UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Sure, but in the absence of plausible mundane explanations, then it becomes legitimate to speculate about alternative explanations.

Since the falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations"​

how will you be falsifying that?

 

[dafydd]

We don´t need semantics here. There are a plenty of cases, which are unexplainable. Case closed.

If you however feel that there is an explanation. You can tell what it is.

Common sense.

Null hypotesis: cases that defy explanation
Burden of proof: I don´t need to prove that cases are not-explainable. You do it yourself.

Unexplainable does not mean aliens. If you are asserting that,then you have to prove it.

 

[AdMan]

Unexplainable does not mean aliens. If you are asserting that,then you have to prove it.

Didn't you read the post? Case closed! You have no right to question things or look for an explanation. The believers have spoken.

 

[Rramjet]

He used the values obtained by Baker because they were available.

The Navy and Air Force calculations were not available to him?

However, he arrived at a completely different conclusion because Baker ignored the possibility that birds could produce small points of light on a film if they were at the right distance.

Actually Bakaer did not ignore the “birds” hypothesis at all!

”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)​

(remember also this is Hartmann paraphrasing Baker)

You really are not up to speed on all of this are you? Do you even read anything but what these websites tell you? Baker performed his analysis in 1955 while the Robertson panel met in January 1953! If you ACTUALLY READ the Robertson panel’s report, you will see that the Navy PIL came in and briefed the panel on their methodology and what they determined.

Yes, you are correct. I was mistaken. The Navy briefed the Robertson Panel and it was the Navy’s analysis that was presented to them. I am human after all! LOL.

However, the Robetson Panel’s objections in that regard relate only to the measurement of the light intensity of the objects. And still we have just the mere impression of the panel members that the exposure of the copy was different to that of the original and that affected the actual brightness of the objects compared to the background (as opposed to the relative brightness between the two films giving the mere appearance of an actual brightness differential).
You are failing to read or comprehend my entire statement. My comments were directed at what level of expertise these technicians in the PIL had with these kinds of measurements and analyzing film images showing dots against a clear sky. They were experts at analyzing aerial images of the ground to assess bomb damage, targeting, ship identification, reconnaissance, etc. That is something completely different than what they attempted. For the most part, measuring angular sizes and speeds is not that great an exercise. However, the major reason they appeared to reject the Sea Gull hypothesis was because of the density readings they made on the film. As previously stated they used a copy of the film which was not the same as the original. That introduced the first error. The second error was noticed by the astronomers on the panel. That was the methodology for measuring the density of the images was not correct.

Rationalise it however you want AstroP, but what you are actually doing is calling into question the expertise of the professionals involved in the actual film analysis based on a mere impression of members of the Robertson Panel that the relative brightness of the objects was different.

“It was brought out be two astronomers who heard a Navy briefing on the analysis of the movies that the method used to measure brightness of each spot was wrong, therefore, the results of the entire study were wrong.”

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-381

Maybe, maybe not, however BOTH the Air Force and Baker conducted independent analyses and also did not think the “birds” hypothesis was correct.

These experts presented their case to the panel of scientists, who were acting somewhat as a peer-review process. Under critical review, it was determined there were flaws in their methodology making their conclusions inaccurate. Therefore, their analysis was not adequate to draw the conclusions they drew. Isn’t that how the scientific process works or is it different in UFO land?

Perhaps you might have a case if the densitometer readings were the only reason to rule out “birds”. But of course there were other reasons. For example if the objects were indeed beyond the range of resolution, then they are moving too quickly for them to be seagulls. If however they are smaller birds and closer, you only have to look at the film of the two objects crossing behind the tower to realise that the perfectly flat, level flight and the precision of maintenance of the distance between the objects rules out small birds (here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page from about 1:30).

I ask you to demonstrate how the objects in the film could not be birds. Rather than using Swords lame excuse of “I trust the experts (but ignore the problems with their analysis)”, why not look at the data from the film(i.e. the evidence)? Otherwise you appear to be just putting your hands over your ears (or is it your eyes) and repeat “it can’t be birds…it can’t be birds…”?

Yes, why don’t you have a look at that film and tell me how the motion of the objects in any way resembles that of birds.

