UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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.

Okay, now that you have dazzled us all with your “techno-speak”, perhaps you can relate all that back to an actual timing of the sighting (in seconds) and degrees of arc covered in that time?

ETA: perhaps you can relate it back to satellite speeds in km/sec - and that in turn to what satellites travel at those speeds?

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.

In fact I wrote an account of the report the very next morning. There were however no UFO reports submitted.

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.

Actually, you have never requested it. Every time you mention it, has been in the form of an accusation of me deliberately hiding it. When you can actually see you way clear to making the request without the attached insult – then I might see what I can do for you.

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

The ETH is actually plausible on a number of grounds. Science does not rule out ET visitation – and indeed – science predicts ET should exist… There is also the observational evidence (the ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, the intelligent control and the associated beings). And the ostensible nuts and bolts craft also have corroborating evidence in the form of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

So the ETH is a plausible non-mundane explanation. It is just that we do not have any direct evidence to prove it. And of course just because it is a plausible explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation.

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

How have you come to the determination that it is unwarranted?

 

[Access Denied]

So is that it then? The only way you can account for the case is to suppose I am lying?

I could say that right there proves you’re a liar but I will briefly give you the benefit of the doubt to carefully reread what I wrote and ask you, is that really the only conclusion you can come to?

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).

You should try using that knowledge to look at yourself in the mirror.

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.

200 plus pages of you having to speak for it would seem to indicate otherwise. Is it possible that your interpretation of the “research” and “evidence” is what’s at fault here?

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

Then what’s your explanation for your sighting? Before you say “I don’t know” ask yourself what’s the point of even bringing it up then? How the hell should we know if you don’t and you continue to insist you couldn’t possibly have been mistaken about any aspect of it? What good is yet another UFO report?

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.

Not true, you’ve claimed with some certainty that the ETH then becomes a plausible explanation as a result of your inability to find any mundane explanations plausible.

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.

I’ve seen a UFO and I have no idea what it was. So what? We do know that at least 95% percent of the time that happens to people it turns out to be something mundane so why can’t what I saw be too? What makes my UFO special?

Research is then the key. A properly constituted and funded, peer-reviewed research program is, in my opinion, then warranted.

Been there, done that, more than once. No evidence of “aliens” sorry.

There is a mystery here, and who knows what knowledge such research into that mystery might reveal.

I do. A lot about ourselves…

Obviously it is – highly controversial.

That some people believe UFOs are “aliens” (or pieces of toast are “Jesus” incarnate) based on a complete lack of any objective evidence obviously is, not the fact that some people see UFOs in the first place.

 

[Jocce]

Argument from ignorance would be... (actually I think this is a different fallacy, but the fallacy you are talking about nonetheless)

Premise: I can't think of any mundane causes to explain this event.

therefore

Conclusion: There are no mundane causes to explain this event.

Note that this isn't what I was saying. I would fully accept a mundane cause to explain the event (if it fits the description), even if I wasn't the one who thought of it.

Ya know...there's nothing wrong with saying "sorry, we don't have enough reliable data about the event to try and find an explanation".

 

[Jocce]

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.

Rramjets problem in a nutshell. His claim is that some cases defies mundane explanations.

 

[Jocce]

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

Didn't you see the leading " and trailing " in "alien"? When someone is clearly using your redefinition of the word alien in relation to UFOs it's kind of strange that you set up a straw man. You've done it repeatedly.

 

[Jocce]

the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have set yourself up to prove a negative. That's why this has taken two years...and counting.

 

[Jocce]

Every time you mention it, has been in the form of an accusation of me deliberately hiding it. When you can actually see you way clear to making the request without the attached insult – then I might see what I can do for you.

I know I have requested it before without any accusations. So it's RT's fault that we're not getting it then?

Satellites is actually plausible on a number of grounds. Science does not rule out satellites – and indeed – science predicts satellites should exist… There is also the observational evidence (the ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, the intelligent control and the associated beings). And the ostensible nuts and bolts craft also have corroborating evidence in the form of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

So satellite is a plausible mundane explanation. It is just that we do not have any direct evidence to prove it. And of course just because it is a plausible explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation.

