UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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

Because that would be open minded.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be taking the lack of exact observations as evidence of lying... or something.

No, it is a potential mundane explanation which can't be ruled out. You had mentioned that the reliability of the claimant must be taken into consideration. His previous proven lying to support his agenda must be taken into consideration.

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.

You would think a UFOlogist would do so, wouldn't you?

 

[corbin]

Let me say that I think Rramjet's case is actually a weak one in terms of its inability to be explained as from mundane causes. It actually CAN be explained as from mundane causes in ways far more convincing than glowing birds or satellites... and I wouldn't take it, by itself, as sufficient proof of a nonmundane UFO. I'm just surprised that these alternatives haven't been offered yet.

Other recorded cases, like cigar shaped objects, large triangles, rotating lights, etc., are not so easily explained by mundane causes. This is why in most of these cases the debunkers are arguing about witness credibility and reliability, not arguing that a huge, silent black triangle overhead is actually a weather balloon.

 

[Paul2]

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?

No, he's not saying there is a mundane explanation, only that there (still) might be--that all of them have not been ruled out. It's very hard to rule all of them out, so you have to keep the question open.

You keep on thinking that we must do one of two things:

1. claim there is a mundane explanation, or
2. claim there is not a mundane explanation.

That is a false dichotomy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If it has been determined that the description provided cannot be account for any mundane causes

Was that determined and nobody noticed? If you could link to a post where that was shown, it would be appreciated.

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.

Rramjet has no credibility.

 

[corbin]

Because that would be open minded.

Knowing the location and time still doesn't make his description fit the description of satellites or birds.

It adds no new information. It was never expected (at least it shouldn't be) that the location and time would allow you to correlate his observation to a passing satellite, because his observation doesn't look like a passing satellite.

No, it is a potential mundane explanation which can't be ruled out.

But critically, the description of what he supposed SAW, is there.

As I said before, having date and time and location doesn't exactly open up and new explanations. The explanations are based primarily on the observation itself. Whether that explanation itself is credible is another story.

You had mentioned that the reliability of the claimant must be taken into consideration. His previous proven lying to support his agenda must be taken into consideration.

First things first though...

You would think a UFOlogist would do so, wouldn't you?

Fair point.

 

[Astrophotographer]

This amazing ability of memory is especially true in impactful events like a UFO sighting.

Really? Do you have evidence to support this claim? That being that UFO events are accurately remembered years after they occurred?

 

[corbin]

No, he's not saying there is a mundane explanation, only that there (still) might be--that all of them have not been ruled out. It's very hard to rule all of them out, so you have to keep the question open.

So far about three explanations have been offered, and none of them seem to fit the description. One was "illuminated birds," another was "4 satellites flying together," and the last was a bunch of vague implications that the observer perhaps forgot what he saw.

You keep on thinking that we must do one of two things:

1. claim there is a mundane explanation, or
2. claim there is not a mundane explanation.

That is a false dichotomy.

If there is sufficient information, then you must indeed choose between one of those two positions. The only case where you don't is if there is not sufficient information.

Note: There not being sufficient information doesn't mean that the observer didn't record every minute detail about the sighting. Insufficient information concerns the visual observation itself, and perhaps also information necessary to rule out specific mundane causes.

 

[corbin]

Really? Do you have evidence to support this claim? That being that UFO events are accurately remembered years after they occurred?

Everybody in this thread is aware of the fact that particularly impactful events (seeing a nonmundane UFO would indeed qualify as impactful - actually the person doesn't even have to see a true nonmundane UFO, they only have to believe they are seeing it for it to be impactful) are typically remembered in great detail and with great accuracy. High school psychology class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

 

[Marduk]

Other recorded cases, like cigar shaped objects,

In this thread we proved that one of those cigar shaped objects was the goodyear blimp, Guess who refused to admit it

large triangles,

The phoenix lights case is the only large triangle ever reported and it turned out to be a flight of Canadian aircraft

rotating lights, etc., are not so easily explained by mundane causes.

Rotating lights, you mean like an aircraft strobe, yes, alien ships definitely have those


You seem to be spectacularly badly read on this subject, of the 250 pages of this thread, how many have you read through before offering your expert opinion ?
you might think this is a thread about UFO's. In reality its a thread about the lengths that an obsessive will go to to ignore the evidence contrary to his particular obsession. We have another one like this in the history section you might enjoy where a christian takes 500 pages to not admit that there is any evidence that the gospels are religious fiction

 

[Astrophotographer]

Knowing the location and time still doesn't make his description fit the description of satellites or birds.

It adds no new information. It was never expected (at least it shouldn't be) that the location and time would allow you to correlate his observation to a passing satellite, because his observation doesn't look like a passing satellite.

Just because it doesn't look like a passing satellite does not mean it wasn't. What if, given his location and date, somebody was able to produce a series of satellites that were visible from that location around the same time that appeared to be in formation? Wouldn't that be important? Wouldn't that mean that all the other observations were probably just imagined? That is why date and location is important. I am beginning to doubt that Rramjet will give us an accurate date at this point since he has refrained from doing so and requires that I beg for him to present it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Everybody in this thread is aware of the fact that particularly impactful events (seeing a nonmundane UFO would indeed qualify as impactful - actually the person doesn't even have to see a true nonmundane UFO, they only have to believe they are seeing it for it to be impactful) are typically remembered in great detail and with great accuracy. High school psychology class.

