UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

No, the assumption is that perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.

The trouble for you and your flying saucer stories is that there are always factors that can affect the accuracy of perceptions, and despite your endlessly repeated proclamatory assertions to the contrary, you have no way of telling which factors were at play or to what extent they may have affected things these old cases.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

You haven't read the thread, have you?

I'd be willing to bet four dollars and 2½ rai that you haven't read the ECREE thread either.

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

Yes. but will the ufailogists listen?

Common sense.

Isn't at all common.

Null hypotesis: cases that defy explanation

That's not a hypothesis.

It's not even a sentence.

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

No, you.

 

[Rramjet]

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?

Given that the sun was on the opposite side of the earth, take a line from where you are standing and extend it through 70 degrees above the horizon and look to see the minumum distance out before the sulight hits it. The vertical height can then be worked out by trigonometry. This will be the minimum heght the objects could have been. As to the maximum, as I stated, very rapidly you will get to point where no known object in the solar system is moving that fast. That will be your maximum (if you are to maintain mundane explanations). Thus you can express the height within a defined range. You cannot however express it precisely as a single distance.

However, all that really begs the question of what they could have been anyway - no matter what distance out they were.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

As someone who's made a vocation of insulting the intelligence of the other posters, Rramjet, you're in no position to be casting aspersions about Turgor.

Given some of your outrageous claims and misinterpretations of basic principles it seems quite reasonable to enquire as to your awareness of the vast range of orbital distances and sizes that Earth's satellites occupy, and, given your predisposition to Rredefine everything, whether you consider the Moon to be amongst them.

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.

You can't tell the difference between a seagull and a flying saucer, so your assessment of the character of something you claim to have seen is pretty suspect, to say the least.

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.

Or something much smaller, much slower, much closer.

Naturally you'll go on and on about being able to tell the difference, failing to cognite that your subjective opinion about your own observation is worthless, but as usual you'll be wasting your time.

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”.

Gosh! Well, I take it all back. Who are we to question the conjecturings of Mr X and Mr Y? After all, anecdotal witnesses are always trustworthy in the Rramjetverse, aren't they?


And you dare to suggest that Turgor is insulting our intelligence.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Apart from the obvious potkettleblackness of this foot-stampery, I'll point out that you never respond to RoboTimbo anyway. You just keep quoting him, copy/pasting your mantra underneath his words and pretending that it's a meaningful answer.

Nobody has been fooled, of course, but it's annoying in its plodding predictability so if this means that you're going to stop doing it then it's not an unwelcome development.

We'll just let the record show that in the end, you had no answer, will we?

 

[Access Denied]

No, Rramjet. The one we will stick with is:

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

[raises hand]

May I offer a slight revision to your null hypothesis?

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane causes."

Some credulous individuals might take using “explanations” instead of “causes” to mean we (the scientific “establishment” as it were) must come up with an explanation for every single case in order to “validate” the null hypothesis when the reality is there could be a near infinite number of possible explanations and no practical way to test for them all.*

Oh wait, too late…

*With the notable exception perhaps of the fact that to date, our vast array of sensors (scientific instrumentation) monitoring our skies and the space above it 24/7 have never detected any non-mundane objects entering or leaving our atmosphere thus ruling out ET origin.

 

[Jocce]

No, the assumption is that perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.

Now of course your statement there (your “predisposed”) is simply a matter of a cognitive factor of your own “predisposing” you to perceive things in a biased way.

You should have asked “What factors are present that would cause the pilots (for there were two of them – another cognitive bias of yours exposed) to misperceive?

Predisposition is a factor that will affect perception.

Now of course one of those factors could be that they were looking through the cockpit windows.

Yes, possibility of reflections and/or (as in another case previously discussed) water droplets or other objects on the window.

Against that we know that there were two pilots and one got put of his seat to follow the objects as they crossed to the other side of the plane – while the other remained seated (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-178) Yet both observed the same thing - and this simply could not occur if it were merely reflections in the cockpit window.

That's an interesting opinion. Care to show any evidence that falsifies the hypothesis that it was external reflections? The report is also ambigous. On one page it says that Fortenberry who was in the right seat picked them up on the right side of the plane (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-177). On another page it says that Nash got out of his seat and moved to the right side of the cockpit (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-178). Anyway, I'm not quite sure how Nash could have gotten out of his seat and crossed to the other side of the cockpit in a DC-4. Ever seen the inside of those things?

So no, there is actually nothing in the environment would cause that to occur.

Interesting opinion. But of course it is baseless.

I am not sure how this applies to the case. Perhaps you have some “biological objects” of the size and shape mentioned that would fit the bill?

Exactly! You/we don't know/can't think of any. This is why your "process of elimination" fails time and time again.

Well we know what they did not see…

No we don't because there is not informationin the case to draw any conclusions.

