UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Well, no, the front two were also oscillating about a central point between them… and four satellites in a row with the front two oscillating? Besides, I am now beginning to come to the conclusion that they were (must have been) self-illuminated!

How long can it be before we hear about these things doing figure eights and landing amongst the trees?

 

[Rramjet]

The bottom line here is, I think this could qualify as a panel of “world class scientists”. Many had expertise in the necessary areas and were accomplished in their fields. If you are laughing at this label then you can maybe give us a list of scientists, in 1953, who were CLEARLY better scientists than these gentlemen?

So? And who’s laughing at the label? I was laughing at the attempted obfuscation. These distinguished scientists, who conducted no analysis of their own – were simply speculating about a potential for error… after merely noting the appearance of an exposure difference… They could not be sure that the exposure difference actually affected the measurements. So no matter how “qualified” they were – speculation is speculation – and without an actual analysis, that is all their comments on the matter will ever be.

(time is once again against me - I will address your other points later AstroP)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Reality seems to be against you too. And don't forget you haven't addressed this either yet:

Oh yes, you are right of course (trying to do too many things at once LOL) - hoaxes and delusions etc may of course be considered to be mundane explanations -there is a difference between those explanations and “natural object/phenomenological” explanations – but I don’t have time to go into that just now.

It is not a null hypothesis because the null hypothesis is directionless - it proposes no difference, no effect, or no specific outcome.

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." postulates a specific explanation for UFO sightings. It has a favoured direction.

The null hypothesis would be something along the lines of what I stated above:

If UFO reports result from mundane explanations then we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports.

Or THIS or THIS or THIS or THIS or THIS or THIS or THIS or THIS or THIS.

That's ok for a start of the things you've ignored and couldn't honestly answer.

 

[Rramjet]

“perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.”

is a legitimate part of the scientific method?

It is a well documented principle Paul. And that principle can be found in any textbook on the principles of perception and arises from the fact that there are many factors that “interfere” with our direct observation of the world. Physical (the construction of the eye and brain and the connections between them), environmental (the factors in the environment that act to distort our perceptions) and cognitive (learned and innate heuristics and biases) and the interplay between all of those.

It is a simple fact that not all of those factors will be operative in every observational context and that not all of them, even if present in a particular context, will act to detrimentally affect our perception.

They key is in understanding which factors play a role (and how they do) in any given situation.

When presented with a UFO report like the Fortenberry/Nash incident we can look to see what factors among the physical, environmental and cognitive might have played a role in the observation. Some environmental factors have already been discussed (night time, cockpit windows, etc), but the more of those factors we can rule out as being substantially influential, the more reliable we might consider the report to be.

It is a principle Paul, to which we apply scientific methodology.

Now I suppose you too will completely ignore my statements in that regard, just as everyone else has?

 

[Turgor]

It was nearly midnight. The sun was on the opposite side of the world. Given the radius of the earth is about 6400km then from where we were the minimum distance possible to reflect sunlight (given an angle of 70 degrees) is more than 19,000km from our position and 18,000km above the earth… surely not possible, so actually, come to think of it, these things must have been self-illuminated! (wow, never crossed my mind before - I’ll have to work it out properly!) …but there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will. For that matter, there is nowhere for any migrating bird to have come from but the open ocean… unless perhaps they were Emperor Penguins. LOL.

It is definitely possible for sunlight to reflect from something in the sky at 11:45 PM when you cannot see the sun yourself anymore. The earth has seasons, and so your latitude has an influence. Where you are in a timezone (eastern edge, western edge, somewhere in the middle) will change the time when the sun is exactly opposite the earth from your position, so longitude has some influence as well. Your estimation assumes you are at the equator of a planet with no axial tilt.

So what day of the year did you make your observation? What was your latitude and longitude?

 

[Pixel42]

Can anyone else document the reverse?