And you are (unsurprisingly) misrepresenting Dr Swords:

“… 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)​

BTW, you never answered my proposal (or I missed it if you did) at post 9596. Just to state it again:

(…)

…At precisely the end of the two (or four) week period, the entire forum can vote on the offerred explanations as implausible or plausible…

Yeah right! Critical analysis by popular vote! Now why haven’t scientists thought of that one before? After all, it could save them all a lot of fuss and bother... but perhaps there are even some current theories that your methodology could be applied to – perhaps Evolution for example? So let’s all go over to a Creationist forum and get all the Creationists to vote on that theory shall we? LOL. (Do still you wonder why I have ignored your suggestion?)

So far, you have rejected the idea of presenting one “best case”.

I have no idea what you mean by “best case”. All the cases I am presenting are (in my opinion) good cases. Is there any single case that is “better” than any other? I don’t really know. Only others can be the judge of that.

You have also rejected the idea of taking one month from the NUFORC database to obtain some “reliable” UFO reports that are untainted by the UFO websites.

I have told you before, I am not going to waste my time trawling through databases (do you know how many reports they receive in one day…?)

What I can offer you however is a personal sighting (for that is no different to plucking one out of such a database – with the added advantage that I can answer questions about it – ie; you have the opportunity to interrogate the witness).

Mr X, Mr Y and myself were sitting outside on are warm, clear night, enjoying a quiet conversation, when my Mr Y said …“Those stars are moving”. And he pointed up into the western night sky (it was about 11:45 in the evening). I looked up but could see nothing except a huge number of stars (it was a very clear night and we were well away from city lights). “Where?” I asked. “There”, he said pointing. I stood up and so did he. I followed his pointed finger and there they were: Four tiny star-like points of light in a row, about 70 degrees up from the horizon, moving south to north. Very high up. Satellite height. They had a similar brightness to stars – but they were not twinkling. The strange thing was that the first two lights were close together (a finger nail width between them at arms length) and they were “oscillating” about a midpoint between them. Not much - perhaps 20-30 degrees - but certainly noticeable. First the front one was above (to the side of?) the line of motion and the back one below it, then the oscillation would reverse this configuration. Back and forth they moved with a period of about 5 seconds. Then there was a third object trailing them on the same track, perhaps two finger widths back - and a little further back again – maybe three finger widths from the second object, a fourth one. All following precisely the same track. They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north. From the time of sighting (almost due west) to when they disappeared in the northwest was about 20 seconds.​

So there it is. You asked for a reliable report “untainted by UFO websites”. What do you make of it then? What plausible mundane explanations could there be for it do you think?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What do you make of it then? What plausible mundane explanations could there be for it do you think?

The falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

What non-mundane explanation do you have?

Your pseudoscientific attempts at shifting the burden of proof won't work.

 

[Turgor]

<snip>

Mr X, Mr Y and myself were sitting outside on are warm, clear night, enjoying a quiet conversation, when my Mr Y said …“Those stars are moving”. And he pointed up into the western night sky (it was about 11:45 in the evening). I looked up but could see nothing except a huge number of stars (it was a very clear night and we were well away from city lights). “Where?” I asked. “There”, he said pointing. I stood up and so did he. I followed his pointed finger and there they were: Four tiny star-like points of light in a row, about 70 degrees up from the horizon, moving south to north. Very high up. Satellite height. They had a similar brightness to stars – but they were not twinkling. The strange thing was that the first two lights were close together (a finger nail width between them at arms length) and they were “oscillating” about a midpoint between them. Not much - perhaps 20-30 degrees - but certainly noticeable. First the front one was above (to the side of?) the line of motion and the back one below it, then the oscillation would reverse this configuration. Back and forth they moved with a period of about 5 seconds. Then there was a third object trailing them on the same track, perhaps two finger widths back - and a little further back again – maybe three finger widths from the second object, a fourth one. All following precisely the same track. They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north. From the time of sighting (almost due west) to when they disappeared in the northwest was about 20 seconds.​

So there it is. You asked for a reliable report “untainted by UFO websites”. What do you make of it then? What plausible mundane explanations could there be for it do you think?

Before I come up with explanations, I'd like to know how you determined the lights to be at "Satellite height". I also wonder if you realize that there are man made satellites in orbit that are closer to the Earth's surface than to other man made satellites orbit, or that the moon is a satellite of the earth. I think this renders any estimation of distance that says "satellite height" quite meaningless.

 

[Rramjet]

Since the falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations"​

how will you be falsifying that?

First, it is not a null hyypothesis.

Second, "explanations" do not cause anything - let alone UFO sightings.

Happy now? No? You do suprise me...

So how about we address a real falsifiable null hypothesis:

If UFO reports result primarily from misinterpreted mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, colour, etc) between explained (unknown category) and unexplained (unknown category) reports.