 

[Wudang]

Regarding birds not being self-illuminating: no, but they can reflect light sources on the ground. If there was no or little cloud the terrestrial light source might be otherwise invisible. Lacking a location I can't say how plausible it is. Mag 3 seems high though. I guess astrophotographer is more knowledgeable on light pollution. It was a big problem at my uni's observatory.

 

[EHocking]

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

...The ETH is actually plausible on a number of grounds. Science does not rule out ET visitation – and indeed – science predicts ET should exist…

So the ETH is a plausible non-mundane explanation. It is just that we do not have any direct evidence to prove it. And of course just because it is a plausible explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation.

Yes, it is the debunkers that insist that you think the ETH is a plausible explanation, not you...

 

[Paul2]

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.

Okay, now that you have dazzled us all with your “techno-speak”. . . .

He's not blinding you with his science, he's trying to enlighten you with his science.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In fact I wrote an account of the report the very next morning. There were however no UFO reports submitted.

Of course you did. And more details will be forthcoming every time there is a new question.

Actually, you have never requested it. Every time you mention it, has been in the form of an accusation of me deliberately hiding it. When you can actually see you way clear to making the request without the attached insult – then I might see what I can do for you.


The ETH is actually plausible on a number of grounds. Science does not rule out ET visitation – and indeed – science predicts ET should exist… There is also the observational evidence (the ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, the intelligent control and the associated beings). And the ostensible nuts and bolts craft also have corroborating evidence in the form of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

No, ETH is not plausible on a number of grounds while HOAX is plausible. We know hoaxes exist, just look at the Delphos case. We know that all of the mundane reasons which you irrationally "eliminate" exist. It's the non-mundane ones that you want it to be which have never been shown to exist. Unless you do have some confirmed evidence of ET contact? No?

So the ETH is a plausible non-mundane explanation. It is just that we do not have any direct evidence to prove it. And of course just because it is a plausible explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation.

So the ETH is not plausible, as has been proven. We have absolutely no evidence of any kind to prove it. And of course, just because it is implausible and has never happened doesn't mean that it won't at some future point.

How have you come to the determination that it is unwarranted?

You should read this thread. There is a promise of evidence of pseudoaliens and yet we've seen none.

 

[Stray Cat]

How have you come to the determination that it is unwarranted?

Because the significance put on UFO sightings is "OMG! Aliens"
It's unwarranted because there is no evidence of aliens.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Simply because you want it to be. But you want ET to be plausible. This is pseudoscience in action in Rramjet Opposite Land.

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.

Indeed it does.

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.

No, you are a known, proven, repeated liar, in this and other threads which has repeatedly been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nor does the evidence speak for itself, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to speak for it. The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin".

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

Then we can agree that ET has never been an 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.

And you've been proven wrong, repeatedly. Nothing less, nothing less. And you lie about it after the fact, as you are now. The depth of your dishonesty is breathtaking.

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

So the evidence does not speak for itself then.

– just that we have no idea what that something is, or what it might represent.

So, Unknown then, as in UFO. Nobody is arguing that. It's the pseudoscientists who want to ascribe it to pseudoaliens.

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.

You've admitted that your research skills are so shoddy and substandard that you were unable to tell a HOAX even after your best efforts caused you to declare a case to "defy plausible mundane explanation". Let's hope that you aren't going to be one of the researchers.

Obviously it is – highly controversial.

You're sort of right here. To the critically minded, that people see things in the sky that they can't identify isn't controversial. We know it happens all the time. To the credulous pseudoscientists, they know that people either see things they can identify or it must be pseudoaliens!

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Actually, you have never requested it. Every time you mention it, has been in the form of an accusation of me deliberately hiding it. When you can actually see you way clear to making the request without the attached insult – then I might see what I can do for you.

Actually I have seen at least three people request this information.
Here are my attempts that you ignored:

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

Source

Do you have any real information about this that you could share?
I've asked once already but I'll try again;
1). Date of sighting (day/month/year)
2). Location

Source

...one which was ignored.

As was my request for:
1). The location
2). The date (day, month, year). We now know it was December 2008, could still do with the day though.