This wiki article seems well written and referenced and is probably as good a place to start as any other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of the environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.[1][2] All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.[3] For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory and expectation.[4][5] Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input.[5] Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.[3] [...]

Although the senses were traditionally viewed as passive receptors, the study of illusions and ambiguous images has demonstrated that the brain's perceptual systems actively and pre-consciously attempt to make sense of their input.[4]

 

[EHocking]

…but there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will. For that matter, there is nowhere for any migrating bird to have come from but the open ocean… unless perhaps they were Emperor Penguins. LOL.

I think that your process for eliminating possible mundane explanation needs to be expanded beyond what you "know".

Cape Barren Goose^WP

"The Cape Barren Goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae) is a large goose resident in southern Australia.
...
These are bulky geese and their almost uniformly grey plumage, bearing rounded black spots, is unique."
​

 

[Jocce]

So? And who’s laughing at the label? I was laughing at the attempted obfuscation. These distinguished scientists, who conducted no analysis of their own – were simply speculating about a potential for error… after merely noting the appearance of an exposure difference… They could not be sure that the exposure difference actually affected the measurements. So no matter how “qualified” they were – speculation is speculation – and without an actual analysis, that is all their comments on the matter will ever be.

So the case was researched in the usual sloppy manner. Someone points out a possible error source and noone checks? Ufology in a nutshell.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

It is a simple fact that not all of those factors will be operative in every observational context and that not all of them, even if present in a particular context, will act to detrimentally affect our perception.

It's a simple fact that despite paying lip service to all these factors you have no idea to what extent their effects have come into play in individual cases, especially incidents that happened 60 years ago.

They key is in understanding which factors play a role (and how they do) in any given situation.

And it's a key that is far beyond reach when dealing with your motley collection of anecdotes.

When presented with a UFO report like the Fortenberry/Nash incident we can look to see what factors among the physical, environmental and cognitive might have played a role in the observation. Some environmental factors have already been discussed (night time, cockpit windows, etc), but the more of those factors we can rule out as being substantially influential, the more reliable we might consider the report to be.

You have absolutely no idea of which factors were involved and to what extent they were at play, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

It is a principle Paul, to which we apply scientific methodology.

It's pure, unadulterated pseudoscience.

Now I suppose you too will completely ignore my statements in that regard, just as everyone else has?

That's what's known as conventional wisdom.

 

[Jocce]

there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will.

Alba family of owls. Shorebirds in certain plumages...

For that matter, there is nowhere for any migrating bird to have come from but the open ocean… unless perhaps they were Emperor Penguins. LOL.

*....chuckled the clueless smuggly while the ornothologists got a good laugh...*

 

[Stray Cat]

Why should the two statements be mutually exclusive? The objects were “star bright” but were not twinkling – hence the comparison to (ie; “most closely resembled”) satellites.

I have a lot to add but am rushed for time at the moment, I'll try find to time to expand on this when I get home, but for now:

They were "star bright" but they didn't twinkle.

Do you know what makes stars twinkle?

Does the lack of twinklyness not suggest you were looking at them without the distortion of the Earths atmosphere? ie: they were lower in altitude and closer than you perceived them to be.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, when will you be addressing the problem with anecdotes being unfalsifiable? Don't you feel that you've dodged the question long enough?

 

[Jocce]

Do you know what makes stars twinkle?

Oh, you beat me to it...

 

[wollery]

So? And who’s laughing at the label? I was laughing at the attempted obfuscation. These distinguished scientists, who conducted no analysis of their own – were simply speculating about a potential for error… after merely noting the appearance of an exposure difference… They could not be sure that the exposure difference actually affected the measurements. So no matter how “qualified” they were – speculation is speculation – and without an actual analysis, that is all their comments on the matter will ever be.

(time is once again against me - I will address your other points later AstroP)

Are you now suggesting that peer-review is worthless?

