UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

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

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.

Show a source that rules out the bird hypothesis then. Haven't seen one so far.

 

[Jocce]

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

Finding dented cars, fungus and human hairs can't really be that hard now can it?

 

[Access Denied]

“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.

Evidently you are hopelessly confused/disinformed, Ruppelt wasn't talking about the Robertson Panel.

This of course (as Ruppelt points out) does not mean they were in error.

"...but it did mean they should recheck their work."

Can you point me to this recheck?

[or better yet, independent replication]

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Yes, but the factors that go into that predisposition are well documented and not all factors apply in all contexts. One simply has to understand which factors, if any, are operative at the time and place of the observation. If there are no factors that detrimentally bias the observation then we can assume the observation to be reasonably reliable.

Do you have any such factors?

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.

That is simply an unfounded assertion. What you need to do to draw that conclusion is define the factors that make the observations unreliable – otherwise we simply work on the principle that perception is basically accurate unless there are factors present that would detrimentally affect it.

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.

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

 

[jibal]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

The original version of that statement was the inverse (if you doubt it, google it) ... which is actually true. However, that there is evidence for P does not imply that P is true. There is also evidence for not-P, and the entirely of the evidence must be rationally weighed to yield the most plausible inference. In this case, the most plausible inference is that none of these anecdotes are actually encounters with aliens (or "aliens").

 

[Pixel42]

You missed the word "potential" in the post, did you?

It's almost as if his brain misinterpreted what his eyes were telling him, because he was predisposed not to register that word. By ignoring it he was able to give a response which missed the entire point of the post: that there are mundane explanations of UFO sightings that neither he nor anybody else would think of in a million years.

 

[Access Denied]

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

Trust me, it's not for your benefit so with all due respect...

Can I get you a tissue?

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

Well, if it’s any consolation, I for one have appreciated and enjoyed your erudite commentary…

Rest assured no doubt it has not fallen on deaf ears and all is not lost.

That said, I understand and support your decision 100%…

Life’s too short.

 

[Rramjet]

“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.

Evidently you are hopelessly confused/disinformed, Ruppelt wasn't talking about the Robertson Panel.

Ah and more misleading obfuscation – I was not talking about Ruppelt! Clearly I was talking about your “panel of world class scientists” – the Robertson Panel. LOL.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Nah, it's just cutting the chase. You don't really think there's anyone left that hasn't seen through your pretence of being an honest, objective investigator, do you? That would be really funny.

See if you can work out what I did mean…

I can't think of a more futile exercise. No thanks.

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.

How many items on your list of plausible mundane explanations are there between geese and flying saucers, Rramjet?

Or are you trying to tell me that your list doesn't include flying saucers? I've been saying all along that it was incomplete.

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.

So your claim boils down to being nothing more than that unidentified flying objects are, in fact, unidentified? Brilliant.

What's your next revelation going to be? Water is wet? Glue is sticky?

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

Luminous geese.

 

[Rramjet]

It's almost as if his brain misinterpreted what his eyes were telling him, because he was predisposed not to register that word. By ignoring it he was able to give a response which missed the entire point of the post: that there are mundane explanations of UFO sightings that neither he nor anybody else would think of in a million years.

I thought you had given up posting ...

You supplied a "runaway balloon" case and contended that it would potentially result in UFO reports.

I merely pointed out that the evidence from the aviation authorities showed that it did not.

Not sure what you missed about that...

Oh, of course, you need to (must) denigrate me, even at the expense of the truth...

...and please do let me know when you come up with any plausible mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting lately (including one of my own sightings).

(and a "million years"? - if I have told you once, I have told you a million times - never exaggerate. LOL.)

 

[Access Denied]

Ah and more misleading obfuscation – I was not talking about Ruppelt! Clearly I was talking about your “panel of world class scientists” – the Robertson Panel. LOL.

You heard it here first folks… that’s right, according to Rramjet, Hynek is not a "world-class" (in scare quotes) scientist!

<insert laughing dog here>

 

[Pixel42]

Well, if it’s any consolation, I for one have appreciated and enjoyed your erudite commentary…

Thank you

I'll still respond to interesting comments from other posters, it's only my conversation with Rramjet I've bowed out of as it is clearly pointless.

That said, I understand and support your decision 100%…

Life’s too short.

I can only shudder with admiration at the patience of the posters who have been at this for nearly two years

 

[Access Denied]

I thought you had given up posting ...

So how many cheap shots is that you've taken in the last 24 hours?

