UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Corbin –

I must applaud your approach here.

As I see it (and you can correct me if I am wrong) you would count yourself as a disbeliever in the ETH. Perhaps even that UFO sightings can all be explained in mundane terms.

However, (and again you may correct me if I am wrong) you are somewhat dismayed at the lack of critical and logical thought as applied by the UFO debunkers to the process of understanding what is occurring in the UFO cases and research I am presenting.

You feel there are legitimate ways of explicating what you see as the “truth” (probable mundane causes – or failing that simply stating “I don’t know”), but those methodologies are simply not being critically or even rationally applied by the debunkers.

And of course you realise that in so doing the UFO debunkers are shooting themselves in the foot. They are doing the cause of scepticism and the belief that UFOs can be explained in mundane terms a disservice. Perhaps considering that any outsider looking in on this debate will compare their approach with my own and draw unfavourable conclusions about the debunker side of the argument (eg; if that is the best they can come up with, then perhaps Rramjet has a point… or something along those lines) – whereas perhaps you actually do not feel I should be able to have that point on those terms…

I may be overstating the case somewhat – but I am sure you get the general drift of where I am going…

 

[Access Denied]

So even accounting for such effects, the satellite hypothesis seems implausible.

So what? Of course it does to you, you’re biased and your account is entirely subjective and most likely significantly in error in some critical way… it could have been anything including an outright lie.

One thing’s for sure, it’s definitely not evidence of “aliens” so what’s the point?

That some people see things in the sky they can’t identify is not controversial.

 

[Paul2]

Actually, you can and should. The person saying "there is a mundane explanation" is making the positive claim and therefore has the burden of proof. The statement, "There is no mundane explanation," is negative. Its like asking somebody to prove God doesn't exist.

We are not making an absolute claim, proved with positive evidence, that the cause is mundane. To do that, we'd need to establish the exact cause, and have that cause be mundane. No one here is claiming to have done that.

We are saying the burden of proof is on the side that claims that the cause is not mundane. See others' posts above about the null hypothesis for why this is so. In the absence of positive evidence one way or the other, we still must keep open the possibility that the cause could be mundane, as ruling out every mundane cause is a difficult proposition.

 

[Access Denied]

They are doing the cause of scepticism and the belief that UFOs can be explained in mundane terms a disservice.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there’s a single skeptic here who believes that all UFO reports can be explained in mundane terms.

I think the “belief” is there’s no evidence that they couldn’t be the result of mundane causes…

Again, someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Paul2]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there’s a single skeptic here who believes that all UFO reports can be explained in mundane terms.

I think the “belief” is there’s no evidence that they couldn’t be the result of mundane causes…

Again, someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

It depends on what the definition of "can" can be.

If "the belief that UFOs can be explained in mundane terms" means "is [explainable]," then you're correct.

If "the belief that UFOs can be explained in mundane terms" means "might be [explainable]," then you're not correct, but this option is not the one Rramjet means, I think.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So even accounting for such effects, the satellite hypothesis seems implausible.

Wrong again. Satellites move at varying angular rates across the sky (the same way a plane does) so you can't make a calculation for the whole sky based on a 35 degree section of travel! Therefore, your little calculation is inaccurate on that point. As I pointed out previously, the angular speed you calculated was 1.75 deg/sec. A satellite moving 4.5-5 mi/sec would move at an angular speed of about 0.6-0.7 deg/sec if it were at 400 miles. At 200 miles that would be 1.2-1.4 deg/sec. That is very close to your "estimate", which may be off by a factor of 2 or more.

Then again, you are working from memories over two years old where the time estimates could be way off. Did you submit a UFO report in 2008 or are all these details being recalled from memory? Did any of the other witnesses make a UFO report or write in a personal log these observations? All these factors also play a role in the accuracy of your estimates.

As of now, we have to assume that you don't recall the EXACT date since you have REFUSED to list it even though it has been requested repeatedly by me and others. If that is the case, it demonstrates your memories can't be considered reliable.

Of course, we are still waiting for the location as well.

I am begining to consider your entire UFO story being accurate at all as "implausible". As of now, I would definitely call it "unreliable" because we can't get you to release the date and location.

 

[Access Denied]

It depends on what the definition of "can" can be.

True. Believe it or not I was actually going to edit that (had even hit the edit button) to make it “can definitively* be explained” but I figured I might be underestimating the ability of our audience to understand that should go without saying and decided against it with a shrug**…

My bad.

*Do I need to define definitively and prepend the caveat “any given report"?


ETA: **I say “shrug” but please don’t take that too literally. In my mind, because of the way it works, or doesn’t, I actually said two words to myself, one that begins with the letter “f” that shall not be repeated here, the other being “it”.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Really, it is quite clear that the characteristics of the description given cannot be explained by any mundane origin.

Not correct. Why do you believe lights appearing to move in the sky to be inexplicable in mundane terms?

At this point you should be questioning the reliability of the witness

Correct. The witness is absolutely not reliable.

not trying to convince people that such a peculiar sight was just birds or multiple satellites moving in an impossible fashion.

Rramjet asked for possible explanations. They were given. Are you saying that he was being disingenuous in that request?