And are you ever going to respond to my other posts. You know, the ones that directly address your arguments that you haven't even acknowledged I posted.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So? And who’s laughing at the label? I was laughing at the attempted obfuscation. These distinguished scientists, who conducted no analysis of their own – were simply speculating about a potential for error… after merely noting the appearance of an exposure difference… They could not be sure that the exposure difference actually affected the measurements. So no matter how “qualified” they were – speculation is speculation – and without an actual analysis, that is all their comments on the matter will ever be.

We know what the panel's qualifications and experience was. That is the major point here. They were capable of examining the report and were briefed on how the procedure was done. This was examining the evidence. You keep using the word "speculate" in order to paint their conclusions in a certain negative light. That is, once again, intellectually dishonest and playing to those who can't see through it. Using the term "speculate" implies that they were simply guessing without looking at the evidence. That is NOT what occurred. They looked at the methodology and found problems that would introduce errors. That means the values obtained and any conclusions associated with those values were inaccurate. As stated previously, this was the cornerstone by which the PIL stated it could not be birds. Since that value/conclusion can not be considered accurate, one can not cite their conclusion as a reason to reject the Sea Gull Hypothesis.

(time is once again against me - I will address your other points later AstroP)

Ooooooo...I can hardly wait....be still my beating heart.....

Make sure you put some real data in your "reliable" UFO report/story. I would expect a scientist to be more articulate and detailed in his observations.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Are you now suggesting that peer-review is worthless?

It certainly sounds like it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It is definitely possible for sunlight to reflect from something in the sky at 11:45 PM when you cannot see the sun yourself anymore. The earth has seasons, and so your latitude has an influence. Where you are in a timezone (eastern edge, western edge, somewhere in the middle) will change the time when the sun is exactly opposite the earth from your position, so longitude has some influence as well. Your estimation assumes you are at the equator of a planet with no axial tilt.

So what day of the year did you make your observation? What was your latitude and longitude?

These were my thoughts exactly. Here in NH at lat 43 degrees we have satellites all night long. In fact, about a week ago about 11:32 PM EDT, I saw a Geosynchronous (or is geostationary?) satellite glint that lasted for about 30 seconds. It spiked around magnitude +2 just below Aquila. I also saw many other bright satellite passes (+3 to +4) around midnight. I noted them but did not write them down. I guess I have to start my log up again for these sort of things. I have been remiss.

This does not mean that it was satellites but it indicates that satellites can not be eliminated.

 

[Paul2]

“perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.”

It is a well documented principle Paul. And that principle can be found in any textbook on the principles of perception and arises from the fact that there are many factors that “interfere” with our direct observation of the world. Physical (the construction of the eye and brain and the connections between them), environmental (the factors in the environment that act to distort our perceptions) and cognitive (learned and innate heuristics and biases) and the interplay between all of those.

It is a simple fact that not all of those factors will be operative in every observational context and that not all of them, even if present in a particular context, will act to detrimentally affect our perception.

They key is in understanding which factors play a role (and how they do) in any given situation.

When presented with a UFO report like the Fortenberry/Nash incident we can look to see what factors among the physical, environmental and cognitive might have played a role in the observation. Some environmental factors have already been discussed (night time, cockpit windows, etc), but the more of those factors we can rule out as being substantially influential, the more reliable we might consider the report to be.

It is a principle Paul, to which we apply scientific methodology.

Now I suppose you too will completely ignore my statements in that regard, just as everyone else has?

I asked for documentation, not explanation. If you don't want to provide it, or think that I should find it myself, that's fine, and I mean that sincerely. But the explanation that you provided above should not be confused with documentation.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ah, so I see the obfuscation continues. LOL. Just once I would like to see someone enter into the debate without thinking they must immediately attempt to “score points” or otherwise muddy the waters…

You'll have to excuse my sometimes flippant writing style, but at the moment, geese are still more likely than aliens.

Why should the two statements be mutually exclusive? The objects were “star bright” but were not twinkling – hence the comparison to (ie; “most closely resembled”) satellites.

