Navy or Air Force would have analysed a copy - it is an implausible suggestion to think so when they had the original right there in their respective posessions.

 

[Pixel42]

It depends on the conclusions one is drawing.

Only in so far as conclusions which presuppose the existence of entities which have never been demonstrated to exist are even less justifiable than other conclusions.

It also perplexes me that the debunkers can consider some cases to be reliable enough to conclude mundane explanations… yet whenever no explanation is found the case suddenly become unreliable…

See above comment.

And the conclusion is never that a particular mundane explanation is definitely the correct one, just that it's the most likely.

Again with the over-generalisations. Some reports are reliable, some not. It depends on many factors (including cognitive and perceptual biases and the character of the witness). We cannot simply state that all reports are unreliable and simply dismiss them out of hand on that basis alone. Each report must be assessed on its own merits and if they are considered to be unreliable – then there must be a legitimate reason provided as to why they might be so considered.

The point under discussion was whether the sheer number of unreliable reports makes dismissing them unacceptable. And it doesn't.

For example the psychology, history and even the evolutionary roots, chemistry and physics of religious experience have been well documented. We know what causes them and we can apply those causal explanations to all cases of religious experience. We cannot say the same for UFO experiences.

I'm pretty sure we can, actually.

However, religious experiences are not able to be tracked on radar, or photographed or filmed, nor do they leave physical trace evidence.

Again, I'd say they're pretty much on a par. The validity of your supposed radar/photo/physical trace evidence has been utterly demolished on this very thread. And I've seen photographs showing Jesus on a toasted cheese sandwich which look much more convincing than the average UFO photograph.

Not all, factors play a role in all contexts. Each factor is applicable only within its own specific context.

Our pattern seeking brains never stop seeking patterns. Sorry, but that's just a fact. And the more unfamiliar what they're struggling to make sense of is, the more likely they are to make a mistake in their interpretation of it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, it is kind of an unfair comparison. Astrophotographer is a military trained scientist whose internet writings on the UFO phenomena are rational and well reasoned.

...as opposed to Rramjet, who doesn't seem to understand the need for conclusive, credible evidence before belief.

Guess which one I take seriously.

I have to agree that the comparison is unfair, and I wouldn't have brought it up except that for some reason or other Rramjet keeps telling his audience unseen that he's winning the debate and I'm genuinely curious about how he arrived at such a bizarre conclusion.

As it happens,while Rramjet handwaved the question away, you seem to have nailed it pretty well.

 

[wollery]

Any copying will introduce errors, since you are actually producing a new image it will be subject to all of the potential errors of any image exposure, as well as transmitting any errors in the original image. The mere fact that it is a copy automatically reduces the reliability of any readings taken from it. Anyone who has studied image analysis would be aware of this simple fact.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Fails to address the actual point.

Any good scientist would understand the need for caution when dealing with copies of images, i.e. non-primary data.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Fails to address the actual point.

It only has to partially deteriorate contrast to render the measurements worthless in terms of accuracy. Was the copy overexposed, and if so how much?
How linear is the response of the film used in the copy? If it isn't linear at the bright end and the copy was overexposed then the contrast is effectively wrecked in terms of any meaningful measurement.
How close to the exposure limit are the brightest sections that they measured? There's only so much light that a film can absorb before it simply stops absorbing light at all, and that renders the measurements useless.
Do you know the answers to any of these questions? If not, how can you be certain that the copy was accurate or that the measurements are any good at all?

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Fails to address the actual point.

All Astrophotographer did was call attention to the fact that some experts questioned the reliability of the measurements under the circumstances. For you to dismiss those without a detailed assessment of the potential sources of error in the copying of the film is, at the very least, unscientific.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Fails to address the actual point.

No, you have, as usual, argued that it couldn't possibly be bad because you don't find it very likely that it was. You have offered no evidence that it was a good copy, merely asserted that it probably was.

Remind me again – precisely who did not analyse the original film?

Fails to address the actual point.

A large proportion of astronomers are extremely experienced and well trained in image analysis. It's a very important part of the job, for very obvious reasons.

Yet he conducted no analysis of his own.

Fails to address the actual point.

And yet you reject the opinions of some experts because they don't agree with your opinion or the findings of the experts that do. How do you pick and choose which experts to believe?

I am simply deferring to the expertise of those who actually analysed the film in detail (three such independent analyses came to basically the same conclusion – no birds, no manmade objects, etc). The only people who seem to have come to an opposite conclusion are people who did not analyse the film.

A copy of the film.

”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)​

"Rules against birds"?

Really?

Let's see what he actually said shall we –

Ummm…the above is precisely (and incontrovertibly) “what he actually said”…

Baker concluded that "no definite conclusion could be obtained" as the evidence remains rather contradictory

Hardly ruling anything out. He states that "no definite conclusion could be obtained", which isn't ruling things out at all. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved.

Neither is that. He says that no natural phenomenon "seems to completely account for the UFO". Hardly strong language. It's funny how you nitpick words like "appear" in the criticism of the quality of the film copy, but let this one pass as though it's definitive. That couldn't be confirmation bias could it?

Apart from the fact that you have “cherry picked” those statements out of the whole – Baker’s statements (as paraphrased in Condon by Hartmann) do rule against the “birds” hypothesis – but I guess if you have a confirmation bias toward “birds” it is possible you may not see it that way.

Could you please point to the precise wording in that statement that gives a definitive conclusion that the bird hypothesis could not possibly be correct? Because I can see no absolutes in that statement. There are a lot of qualifiers that inply uncertainty, but none that I can see that imply absolutes or certainties or outright rejection of any hypothesis.

"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."

Bolding mine.