Source

But this aside, no one should have to ask you for these basic details.
They should be included in a detailed report especially coming from someone who researches UFO's.
We don't really need to know about Mr X and Mr Y or most of the other stuff you told us, but detail such as date and location are important.

 

[tsig]

Okay, now that you have dazzled us all with your “techno-speak”, perhaps you can relate all that back to an actual timing of the sighting (in seconds) and degrees of arc covered in that time?
ETA: perhaps you can relate it back to satellite speeds in km/sec - and that in turn to what satellites travel at those speeds?


In fact I wrote an account of the report the very next morning. There were however no UFO reports submitted.


Actually, you have never requested it. Every time you mention it, has been in the form of an accusation of me deliberately hiding it. When you can actually see you way clear to making the request without the attached insult – then I might see what I can do for you.


The ETH is actually plausible on a number of grounds. Science does not rule out ET visitation – and indeed – science predicts ET should exist… There is also the observational evidence (the ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, the intelligent control and the associated beings). And the ostensible nuts and bolts craft also have corroborating evidence in the form of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

So the ETH is a plausible non-mundane explanation. It is just that we do not have any direct evidence to prove it. And of course just because it is a plausible explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation.


How have you come to the determination that it is unwarranted?

Seconds and degrees of arc are just more techno speak.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Okay, now that you have dazzled us all with your “techno-speak”, perhaps you can relate all that back to an actual timing of the sighting (in seconds) and degrees of arc covered in that time?

ETA: perhaps you can relate it back to satellite speeds in km/sec - and that in turn to what satellites travel at those speeds?

I did not realize that a scientist would have problems converting miles to Km and computing basic angular speed using simple trigonometry.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/earth_orbit

Orbital speeds are simple to compute and this calculator will make it easy for you. Computing the angular speed is dependent on the distance from the observer and its orbital speed. I have provided you with enough information for you to do it on your own.

As I stated you can't compute transit time from looking at the angular speed at one point in the track across the sky since the angular speed will decrease as the satellite moves farther away (closer to the horizon). Your angular speed based on what YOU stated come out to 1.75 deg/sec (35 deg/20 sec). While that may be a bit high for most orbits, a low earth orbit object would have such angular speeds.

In fact I wrote an account of the report the very next morning. There were however no UFO reports submitted.

Why not? Wasn't it unique enough? Additionally, Heaven's above (among other websites) was readily available in 2008 for you to check up on your sighting. Why didn't you simply look it up at the time to help eliminate any possible explanation? It is almost as if you did not want to bother to research it at the time.

Actually, you have never requested it. Every time you mention it, has been in the form of an accusation of me deliberately hiding it. When you can actually see you way clear to making the request without the attached insult – then I might see what I can do for you.

So now I have to "beg" for you to provide information about your sighting? It is not my claim, it is yours. Refusal to provide the information just implies you have something to hide.

I originally asked nicely a few days ago at post 9746 and many times since.
Stray Cat asked at Post 9779 and 9838 and 9856
Turgor also requested it at post 9765 and 9857. He also noted again at post 9885.

I am not going to bother providing links to those posts at this point. Go back and look for yourself.

Can you understand my (and probably our) frustration where you just ignore these requests over and over. Additionally, in your initial statement, you left out all this pertinent information out. For somebody who claims to have a reliable sighting, there is a lot of information missing that makes it less than reliable.

 

[John Albert]

Show me where I said the following:

"I don't know of any possible mundane causes to explain this case, therefore, no mundane causes exist."

You'll find that the "therefore" part is missing. My comment that "I'm so stupid that I can't think of any..." was just being cutesy at GeeMack's refusal to provide alternative explanations.

Ah, I see. So it was just a particularly snarky way of expressing an argument from ignorance.

Just for your own future reference, the word "therefore" is not a requirement for framing an argument from ignorance.

I wasn't saying that was the reason that I came to the conclusion of there being no mundane causes sufficient for explanation.

You didn't have to. It was an argument from ignorance because you attempted to shift the burden of proof onto GeeMack to do the reasoning of explaining the sighting, knowing full well he was not even there and all the information he has to go on is the wording of Rramjet's extraordinary claim. That, my friend, is an argument from ignorance.