Ok, I'll make this easy. There is a scale for reporting brightness of points of light in the sky. If you used it, it would help everyone to visualise exactly how bright your objects were. Here's a good starting point

If you have ever looked into the night sky (away from city lights) you will see that stars come in all manner of brightness, from brilliant to barely visible.

Yes I'm aware of that, I live in the countryside away from city lights and often observe the night sky from areas of little to no light pollution.

At first, when they objects were noted by Mr Y, I simply could not see them from the background stars. It was only when he and I both stood up and I followed the line of his pointed finger that I noticed them. Once I saw them however, they were then of course immediately distinguishable because of their motion and the fact they did not twinkle.

See my previous note about them not twinkling.

And “dim dots" they most certainly were not!”

It's hard for me to accept that, I'm not saying you are lying of course, but as I have no trouble spotting the smallest points of light in the sky moving against a backdrop of stationary stars I can only assume that if they were brighter than the dimmest stars, they would stand out quite well.
Of course, everyone's eyes are different so I'll have to give you the benefit of doubt here. Still if you could report their brightness in magnitude that would help.

Indeed, if you have ever seen the night sky away from city lights you will find the sky absolutely packed with stars.

Really? wow, I never knew.

The four objects were simply among the myriad. Practically indistinguishable - unless you noticed them – and then they were unmistakable.

Last night as I walked back from my local store, I noticed 3 or 4 bats flying around. Here in the UK our bats are really small and I imagine that until you notice them, they are practically indistinguishable from the trees, shadows and other objects they blend in with. So at the moment I can see nothing that defies the mundane about your sighting/story.

Sure, I hope I have helped picture it more clearly for you.

Well no not really, we still only have a very vague description of their brightness, it ranges in effect from brighter than a dim dot to not as bright as a full moon at the moment.

Sure, but you may have noted that I stated in later explanation we were on a cape – there was flat ground where we were but hills to the north (and west too). We were also very close to the sea – perhaps 500 meters and the hills came practically down to the sea. They had attracted a sea mist – which over the next hour or so grew to cover half the sky, but at that point was restricted to just a slight haziness up their slopes and reaching over the top of them.

So the ocean was South and East, the hills were North and West, It was clear night but there was a sea mist but it wasn't where the sea was?

Actually that “north” is not correct. It should have been south, east and west. The geography of the area is such that when you look west from where we were, there is a strong perception that you are actually looking north.

Yes, is funny how perception works isn't it?
It can fool us in the most unobvious ways.

The base of the hills were less than one kilometre away (about 700 metres). In fact there were hills to both the west and north, with open sea directly to the east and a kilometre or so of undulating flatland before the sea to the south - and then nothing until Antarctica.

So sorry for being so confused by your description of your surroundings, but originally you said:
"“Besides, the location was on a cape with no land for thousands of kilometers to either to the south, east or north."
Which you then say that "North" was wrong and should have been "West"
So there was "no land for thousands of kilometers to either the South, East or West"...
... Except for the land that was to the West... and the North?

So from what I gather, If you were at this location facing North, you would see hills that start about 1km away, to your left you see hills, to your right is the ocean and behind you is about 1km of rolling land before the ocean?

Is the location a secret or can you tell us where it was?
What was the date (day, month, year) of the sighting?

Sure, details are important. I do hope however that you now see there were no inconsistencies – but I did make one error with that “north” there (which should have been west).

Maybe not inconsistencies but certainly a vagueness in detail.
I would have thought as a long time UFO investigator, you would realise that certain details are not only important but crucial to attempt to determine a possible explanation. So far, despite your claim to be able to do this, you haven't furnished us here with any of the information that is clear, concise in detail or indeed absolutely necessary to begin the process you claim to do all the time. Which makes me wonder how you do it of you don't understand the need to look for or provide this information?

 

[Wudang]

“perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.”

It is a well documented principle Paul.

Where is it documented? Certainly not in any of the textbooks I used.