Perhaps you could do the same for this paragraph to illustrate the definitive rejection that you say it gives, because if it's there then I'm missing it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That’s interesting, I was completely the opposite. When I was young I bought completely into the debunker mentality. It was all natural phenomenon. People were deluded, misinformed, outright fabricators – the whole bit. But then I gained a formal education - and then had a couple of experiences of my own. Try as I might I could not rationalise them away. Then recently I began to look more closely at some of the “established” cases – and found they could not be rationalised away either. I began to wonder how the debunker mindset actually came about – how it worked – and I became a member of the JREF to find out. What I found startled me. There seemed to be no critical thought – just denial and ridicule. The whole thing seemed to be dismissed under a blanket of obfuscation and over-generalisation.

Fascinating. For most people it really is just the opposite of your experience wherever you gained a "formal education". Attending a place of actual higher education, most people, especially in the sciences, learn to recognize the type of fallacies you've used here and avoid them. I'm more like Pixel42 in that I was a credulous believer like you still are until I became more mature and recognized the errors in thinking that are used in the pseudosciences such as astrology and UFOlogy. It shocked me that adults would fall for some of the antics of the woo peddlers.

..and I am too – only it is the JREF where my attentions are currently focussed in that regard. LOL

Me too. LOL!

It really is not that difficult. The set of plausible mundane explanations is a very restricted set. All those things that cannot “fly” are ruled out for a start

Exactly the kind of uncritical thinking I was just mentioning that I was able to abandon when my critical thinking skills increased.

You did notice I placed quotation marks around “fly” didn’t you? Reflection, refraction, etc are all counted in that category.

"Mundane" means well within our common range of experience and perfectly ordinary.

That is why cases that have withstood the test of time are more interesting to me – simply because no-one has been able to come up with plausible mundane explanations for them – often despite years of concerted effort from all sides of the debate.

They're interesting to me too, more from the psychological aspect of it, where seemingly adult people have their own pet "god of the gaps" arguments. Truly fascinating how undeveloped critical thinking skills are in some people.

Oh, there is no doubt the majority of cases do have mundane explanations. And people so become convinced on the slightest (or no) evidence. That is why my concentration is on reliable cases with reliable witnesses.

Indeed, people do become convinced on the slightest or no evidence of their own pet "god of the gaps" arguments. If we're talking about religious people, their explanation is angels. In Ireland, people believe in leprechauns. To pseudoscientific UFOlogists, it's PseudoAliens. Go figure.

The more reliable we find the report and the witnesses, the greater weight we will place on the evidence.

Yes, you're displaying the lack of critical thinking I was discussing earlier. You may have missed where it has been shown that anecdotes are unfalsifiable. That's why pseudoscientific uncritical thinkers hang their hat on them, you can never prove it isn't PseudoAliens! You'd agree that that kind of magical thinking involves no critical thinking skills at all, yes?

It depends on the conclusions one is drawing. You see it is just this type of over-generalisation that I find perplexing coming from members of an organisation that professes to promote rational and critical thinking.

It amazes me that pseudoscientists come to a critical thinking forum with their "god of the gaps" thinking and try to peddle it. Do they want validation for their lack of critical thinking skills? What is it exactly? It just fascinates me.

It also perplexes me that the debunkers can consider some cases to be reliable enough to conclude mundane explanations… yet whenever no explanation is found the case suddenly become unreliable…

It perplexes me that pseudoscientific creduloids base their belief system on unfalsifiable anecdotes.

Again with the over-generalisations. Some reports are reliable, some not. It depends on many factors (including cognitive and perceptual biases and the character of the witness). We cannot simply state that all reports are unreliable and simply dismiss them out of hand on that basis alone. Each report must be assessed on its own merits and if they are considered to be unreliable – then there must be a legitimate reason provided as to why they might be so considered.

Apparently, a report is reliable if the pseudoscientific creduloid wants it to be reliable. Just think how many creduloids were taken in by the HOAX at Delphos, calling the Johnson boy a credible witness! LOL!

For example the psychology, history and even the evolutionary roots, chemistry and physics of religious experience have been well documented. We know what causes them and we can apply those causal explanations to all cases of religious experience. We cannot say the same for UFO experiences. They simply don’t fall into the pattern of religious experiences – although they may superficially seem to have some elements in common and some people construct religions based on the concepts “Scientology” for example…). However, religious experiences are not able to be tracked on radar, or photographed or filmed, nor do they leave physical trace evidence. As for Bigfoot… who knows, I have not studied the evidence so I have no opinion one way or other (but it does seem that those with opinions can bring evidence for their own side of the debate).

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! Only a dishonest pseudoscientist would forget FLIR.

Oh, there is no doubt that along side perceptual factors and witness reliability factors, cognitive factors must also be accounted for. Indeed I have been stating as much over the last number of posts. Once again we can assess the reports to see if any of those factors might plausibly have played a role.

A pity that you've only claimed it and not demonstrated it. That's the way pseudoscientists do it.

Again with the overgeneralisations! Not all, factors play a role in all contexts. Each factor is applicable only within its own specific context.

So in the context of a report that you want to believe is PseudoAliens, the factors don't come into play?

More overgeneralisation… It depends on what you mean by “out of the ordinary” – such a statement can really only be made in reference to a particular cognitive or perceptual factor (or set of factors).

How did they come into play at Delphos?

That contention I presume is that the more “out of the ordinary” the object being viewed, the more unreliable the conclusions about what is being viewed will be.

But once again that is an overgeneralisation. You will have to define what you mean by “out of the ordinary”.

Out of the ordinary would be one where ET was confirmed. The null hypothesis is that "All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." When do you think you'll be attempting to falsify that?