The plain fact of the matter is, neither he, nor you, nor GeeMack, nor I, nor anybody else knows for certain that the story is really inexplicable. There may be a perfectly normal, mundane cause for what he saw, but he didn't recognize it and none of us has sufficient information to make a reliable assessment. Therefore, the best he can say for certain is "I don't know what I saw," which is a big difference from "There's no earthly explanation for what I saw."

When you challenged GeeMack to provide yet another explanation for Rramjet to dismiss out of hand and thereby appear to bolster his argument, you engaged in an argument from ignorance.

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”)

If you or Corbin had simply stated "I don't know," there'd be no problem. But that's not what you've done.

Your basic claim, repeated over and over again on these forums, is that there's "no plausible mundane explanation" for some UFO claims (and we've all been around this block long enough to plainly recognize that as ufologist shorthand for "paranormal," ie. "aliens"). But that claim is both subjective and unfalsifiable.

That particular wording itself is quite revealing:

there is no plausible mundane explanation

Plausibility is a subjective value judgment, a matter of opinion. Therefore, by your own admission you are simply unwilling to accept any "mundane" (a.k.a. non-paranormal or non-outer-space-aliens) explanation.

You've stated a non-equivocal position that some UFO sightings are not only unexplained, but inexplicable; something that is impossible to know for certain. All you've done by way of proving this untenable position is to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptics to disprove your own unfalsifiable claim that these events are inexplicable.

So you challenge the skeptics to come up with ad hoc explanations for all these wild stories without any reliable, objective, measured information to go on. Then of course you get to have all the fun of mockingly rejecting any and all explanations offered on the unfounded assumption that there no mundane explanation can possibly exist.

This entire thread is nothing but a long string of arguments from ignorance and incredulity on your part, and that's why I have until recently deigned to take part in it. I can appreciate what the skeptics are trying to do by arguing these cases with you, and some of the arguments and explanations have made interesting reading for their perspectives on the science of perception, ornithology, aircraft design, satellites, military tech (FLIR!) and the like, but I also realize there's absolutely no way this method of examination can ever bear fruit. It's all speculation, and the only thing that makes the skeptics' speculation any better than yours is the fact that they're not affirming the consequent of anything which hasn't been objectively proven to exist.

...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…

That's a nice, expansive ad hominem there, Rramjet. You could go far in local politics with skills like that, but unfortunately that approach is going to earn you nothing but derision and ridicule around here.

Can CanCan be defined as good theater?

Can Can be defined as a krautrock band?

 

[corbin]

Rramjets problem in a nutshell. His claim is that some cases defies mundane explanations.

So if you think there is a mundane explanation... shouldn't you be able to present it? Surely in those cases with mundane explanations this would be easy. And don't conflate what I'm saying with cases with insufficient information from which no conclusions can be drawn - I'm talking about those important cases where sufficient information is provided and the sighting as described cannot plausibly be of anything mundane or explained psychologically.

If it has been determined that the description provided cannot be account for any mundane causes, then the next step is to examine the credibility/reliability of the witness. We aren't at that step yet, though, since nobody will admit that 4 moving stars in the sky probably isn't glowing birds or 4 satellites.

 

[corbin]

We don't really need to know about Mr X and Mr Y or most of the other stuff you told us, but detail such as date and location are important.

I don't see what new mundane explanations date and location will open up...

A lot of people in this thread seem to be taking the lack of exact observations as evidence of lying... or something. Typically, though, most people who see something unexplained in the sky don't go into science-mode and record every minute detail about the sighting. The point about old observations not being reliable seems like a bit of a stab in the dark to me as well. Besides the fact that not all nonmundane UFO observations are old, humans do have the ability to remember things that occurred in the past... contrary to popular belief in this thread. This amazing ability of memory is especially true in impactful events like a UFO sighting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So if you think there is a mundane explanation... shouldn't you be able to present it? Surely in those cases with mundane explanations this would be easy. And don't conflate what I'm saying with cases with insufficient information from which no conclusions can be drawn - I'm talking about those important cases where sufficient information is provided and the sighting as described cannot plausibly be of anything mundane or explained psychologically.

The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin". If you or Rramjet are claiming that this one is non-muindane, what explanation are you proposing? If you have nothing, just say so.