 

[Rramjet]

Before I come up with explanations, I'd like to know how you determined the lights to be at "Satellite height". I also wonder if you realize that there are man made satellites in orbit that are closer to the Earth's surface than to other man made satellites orbit, or that the moon is a satellite of the earth. I think this renders any estimation of distance that says "satellite height" quite meaningless.

Yep, this is going to end well if you begin by insulting my intelligence (and the intelligence of any readers of this thread) Do I realise the moon is a satellite…? LOL.

The first reason I state that the objects were satellite height is that I have observed many satellites and these were no different in character. The second is that they definitely were not close to us, they were “way” up there – I have observed many other mundane objects cross overhead at night (including jets in the stratosphere) and these things were just way beyond that. They also passed over a range of hills to the north, again providing an impression of great height. Also, both Mr X and Mr Y conjectured (at first) that they must be satellites – so I was not the only one who concluded that the objects were “way out there”.

 

[RoboTimbo]

First, it is not a null hyypothesis.

Your pseudoscientific twaddle was caught out by a real scientist. We can use wollery's if you prefer:

"All UFO sightings are mundane in origin"​

Second, "explanations" do not cause anything - let alone UFO sightings.

When were you going to explain about your idiotic pseudoscientific "null hypothesis? Did you forget your silliness about the mundane explanations that you were going to explain later? Still claiming that you're a scientist?

Happy now? No? You do suprise me...

Oh yes, very happy. LOL!

So how about we address a real falsifiable null hypothesis:

If UFO reports result primarily from misinterpreted mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, colour, etc) between explained (unknown category) and unexplained (unknown category) reports.

LOL! Did you miss where the real scientist called you out on your idiotic pseudoscientific "hypothesis"?

The falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are mundane in origin"​

What do you have to falsify it?

 

[Turgor]

Yep, this is going to end well if you begin by insulting my intelligence (and the intelligence of any readers of this thread) Do I realise the moon is a satellite…? LOL.

The first reason I state that the objects were satellite height is that I have observed many satellites and these were no different in character. The second is that they definitely were not close to us, they were “way” up there – I have observed many other mundane objects cross overhead at night (including jets in the stratosphere) and these things were just way beyond that. They also passed over a range of hills to the north, again providing an impression of great height. Also, both Mr X and Mr Y conjectured (at first) that they must be satellites – so I was not the only one who concluded that the objects were “way out there”.

You did not address my main point. Do you realize that distance from the surface of the earth to the nearest satellite of the earth is dwarfed by the distance from the nearest satellite to the earth to the most distant satellite to the earth? How can I take your interpretation of your observation serious if you think "satellite height" is a meaningful measurement of distance?

 

[Rramjet]

Unless you can conduct yourself in a rational, civilised manner (and without your boorish repetition of points I have already responded to) I am no longer going to respond to you RoboT.

 

[AdMan]

I think this isn´t this complicated at all. The sceptical movement can show the mundane explanations to each case and then the cases can be closed. I wonder why they don´t do it, since they seem to think that there is a mundane explanation to cases presented here.

Precisely. If they could, they most certainly would.

I just want to go back to this, because it sounds like you are agreeing with tomi71's points.

So you are also confused and think unexplained is the same thing as unexplainable, "case closed"?

Or would you agree that tomi71 is wrong in that regard?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Unless you can conduct yourself in a rational, civilised manner (and without your boorish repetition of points I have already responded to) I am no longer going to respond to you RoboT.

Unless you answer for the fatal flaws in your "arguments", you may as well not answer at all. As long as you continue your boorish repetition of long demolished arguments, you will continue to receive the same refutations.

The falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are mundane in origin"​

Can you falsify it or not? Pseudoscientific attempts at switching the burden of proof won't work.

 

[Rramjet]

You did not address my main point. Do you realize that distance from the surface of the earth to the nearest satellite of the earth is dwarfed by the distance from the nearest satellite to the earth to the most distant satellite to the earth? How can I take your interpretation of your observation serious if you think "satellite height" is a meaningful measurement of distance?

All I meant by "satellite height" is that they were a long way above the earth, further than any technological object (planes, jets etc) that could move at that velocity other than satellites. Indeed, the reference to "satellites" itself arose from the fact that their character most closely resembled that of a passing satellite. It was certainly not meant as a precise distance - merely just to indicate that these objects were at a great height above the earth and without being able to specify that height more closely (although I sincerely doubt that they were beyond the moon for example - that would be just too incredible to contemplate - so you must remember that the further out you position these things, the more incredible their speed becomes).