Interestingly, the less information supplied in the report, they more mundane explanations will become plausible. That we cannot come up with any plausible mundane explanations on the evidence presented is a telling factor in this regard.

Only to you.

Indeed, on the evidence presented we cannot know what the objects were – but we can definitely conclude things about what the objects were not. I mean, what mundane objects are circular, roughly 100 feet in diameter, about ten to fifteen feet high, and can manoeuvre as described?

What I'm sure you mean to say is "what mundane objects appear to be circular, roughly 100 feet in diameter, about ten to fifteen feet high, and appear to manoeuvre as described?

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

Sure, speculate all you want. Your speculations are not evidence though.

 

[Akhenaten]

<hole digging snipped>

- so you must remember that the further out you position these things, the more incredible their speed becomes).

Which is exactly why you subjectively assign them a smaller size and greater distance in the first place, so you can pretend they were flying saucers and not something more likely but less exciting.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

<anecsnip>

Suggesting alternative explanations to "OMG . . . aliens!" isn't obfuscation, Rramjet. It's just a facet of critical thinking that appears to have escaped you.

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.

A provisional and subjective elimination of a single possible explanation is approximately 14.37 SSH* from the bottom line. How many more items are there on your apparently secret list of plausible mundane explanations before we get to flying saucers?



*Standard Satellite Heights.

 

[Jocce]

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

Why do you keep saying this? It's obviously not true.

The visual observations and film are not satisfactorily explained in terms of aircraft, radar chaff, or insects, or balloons though the films alone are consistent with birds. Source: http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm

 

[Rramjet]

Predisposition is a factor that will affect perception.

No it is not – it is a catchall category label, similar in nature to “bias” or “inclination”. There are many different factors that may lead to a predisposition, just as there a many factors that may lead to a bias. One has to have a reason for a predisposition, bias or inclination.

Yes, possibility of reflections and/or (as in another case previously discussed) water droplets or other objects on the window.

Yes, but given that one of the pilots got out of his seat and moved to the right to follow the object’s motion, while the other remained seated and yet both maintained they saw the same thing, makes such explanations not plausible.

That's an interesting opinion. Care to show any evidence that falsifies the hypothesis that it was external reflections?

What precisely are “external reflections”? Internal reflections I can understand – but external reflections? Perhaps you can explain how that might work?

The report is also ambigous. On one page it says that Fortenberry who was in the right seat picked them up on the right side of the plane (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page....MAXW-PBB12-177). On another page it says that Nash got out of his seat and moved to the right side of the cockpit (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page....MAXW-PBB12-178).

Fortenberry in the right hand seat did not move, Nash in the left hand seat got up and moved to the right to keep them in view.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure how Nash could have gotten out of his seat and crossed to the other side of the cockpit in a DC-4. Ever seen the inside of those things?

You mean you cannot move in the cockpit? Oh look, pictures (http://www.google.com/search?q=DC-4...=X&ei=xTc6Tr7vD8SIrAeN-9AU&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQsAQ).

I am not sure how this applies to the case. Perhaps you have some “biological objects” of the size and shape mentioned that would fit the bill?

Exactly! You/we don't know/can't think of any. This is why your "process of elimination" fails time and time again.

You cannot rule out one hundred foot diameter flying biological objects? That does not surprise me in the least.

No we don't because there is not informationin the case to draw any conclusions.

A formation of self (and variably)-luminous, one hundred foot diameter, 10 to 15 feet thick, moving at high speed, performing inertia defying manoeuvres… and you don’t have enough information to rule our mundane objects? That no longer surprises me in the least.

What I'm sure you mean to say is "what mundane objects appear to be circular, roughly 100 feet in diameter, about ten to fifteen feet high, and appear to manoeuvre as described?

Sure okay – go ahead then… what mundane objects can “appear to be” that way?

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

Sure, speculate all you want. Your speculations are not evidence though.

Precisely. While the ETH is a plausible alternative, it remains for all that merely an hypothesis.

 

[Rramjet]

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

Why do you keep saying this? It's obviously not true.

The visual observations and film are not satisfactorily explained in terms of aircraft, radar chaff, or insects, or balloons though the films alone are consistent with birds. Source: http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm

Ah yes, and so the misrepresentations continue thick and fast. That was from the abstract and it was Hartmann who wrote it. It was not the expressed opinion of the Navy, Air Force or Baker – who all suggested the “birds hypothesis” could not be sustained.

 

[Access Denied]

Now this document does not state it was the Robertson panel (which was classified at the time of this memo) but it seems that this is what they were referring to. I am aware that Dr. Page (an astronomer) was on the panel. The only other astronomer, who was there that I know of, was Dr. Hynek!

Indeed, which would seem to beg the question, given Ruppelt was there as well, why did he present this as “evidence” in his book...

"We also dew a blank on the Tremonton Movie, a movie that had been taken by a Navy Chief Photographer, Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse, on July 2, 1952."

