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?
First, if I believe the case has no plausible mundane explanation I have a right to say so – especially if I explain the reasons for my coming to that belief.
As to why I raise such cases …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.
(…and I don’t “insist” on anything. I merely stated the case as it, to the best of my own and the other two witnesses’ knowledge, happened. To you it may be “just another case”, but to me it a case where I don’t have to speculate about hoaxes or witness reliability because I know about those things from first hand experience. I also don’t have to speculate whether the descriptive characterisation of the sighting is accurate or not, for I know that from first hand experience as well. Quite simply I know what I saw and it most certainly wasn’t birds and it is implausible to suggest satellites. I also know that
because of my first hand UFO experiences (for I have had more that one), that these experiences are real and critically, that if I have experienced them, then it is implausible to suggest others would not have experienced them also. But of course we know that already, the evidence is overwhelming).
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.
So ET is a
mundane explanation?
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?
Actually, according to the biggest and only official study of it’s kind, the Battelle Study, more than 20% of sightings can be categorised as “unknown” (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24). Not only that, they also showed that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of unkowns there were.
You personal sighting might indeed have a plausible mundane explanation and it possible could have characteristics that make it “special” – I (we) don’t know – perhaps you would care to relate its details here?
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.
You have been involved in a
properly constituted and funded, peer-reviewed research program considering UFOs? Can you please provide the details? I would be very interested to hear about them (as I am sure others here would be too).
There is a mystery here, and who knows what knowledge such research into that mystery might reveal.
I do. A lot about ourselves…
LOL. At least that much is irrefutable!
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.
It is not controversial in the slightest that people come to faith based beliefs. The mechanisms are well understood and well documented. It is not even controversial that people see UFOs – for undeniably they do. What
is however controversial is the ostensible lack of plausible mundane explanation for many of those sightings.
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".
Sure, where there is insufficient information, then that is how we must categorise the case.
Rramjets problem in a nutshell. His claim is that some cases defies mundane explanations.
It is my claim that the cases I have been presenting defy
plausible mundane explanation – though I don’t see how that is a problem for me – for you perhaps – but not for me.
You have set yourself up to prove a negative. That's why this has taken two years...and counting.
I am not claiming to “
prove” anything. That is why I include the term “defies” in my characterisation (meaning to
resist plausible mundane explanation – not to prove none exist).
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?
I have seen no evidence for the veracity of that claim.
Besides, my lack of provision of a precise time and location allows your side of the argument more scope to provide satellite based explanations – not less. That is, if you are not pinned to a specific time - apart from midnight in December 2008 in Southern Australia – which information I have supplied – then does that not allow you
more freedom for potential explanations – not less?
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.
You are merely speculating. If you have any evidence that birds can reflect light so as to appear indistinguishable from stars/satellites – then of course you will be able to present it.
I estimated the magnitude from this table (
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/star-magnitude.htm). But as I am not an expert, perhaps that was a misconception? All I know is that the each of the four object’s magnitude was practically indistinguishable from the background stars. They were certainly not of the order of “
Uranus, and the Faintest star visible to naked eye” (mag. 6) and they were certainly not as bright as “
Polaris (2)(North Star)” (mag. 2) – but perhaps a more accurate “in between” magnitude would then be 4?
He's not blinding you with his science, he's trying to enlighten you with his science.
I have no idea how his “science” relates to observation times in relation to the speed of satellites and whether there were any satellites relating to his times.
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?
Because the significance put on UFO sightings is "OMG! Aliens"
It's unwarranted because there is no evidence of aliens.
The
significance arises principally because there are many cases that defy plausible mundane explanation.
The
controversy arises principally because some people conclude “OMG! Aliens”.
I asked you how you came to the determination that the
significance was unwarranted? Your statement seems to imply that you do not believe there are any cases which defy plausible mundane explanation – in which case then you will be able to posit plausible mundane explanations for (at the very least) the cases I have been presenting.
Moreover, you seem to be implying that “aliens” is not a plausible alternate explanation. However, as I have pointed out:
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.
Actually I have seen at least three people request this information.
Here are my attempts that you ignored:
I am sorry – I
did miss those requests …or perhaps I simply ignored them as you contend – I cannot remember which at this point… nevertheless, my apologies:
I presume you have Google Earth? Okay, type in “Cape Otway”. That will give you a location that is near enough for the purpose. It was at 11:45 on December 31st, 2008.