I asked for a source. You give me a Rramjet sock puppet response. Give us the source or your claim because I have never seen a study that supports it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Other recorded cases, like cigar shaped objects, large triangles, rotating lights, etc., are not so easily explained by mundane causes. This is why in most of these cases the debunkers are arguing about witness credibility and reliability, not arguing that a huge, silent black triangle overhead is actually a weather balloon.

Feel free to present each case. We will take a look. However, so far, we have yet to see any of these claims stand up.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Knowing the location and time still doesn't make his description fit the description of satellites or birds.

Memory is notoriously fallible. We've had two believers on this forum relate their sightings and the details changed from day to day, sometimes within just a few hours. Both of them assured us that their memories were almost supernaturally infallible. When their inconsistencies were pointed out, they became every defensive. You've alleged that memory of UFO encounters are incredibly accurate. We've seen that they aren't.

Why do you think that researchers want to know date, time, location and other details like that?

It adds no new information. It was never expected (at least it shouldn't be) that the location and time would allow you to correlate his observation to a passing satellite, because his observation doesn't look like a passing satellite.

I'm surprised that you would say that it would add no new information when that is exactly what it would do. It wouldn't change Rramjet's story but Rramjet has proven that he will never admit when he is wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence of it.

I suppose what you meant to say was that his memory of his observation didn't seem to him to resemble a passing satellite.

But critically, the description of what he supposed SAW, is there.

Indeed, it is there. It is useless, but there it is.

As I said before, having date and time and location doesn't exactly open up and new explanations. The explanations are based primarily on the observation itself. Whether that explanation itself is credible is another story.

Having date and time and location actually would open up new explanations. Real researchers would look up where satellites were at the time. It could explain Rramjet's conflation and faulty memory.

Are you working on the assumption that Rramjet's story is essentially accurate? Why?

First things first though...



Fair point.

 

[Marduk]

Everybody in this thread is aware of the fact that particularly impactful events (seeing a nonmundane UFO would indeed qualify as impactful - actually the person doesn't even have to see a true nonmundane UFO, they only have to believe they are seeing it for it to be impactful) are typically remembered in great detail and with great accuracy. High school psychology class.

From your first link

Emotionally arousing stimuli can lead to retrograde amnesia for preceding events and anterograde amnesia for subsequent events. This has been demonstrated in lab studies with lists of words or pictures, in which people show impaired memory for stimuli appearing before or after arousing stimuli

From your second link

flashbulb memories may deteriorate over time, just like everyday memories.

From Levin and Cramer’s Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy:

“Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.”

I guess a high school level of education isn't actually impressive

 

[corbin]

I asked for a source. You give me a Rramjet sock puppet response. Give us the source or your claim because I have never seen a study that supports it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

 

[corbin]

From your first link
From your second link

From Levin and Cramer’s Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy:



I guess a high school level of education isn't actually impressive

What you are saying is that because flashbulb memories aren't perfect, then they don't exist. Perfect.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

Your inability to see what "new mundane explanations date and location will open up" is not my problem.
If the information requested is presented it'll maybe solve this problem you have. If the requested information isn't presented, I'm certainly not prapared to take the time to explain it to you.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be taking the lack of exact observations as evidence of lying... or something.

Yes, it's certainly evidence of "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.

Since when was noting your location and the date "going into science mode"?

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...

"Ability" is not the same as a 'dependably reliable' though. The fact that we know memory is fallible and that there is no reliable way of telling when fallibility is an issue (without supporting physical evidence) makes anecdote unreliable, the older the memory, the less reliable it will be.

contrary to popular belief in this thread.

The popular belief in this thread is supported by studies. What do you have to support your assertion?

This amazing ability of memory is especially true in impactful events like a UFO sighting.

No it's not. When faced with unfamiliar events our perception and memory are no better equipped to deal with it and there is evidence supported by scientific study to suggest that in such situations our minds actually fill in more blanks leaving a witness more convinced of their certainty.

 

[Marduk]

What you are saying is that because flashbulb memories aren't perfect, then they don't exist. Perfect.

no, what I'm saying is that you either
1. don't bother to read the links that youre posting
or
2. read what you want from the links that youre posting
or
3. are using dishonest debating tactics

your links do not support your position, if anything they support the reverse and the fact that you don't understand that eyewitness testimony is regarded as almost worthless without corroboration speaks volumes

 

[RoboTimbo]

Everybody in this thread is aware of the fact that particularly impactful events (seeing a nonmundane UFO would indeed qualify as impactful - actually the person doesn't even have to see a true nonmundane UFO, they only have to believe they are seeing it for it to be impactful) are typically remembered in great detail and with great accuracy. High school psychology class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

No, everyone else in this thread is aware of the fact that seemingly impactful events (including seeing something in the sky that the person can't identify) does not guarantee accurate memories of the event. I'll refer you to King of the America's sighting and ufology's (the poster) sighting. Neither one could keep their story straight despite their protestations that their memories were infallible. Their inconsistencies were repeatedly pointed out to them. It was extremely embarrassing for them but very educational at the same time. Well, educational for those able to learn.

What you are saying is that because flashbulb memories aren't perfect, then they don't exist. Perfect.

Did Rramjet have some straw left over for you to construct your very own strawman?

 

[corbin]

Are you working on the assumption that Rramjet's story is essentially accurate? Why?

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Yes, I am. I see it as the best, most methodological way to approach these cases - to first see if there are any plausible mundane explanations for the sighting as described. If so, the case can be discarded. If not, then the focus shifts from the observation to the credibility and reliability of the witness, i.e. the accuracy of the story.