[…]

While the lab had been working on the moved at Wright Field, Major Fournet had been talking to the Navy photo people at Anacostia; they thought they has some good ideas on how to analyze the movies, so as soon as we were through with them I sent them to Major Fournet and he took them over to the Navy lab.

The Navy lab spent about two months studying the films and had just completed their analysis. The men who had done the work were on hand to brief the panel of scientists on their analysis after the panel had seen the movies.

[…]

The Navy analysts didn't use the word "interplanetary spacecraft" when they told of their conclusion, but they did say that UFO's were intelligently controlled vehicles and they weren't airplanes or birds.

[…]

When the Navy people finished with their presentation, the scientists had questions. None of the panel members were trying to find fault with the work the Navy people had done, but they weren't going to accept the study until they had meticulously searched for every loophole. They found one.

[…]

... the astronomer didn't think the Navy analysts had used the correct technique in making their measurement. This didn't necessarily mean that their data were all wrong, but it did mean they should recheck their work."

- Edward Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, pp. 197-199​

...knowing full well it had already been debunked by a panel of world-class scientists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Ruppelt

Ruppelt requested reassignment from Blue Book in late 1953 shortly after the Robertson Panel issued its conclusions (based partly on the panel's official report, Ruppelt's Blue Book staff was reduced from more than ten personnel to three, including Ruppelt). He retired from the Air Force not long afterwards, then worked in the aerospace industry.

Three years later, Ruppelt's book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (17 Chapters) was published.

One might wonder if that had anything to do with this…

In 1960 the expanded edition of Ruppelt's book (20 Chapters) was published by Doubleday & Co.. The only change from earlier editions came in three more chapters which largely echoed the Air Force's position that there was nothing unusual about UFOs. Ruppelt seemed to have abandoned his early views that some UFO reports seemed mysterious and unexplained, and he declared UFOs a "space age myth".

Not to mention his claim to have seen the so-called TOP SECRET “Estimate of the Situation” that allegedly came to the conclusion of ET and was destroyed when the actual TOP SECRET Air Intelligence Report clearly indicates the opposite as I noted earlier somewhere around here.

[shrugs]

 

[Akhenaten]

Precisely. While the ETH is a plausible alternative, it remains for all that merely an hypothesis.

Until the existance of ETs becomes established, invisible pink unicorns are just as plausible as they are.

What's your position on the IPUH?

 

[Rramjet]

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

Suggesting alternative explanations to "OMG . . . aliens!" isn't obfuscation, Rramjet. It's just a facet of critical thinking that appears to have escaped you.

Suggesting that my statement meant “OMG … aliens!” IS obfuscation at its worst – that is an outright falsehood. See if you can work out what I did mean…

A provisional and subjective elimination of a single possible explanation is approximately 14.37 SSH* from the bottom line. How many more items are there on your apparently secret list of plausible mundane explanations before we get to flying saucers?

So geese it was not – but if you want to believe it was “flying saucers”, then be my guest. However, you will have to define what you mean by the term though – because I am not at all sure what you mean by it in the context.

I am merely contending (as always) that the case defies plausible mundane explanation. That is I am contending that the descriptive characteristics rule out all known natural or technological explanations.

Perhaps though YOU (or anyone you know) can come up with a plausible mundane explanation?

 

[Rramjet]

Until the existance of ETs becomes established, invisible pink unicorns are just as plausible as they are.

What's your position on the IPUH?

Do you have any multiple eyewitness evidence, radar evidence, photographic evidence, film evidence or physical trace evidence for your IPUH?

Does science suggest the existence of PUs (as it does for ET)?

Has a SETI equivalent been set up for PUs?

No? Then the ETH remains plausible while the IPUH does not.

 

[Access Denied]

I am merely contending (as always) that the case defies plausible mundane explanation.

And given your performance here anyone should care what you think because?

 

[Rramjet]

...knowing full well it had already been debunked by a panel of world-class scientists?

“Debunked”? You overstate the case. The Robertson Panel questioned the densitometer analysis on the grounds of a mere impression they got from simply viewing the films (most likely not even side by side) concerning a differential exposure level between the original and a copy. They conducted no analysis themselves and were merely speculating that the densitometer readings could have been in error. This of course (as Ruppelt points out) does not mean they were in error.

 

[Rramjet]

And given your performance here anyone should care what you think because?

If you really don't care you can of course choose not to read or post.

 

[Pixel42]

No, the assumption is that perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.

No, the fact is that the brain always interprets what its senses are telling it, and that that interpretation is always influenced by what instinct and experience have predisposed it to see. So these pilots' estimates of the shape, size, distance and manuevering ability of these objects (even the assumption that they were solid objects) cannot be relied on. In the absence of any additional information speculation is fun but pointless and conclusions - including the conclusion that there is no mundane explanation for this sighting - cannot be justified.

I seem to be simply repeating myself in the face of stubborn denial of facts, so I'll bow out of this conversation now.