Yes, New Years Eve! Now to forestall some immediate speculation, neither myself nor Mr Y drinks alcohol or indulges in “recreational” drugs of any kind (Mr X however, as is his wont, had consumed some alcohol in the form of 4 or 5 “stubbies” of beer). There were no flares, fireworks or searchlights (indeed the slight sea mist would have made searchlights – or even strong torchlight - immediately apparent). We did note the occasional flare sent up during the evening – but all of those were immediately recognisable and were bright red (and trailing lots of smoke!).
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.
If you say so, but my substantial question to you was if you could relate that to any known satellites that would have been travelling four in a row with the leading two oscillating about a central point between them.
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?
I did not consider it particularly unique, no. A mere curiosity. Something that excited the emotions at the time, but just another UFO sighting …And we did not have access to the internet or phone numbers for potential reporting facilities even if we did think it worth the bother. I merely wrote out the account the next morning so that it was at least recorded and moved on with my life.
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.
I never thought that much about it. Apart from the initial excitement of the moment, as you say, I was not particularly interested in researching it at the time.
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.
No, merely to ask for it. If you did ask nicely and I missed it – or even ignored it – then I apologise, it is just physically impossible for me to reply to every point in every post - Anyway, I have supplied the information now.
Additionally, in your initial statement, you left out all this pertinent information out.
I just posted essentially as I originally wrote the account. If you believe extra information is pertinent, then please do ask for it (and if you do, perhaps you can ask for it in a dedicated post and not buried among other discussion points so that at least enhances the prospect of me not missing it?).
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").
That
is NOT my “basic claim” – my basic claim is that the cases I have been presenting
defy plausible mundane explanation (
nothing more, nothing less) – it is perhaps a result of confirmation bias that you read something else into it? - and do I need to explain the meaning of defy …again?
But that claim is both subjective and unfalsifiable.
My claim is falsifiable. All you need to do is come up with a 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.
Plausible: “
having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible)
I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.
You've stated a non-equivocal position that some UFO sightings are not only unexplained, but inexplicable;
That is simply a misconception or misrepresentation of what I am claiming. The claim (“
defies plausible mundane explanation”) does not
preclude mundane explanations – all it is saying is that on the current evidence and knowledge there are none apparent.
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.
The claim is falsifiable if a plausible mundane explanation is put forward.
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.
Any explanation put forward must be
plausible. Such explanations must account for the
evidence. I will reject any explanation that does not fulfil those criteria.
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.
…and yet… LOL.
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 can show that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation.
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.
I am not proposing
any explanations for the cases I have been presenting. I am simply putting the cases forward with the accompanying claim that they seem to
defy plausible mundane explanation. That claim is of course immediately falsified if plausible mundane explanations can be found. In essence what I am doing is putting forward a case and saying that I can see no plausible mundane explanation for it – but as I don’t know everything - then perhaps others might be able to come up with something where I cannot. It is your choice entirely whether you want to make the attempt.
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.
Oh I don’t have to say anything much to elicit derision and ridicule from members of the JREF – but if you think derision and ridicule a rational means of progressing the debate – then that is your choice.
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.
Not really …I am not saying there is NO mundane explanation, but what I AM saying is that according to what we know right now, the cases I have been presenting
defy (plausible) mundane explanation. It is in fact (relatively) easy to rule out mundane explanations that are either not plausible or do not explain the evidence – but that
does not mean that no plausible mundane explanations are possible in the future.
The only thing we CAN do with any confidence is state that some cases defy plausible mundane explanation. We CANNOT however take that to mean non-mundane explanations (specifically the ETH) are then the answer, as we do not have direct evidence for those mundane explanations. The ETH may be a
plausible non-mundane explanation, but we cannot therefore conclude it IS the explanation.
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.
Really? Do you have evidence to support this claim? That being that UFO events are accurately remembered years after they occurred?
For example:
”
Cognitive psychology research on emotion and memory has focused primarily on explicit or episodic memory. These studies have shown that episodic memory is enhanced with mild arousal. In addition, emotion may alter the characteristics of memory so that memories for emotional events seem more detailed and vivid, even when they are not more accurate.” (
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/people/elizabeth_phelps.htm)
The general thrust of the psychological research is that while certain emotional states (usually positive) act to enhance episodic memory, in other some cases (depending on the emotion) that memory might not actually be more accurate (that is, it will be no more or less accurate that normal memory of an event) but in all cases it will be more resistant to forgetting.
I think corbin has pointed to Wikipedia – but as I don’t have much time for Wikipedia I thought I might actually cite some academic research findings to support the contention.