 

[Turgor]

All I meant by "satellite height" is that they were a long way above the earth, further than any technological object (planes, jets etc) that could move at that velocity other than satellites. Indeed, the reference to "satellites" itself arose from the fact that their character most closely resembled that of a passing satellite. It was certainly not meant as a precise distance - merely just to indicate that these objects were at a great height above the earth and without being able to specify that height more closely (although I sincerely doubt that they were beyond the moon for example - that would be just too incredible to contemplate - so you must remember that the further out you position these things, the more incredible their speed becomes).

Ok, according to your definition satellite height is some unspecified distance between say 20km from the earth to at most 300.000km from the earth. How did you figure out that all the objects you described were at some specific (but unspecified) distance between those distances?

 

[TjW]

All I meant by "satellite height" is that they were a long way above the earth, further than any technological object (planes, jets etc) that could move at that velocity other than satellites. Indeed, the reference to "satellites" itself arose from the fact that their character most closely resembled that of a passing satellite. It was certainly not meant as a precise distance - merely just to indicate that these objects were at a great height above the earth and without being able to specify that height more closely (although I sincerely doubt that they were beyond the moon for example - that would be just too incredible to contemplate - so you must remember that the further out you position these things, the more incredible their speed becomes).

So they were dim dots, and moving at a slow-to-medium angular velocity. That doesn't necessarily mean they were satellites.
Geese are known to fly in vee and diamond formations, in which they occasionally shift positions. In cruise, they fly at a very steady speed. They have been photographed as high as 22000 feet.

 

[Rramjet]

I just want to go back to this, because it sounds like you are agreeing with tomi71's points.

So you are also confused and think unexplained is the same thing as unexplainable?

Or would you agree that tomi71 is wrong in that regard?

LOL. I quoted the specific part of tomi71's post that I agreed with and responded specifically to that. That you might then infer that I agree with other parts of that post – or attempt to erroneously link my opinions to other parts of his post - merely indicates the logically fallacious mindset of the debunkers in this forum.

Now let’s see what tomi71 actually had to say:

I think it´s proven in science that there are unexplained cases in UFOlogy and in paranormal. If not where are the explanations?

And you stated that you thought that meant tomi71 believed that the:

…unexplained is the same thing as unexplainable?

And since I am now invited to comment:

I believe you have simply (and unsurprisingly) misrepresented what tomi71 is contending.

He first states that it has been proved that unexplained cases exist. Now I don’t believe that is a contentious statement - for clearly there are cases that remain unexplained.

He then states – If not (that is, if you contend it has not been proven) then where are the explanations?

Now granted the statement in parentheses above is only implied – nevertheless surely you are intelligent enough to infer its presence?

Of course I suspect you are intelligent enough, but simply choose to misrepresent tomi71s statements to further an agenda to (quite falsely) discredit him.

That you then (also falsely) attempt to link my own thoughts or opinions about that into your misrepresentations says more about you than it does either tomi71 or myself.

 

[Rramjet]

So they were dim dots, and moving at a slow-to-medium angular velocity. That doesn't necessarily mean they were satellites.
Geese are known to fly in vee and diamond formations, in which they occasionally shift positions. In cruise, they fly at a very steady speed. They have been photographed as high as 22000 feet.

Ah, I wondered how soon the attempted obfuscations would take to appear - not long it seems. "dim dots" they most certainly were not!

They were star bright - just not twinkling. Moreover, in the part of the world we were, there simply are no geese - neither in location nor passing in migration.

Besides, the location was on a cape with no land for thousands of kilometers to either to the south, east or north. Now that should narrow the location down to but a small possible handful in the world for you. LOL

Moreover, whence their light - it was nearly midnight - the sun was practically on the opposite side of the world - and even 22,000 feet would not expose it. Indeed, that is yet another indicator of great height and most certainly puts the "geese hypothesis" out of the question.

So the bottom line is - not geese.

 

[dafydd]

Unless you can conduct yourself in a rational, civilised manner (and without your boorish repetition of points I have already responded to) I am no longer going to respond to you RoboT.

Responded yes,answered,no.

 

[Rramjet]

Responded yes,answered,no.

...Yes, of course, my own fault, I should not have expected people here to understand the phrase "no longer going to".

And answered? Perhaps you simply missed it (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7438243#post7438243).