There is no obligation to absolutely identify what the explanation is. That's been Rramjet's only ploy for the last two years.

If it makes you feel any better, the process of elimination has eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations. Unless you can think of one?

 

[Paul2]

It depends on what the definition of "can" can be.

Here's my favorite definition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK0gYi1YEZ8

Music by Offenbach; bless you.

 

[Paul2]

Here's my favorite definition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK0gYi1YEZ8

Music by Offenbach; bless you.

How many of the dancers, do you think, wanted to kick the dude who walks onstage at the end?!

 

[RoboTimbo]

So what is the claimant supposed to do? Anticipate and list all possible mundane explanations as part of their claim? That's not even possible. People could still think of other mundane explanations.

That's his problem for wanting to believe in pseudoaliens with no evidence.

There can be no "evidence" for the claim that something isn't something. You are asking the claimant to prove a negative.

No, nobody is asking him to do that. The claimant has voluntarily set himself up to prove that. He needs no evidence to prove it to himself, he's already a believer. He needs extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claims to satisfy people with critical thinking skills. We aren't going to be held hostage to his ridiculously low standards for evidence.

Actually there's quite a big difference. A case being inexplicable is a negative claim. (it only has meaning in comparison to other things) The others are positive.

If Rramjet is making the positive claim that it is non-mundane, he needs to provide evidence for it. The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin".

 

[Paul2]

T
I actually said two words to myself, one that begins with the letter “f” that shall not be repeated here, the other being “it”.

Not sure what you mean. Clarify?

 

[Access Denied]

Here's my favorite definition:

Can CanCan be defined as good theater?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That is why I have stated that the cases I am presenting simply...

defy plausible mundane explanation.

You've been proven incorrect multiple times. All of the cases you've thrown against the wall have positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation. Unless you have thought of one?

Note that does not mean they disprove, or reject or discount or any similar synonymous terms. It simply means they resist (boldly) mundane explanation.

Well, no. They've all positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation 100% of the time. Unless you know of one that has been confirmed to be non-mundane? Note that this does not mean they aren't non-mundane, just that none of them ever have to date.

If (in the future) a plausible mundane explanation is found, then I would be only too willing to accept such an explanation - principally because it removes the case from consideration and in so doing removes extraoneous or erronous information when we are considering researching such cases. No research effort wants to maintain potentially misleading data on the cases it is researching.

If (in the future) even one of your cases proves to be non-mundane, then all the people with critical thinking skills will be too willing to accept such an explanation. We just need one to falsify the null hypothesis:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

Won't that be exciting if that is ever falsified?

Thus I have always been careful to explain that the cases I have been presenting simply defy mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which you've proven yourself incapable of doing. Nothing more, nothing more.

It is the UFO debunkers who seem to insist that I pigeonhole the unkown cases into the ETH. Not I.

Well, no. You are the one who says HOAX is implausible while ET is plausible. Wouldn't you agree that you are being pseudoscientific?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, you can and should. The person saying "there is a mundane explanation" is making the positive claim and therefore has the burden of proof. The statement, "There is no mundane explanation," is negative. Its like asking somebody to prove God doesn't exist.

Then his positive claim that it it non-mundane needs extraordinary evidence. The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin". When will he be falsifying that?

 

[TjW]

That is why I have stated that the cases I am presenting simply...

defy plausible mundane explanation.

Nope. They simply haven't been explained to your personal level of satisfaction.

Your personal opinion is not evidence of or for anything.

 

[tsig]

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.


..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

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


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.


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.

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…


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.

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


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).


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”.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary witnesses?

 

[Paul2]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary witnesses?

 

[Rramjet]

So even accounting for such effects, the satellite hypothesis seems implausible.

So what? Of course it does to you, you’re biased and your account is entirely subjective and most likely significantly in error in some critical way… it could have been anything including an outright lie.

So is that it then? The only way you can account for the case is to suppose I am lying? I know in the face of a refutation of a faith-based belief system it has been well documented there to be is a strong compulsion for anyone to reach for such conclusions in order to maintain their belief (see Festinger and Cognitive Dissonance Theory for example). However, I think my record here speaks for itself. I may have made some mistakes – but I have never lied - and I have absolutely no intention of beginning at this point. I have absolutely no need to. The evidence and the research speaks for itself.

One thing’s for sure, it’s definitely not evidence of “aliens” so what’s the point?

I am not, nor have I ever, contended that the ETH is the explanation.

The only thing I can conclude with any certainty is that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

You may ask “So what?" Well, the UFO debunkers want to write the whole thing off with “There’s nothing to see here, nothing to see, move along, move along…”. Well I am here to point out that there IS something to see – just that we have no idea what that something is, or what it might represent. Research is then the key. A properly constituted and funded, peer-reviewed research program is, in my opinion, then warranted. There is a mystery here, and who knows what knowledge such research into that mystery might reveal.

That some people see things in the sky they can’t identify is not controversial.

Obviously it is – highly controversial.

 

[Stray Cat]

Obviously it is – highly controversial.

It is the unwarranted significance that (some) people put on them which is controversial.