[lest one not forget the one oh so predictably taken against Astrophotographer when it was presented on an irresistibly shiny silver platter disc]

What a guy....

This thread would be a whole lot more productive you know if you could make just make the tiniest bit of effort towards approaching something like intellectual honesty.

So how about it Rramjet, care to acknowledge people’s arguments for a change (you know like in a real debate?) instead of spending all your time trying to avoid having to admit you just be wrong at any and all cost?

[I do believe you have more than one outstanding post/poster to address]

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

I can write as many eyewitness reports as you like, Rramjet, and they'll have exactly the same value as your anecdotes. More in fact, because I'm a Pharaoh. So let it be written, so let it be done and all that.

How do you know that the radar evidence that you mention isn't evidence for IPUs? How do you distinguish between radar images of IPUs and ETs? Neither appear to have IFF transponders.

I have yods of photographic evidence of IPUs.

Here's a group shot of some visiting a waterhole in the Northern Territory. You can see all their little hoofprints in the sand:

My physical trace evidence of IPUs is invisible, and yours for ETs is non-existant, so it's going to be a bit hard to judge which is the more convincing, isn't it?

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

Exactly as it does for ETs, as a matter of fact.

Has a SETI equivalent been set up for PUs?

Are you suggesting that setting up a Hollow Earth Detection Programme would suddenly make the Earth hollow?

Did radioactivity only spring into existence when Geiger-Müller counters were invented?

The search for something does not confer the property of existence upon it Rramjet. It's embarrassing that you'd think it would.

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

Your habit of assuming the answers to your silly questions in the same post that you ask them continues to make you look foolish, Rramjet.

I realise that it's a time saving measure, but it's made of fail and you have more of that than you'll ever need already.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

That is simply an unfounded assertion. What you need to do to draw that conclusion is define the factors that make the observations unreliable – otherwise we simply work on the principle that perception is basically accurate unless there are factors present that would detrimentally affect it.

This belief of yours in the presumed infallability of witnesses is at least as bizarre as your insistance in the infallibility of your own process of elimination of all plausible mundane explanations for UFOs. It's in direct opposition to everything that's known about eye witness accounts, and you can't not know that it is, given the number of times it's been explained to you.

Your persistence with this claim is as dishonest as it is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Stray Cat]

Rramjet, A few questions and observations about your Goose UFO report a few pages back:

Firstly regarding the appearance of the objects:

Indeed, the reference to "satellites" itself arose from the fact that their character most closely resembled that of a passing satellite.

And then it changes to

They were star bright - just not twinkling.

Now which is it?
Satellites are rarely if ever "star bright"... unless we're talking about those dim stars of course, but in this case we can't be because your refutation clearly states:

"dim dots" they most certainly were not!

Even though at first in your original report you say they were like "Four tiny star-like points of light" and you needed them pointing out to you.

Just trying to get a handle on exactly what they looked like.

Now the viewing conditions, you state in your original report here:

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)

But by the end of that paragraph you mention:

They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north.

So it's a "very clear night" except for the "misty haziness" "to the North"?

And about those hills where the misty haziness was, above you clearly describe misty hazy hills to the North, but curiously in a later post those hills have gone:

Besides, the location was on a cape with no land for thousands of kilometers to either to the south, east or north.

Unless of course, the misty hazy hills were thousands of kilometers away in which case, you wouldn't be able to see them at all anyway let alone discern that they had a "slight misty haziness"

I'm sure you'll realise the importance of getting details correct and accurate so I hope you don't mind me pointing these apparent inconsistencies out and hopefully we'll be able to clear them up without adding further complications to your story.

Thanks in anticipation of your cooperation.

 

[wollery]

I think Rramjet has me on ignore.

Is there any reason for completely ignoring my last two posts? Posts which directly address two points that you have subsequently argued as though I had not posted at all.

Here, and here.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think Rramjet has me on ignore.

Is there any reason for completely ignoring my last two posts? Posts which directly address two points that you have subsequently argued as though I had not posted at all.

Here, and here.

Maybe you need to type louder.

 

[Turgor]

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.

Indeed, you cannot express it precisely as a single distance. If you've actually done the trigonometry to establish a minimum distance I'd like to see it. But even without that it seems obvious to me that something off in the distance towards the direction of the sun could have easily been quite close to earth and just reflecting sunlight. Geese would fit here, as pointed out by Stray Cat. That would also explain the "oscillations" you saw.

 

[wollery]

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.

All of which assumes that the light was caused by reflected sunlight.

On what basis do you assume that they weren't self illuminated?