In this thread we proved that one of those cigar shaped objects was the goodyear blimp, Guess who refused to admit it
If you think the mere statement of false and unfounded assertion is going to carry any weight – then good luck to you. It would not be my preferred method of debate (if that is what you can call it) however.
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.
It would be important. So can you? Four objects, travelling in train, with the lead two oscillating about a central point between them?
However, even if you could do that (and let’s see if you can…), then the conclusion that “all the other observations were probably just imagined” is simply unwarranted.
Not lying, but unreliable. Regarding "going into science mode" one would think that Rramjet of all people would understand the need of writing down some accurate detailed information about his own UFO case. Since he obviously have no detailed notes about the case one can only assume that he's going by his recollection of the event.
The report I wrote the next morning and I related it in this thread as written. To refresh your memory:
” Mr X, Mr Y and myself were sitting outside on are warm, clear night, enjoying a quiet conversation, when my Mr Y said …“Those stars are moving”. And he pointed up into the western night sky (it was about 11:45 in the evening). 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). “Where?” I asked. “There”, he said pointing. I stood up and so did he. I followed his pointed finger and there they were: Four tiny star-like points of light in a row, about 70 degrees up from the horizon, moving south to north. Very high up. Satellite height. They had a similar brightness to stars – but they were not twinkling. The strange thing was that the first two lights were close together (a finger nail width between them at arms length) and they were “oscillating” about a midpoint between them. Not much - perhaps 20-30 degrees - but certainly noticeable. First the front one was above (to the side of?) the line of motion and the back one below it, then the oscillation would reverse this configuration. Back and forth they moved with a period of about 5 seconds. Then there was a third object trailing them on the same track, perhaps two finger widths back - and a little further back again – maybe three finger widths from the second object, a fourth one. All following precisely the same track. They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north. From the time of sighting (almost due west) to when they disappeared in the northwest was about 20 seconds.”
It contains a substantial amount of detail – the only detail missing is the precise location and date (which I have now supplied).
As far as the whole "hoax" thing goes, I think Rramjet overlooked one important thing that Hendry stated regarding hoaxes and photographs:
I noted earlier in examining the conclusions of the 1,307 UFO reports that hoaxes did not figure at all into the scheme of things--rather misperceptions of some existing stimulus were responsible. This situation is not the case, however, when it comes to cases involving photographs, where a significant population of deliberate fraud exists. The failure of photographs to serve as impersonal proof of the existence of UFOs up to now lay largely in the ease of fabricating fake photos of small models that couldn't be distinguished from the real thing. (page 204)
The bottom line here is that, at least when it comes to UFO photographs (and videos), hoaxes seem to occur much more frequently.
All the studies that have been conducted – including Hendry’s - have concluded that the hoax/psychological explanation for UFO reports accounts for 1-2% of reports.
Of course photo hoaxing seems to have become an obsession in some parts of the population and unless the provenance of a photograph can be determined, then photographs are no longer admissible as evidence. That does not mean that all photos (or films)
are hoaxed - and we have seen a good example of this latter situation in the Tremonton case recently discussed in this thread. One simply has to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff (so to speak) and while that is an increasingly difficult task, the increasing sophistication of modern software cuts both ways - it is not an impossible task (experts in the use of software can usually tell if a hoax has been perpetrated, but often it does not even take that level of expertise).
Re: Rramjet’s sighting report
Actually when you consider a case where there is no witness credibility, where it is reasonably possible the entire thing was fabricated, discussing the "observation" itself is just an exercise in hypotheticals. It is also playing into the claimant's desire to be indulged by having his/her tale validated.
I would have expected no less from you Geemack. I can only defend myself from such an attack by pointing to my record in this (and other threads).
The null hypothesis here is, "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."
That null hypothesis has been tested and falsified (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf pp.60-76).
The positive claim is Rramjet's, the claim that aliens/ETs cruising about the skies of Earth is a plausible explanation for alleged observations that have not yet been specifically explained.
Actually my claim is that while the ETH might be a
plausible alternative in the absence of plausible mundane explanations – that
does not mean it is the
correct explanation. We simply don’t have any direct evidence for it.
It is incumbet on him to demonstrate objectively that aliens exist.
The ETH is plausible because:
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.
Your continued misunderstanding of this burden of proof issue is beginning to look like willful ignorance.
In essence what I am doing is putting forward a case and saying that I can see no plausible mundane explanation for it – but as I don’t know everything - then perhaps others might be able to come up with something where I cannot. It is your choice entirely whether you want to make the attempt.
That is the pseudoscientist in your speaking. Think about it rationally and you will find that they've all positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation. Unless you can think of one? No?