UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category.

No Rramjet, it's you who's not understanding that the only reason for something to be labelled 'unknown', is that there is insufficient information with which to know what it is. Regardless of which 'box' someone else put it in. If it's identity is not known, it is an unknown.

 

[Stray Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_barren_Goose.png

That red area in the map above includes Cape Otway and happens to be the habitat for Cape Barren geese, a big old bird with a wingspan of almost 2 meters, known to fly in small flocks, especially outside of the breeding season of July - September. So, that's kind of a known-to-exist thing.

Yes, I was going to point that out myself earlier. Instead I chose to point out that there is island just north of Tasmania (about 100km south East of Cape Otway) that is even called Goose Island... Rramjet has up to now ignored my post.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, I was going to point that out myself earlier. Instead I chose to point out that there is island just north of Tasmania (about 100km south East of Cape Otway) that is even called Goose Island... Rramjet has up to now ignored my post.

King Island is less than 50 miles south of Cape Otway. Tasmania is around 100 miles south. Geese can easily fly 50 miles per hour, making either location plausible as a pleasure cruise for a goose on a summer evening. By comparison our Ruby-Throated Hummingbirds are no bigger than your finger and make a 400 mile trip across the Gulf of Mexico during their migration. So really...

... 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.

... is nonsense. Even leaving aside the nearness of those locations to the south, that range map for the Cape Barren Goose shows it wouldn't be extraordinary to see them anywhere in the proximity of Apollo Bay.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, I was going to point that out myself earlier. Instead I chose to point out that there is island just north of Tasmania (about 100km south East of Cape Otway) that is even called Goose Island... Rramjet has up to now ignored my post.

King Island is less than 50 miles south of Cape Otway. Tasmania is around 100 miles south. Geese can easily fly 50 miles per hour, making either location plausible as a pleasure cruise for a goose on a summer evening. By comparison our Ruby-Throated Hummingbirds are no bigger than your finger and make a 400 mile trip across the Gulf of Mexico during their migration. So really...

... 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.

... is nonsense. Even leaving aside the nearness of those locations to the south, that range map for the Cape Barren Goose shows it wouldn't be extraordinary to see them anywhere in the proximity of Apollo Bay.

Do you then think this is a case of a pseudoscientist simply making things up as he goes along to support his pre-determined conclusion of pseudoaliens? Do you find any critical thinking involved in this pre-determined conclusion error at all?

 

[Stray Cat]

It certainly means that neither satellites nor geese have been conclusively ruled out as both have been shown to be a lot more possible than Rramjet asserted.

 

[Paul2]

Do you then think this is a case of a pseudoscientist simply making things up as he goes along to support his pre-determined conclusion of pseudoaliens? Do you find any critical thinking involved in this pre-determined conclusion error at all?

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

 

[tsig]

First, as I remember it, you were at the time of that discussion erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out to you at that time that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. I cannot believe you would even dare to reintroduce it here (well actually, that’s not true, I can now believe that you would) when it is perfectly clear that such a conflation is not legitimate. The two categories are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. That is:

”INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon”(p.12)​

”UNKNOWN - This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

Furthermore, page 33 contains a figure titled “FIGURE 17 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SIGHTINGS BY OBSERVER LOCATION FOR ALL YEARS AND EACH YEAR” and it has absolutely nothing to do with “unidentified” objects. You are simply making things up. Did you not think that I would check?

Here is the actual data (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=654&pictureid=4308[/qimg]

So It's a wheel in a wheel way up in the middle of the air?

 

[Stray Cat]

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

The aliens had frightened them all away with their squadron of flying saucers?

 

[Marduk]

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

in the same way that he came up with "no airships on the west coast", right in the middle of the goodyear blimps west coast promotional tour, he made it up in order to make his version of events more credible
normal ufologist behaviour
Ramjets claims here are full of fabrications, errors and incredulity for the mundane.

 

[GeeMack]

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

From what we've so often seen from "ufologists", eliminating all plausible mundane explanations means simply discarding them without so much as a passing thought. If you don't want geese to be considered, you just declare they don't live around here. Obviously it's a failed technique here where skeptics seem to be pretty bright and actually look things up. Maybe it works when the typical mark the "ufologist" is targeting is some gullible rube.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

Several people seem to have the exact same interest. I hope his method isn't proprietary so we'll be able to see that everyone can come to the same conclusion that Rramjet did.

 

[GeeMack]

Several people seem to have the exact same interest. I hope his method isn't proprietary so we'll be able to see that everyone can come to the same conclusion that Rramjet did.

My god man! Now you're trying to bring objectivity into this conversation. And everyone knows where that leads. Real science, demands for objective evidence, honesty, repeatability, a sane null hypothesis, recognizing that anecdotes aren't evidence. You keep that up and pretty soon everyone will know that "ufology" is just a bunch of hogwash. All the believers will have to get a new hobby, maybe become 9/11 Truthers and Creationists. Say it isn't so, man! Won't someone think of the children?

 

[Resume]

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

X 2.

 

[Stray Cat]

He will say it's insignificant anyway because geese don't have lights and they don't oscillate. Thus substituting the verifiable for the anecdotal.

 

[ufology]

No Rramjet, it's you who's not understanding that the only reason for something to be labelled 'unknown', is that there is insufficient information with which to know what it is. Regardless of which 'box' someone else put it in. If it's identity is not known, it is an unknown.

Actually the above assumption is not entirely accurate within the context of the discussion. From Ruppelt:

"Reports are often seen in the newspapers that say: "Mrs. Henry Jones, of 5464 South Elm, said that 10:00A.M. she was shaking her dust mop out of the bedroom window when she saw a flying saucer"; or "Henry Armstrong was driving between Grundy Center and Rienbeck last night when he saw a light. Henry thinks it was a flying saucer." This is not a good UFO report.
This type of UFO report, if it was received by Project Blue Book, was stamped "Insufficient Data for Evaluation" and dropped into the dead file, where it became a mere statistic.

Of the several thousand UFO reports that the Air Force has received since 1947, some 15 to 20 per cent fall into this category called unknown. This means that the observer was not affected by any determinable psychological quirks and that after exhaustive investigation the object that was reported could not be identified. To be classed as an unknown, a UFO report also had to be "good," meaning that it had to come from a competent observer and had to contain a reasonable amount of data."

In my reviews of many more Project Blue Book files, I ran across one case with a notation that said had more data been available, the object may have been identified as something known. There were also some cases without such notations that one could apply similar logic to. However the majority of Unknown cases had sufficient information to ruled out known natural or manmade objects or phenomena. In other words, if a jet interceptor was chasing the object at the speed of sound, we can rule out every known life form on the planet plus a whole range of manmade objects.

Ruppelt had Top Secret clearance so he also had access to flight data on domestic secret prototypes and intelligence on classified foreign projects. To this date, no known aircraft manufacturer on Earth has been able to construct a flying disk that can travel near or faster than the speed of sound. The conclusion for such a sighting is therefore simply "unknown".

Something else that should be mentioned here is that there were also three other categories, Known, Probable, and Possible. So even if they weren't sure an object was an aircraft, if it had aircraft like qualities, such as a contrail, engine noise, navigation lights etc. it would be classed as a "Probable Aircraft". This further isolates the "Unknowns" from objects that even could have been natural or manmade.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How many were probable PseudoAliens?

 

[ufology]

How many were probable PseudoAliens?

Some of the people studying the UFO problem felt that the best explanation for the unexplained sightings of structured craft was that they represent some kind of extraterretrial technology. However this was only an "Estimate Of The Situation" and not a scientific conclusion. Others were more reserved and simply refused to accept any suggestion or conclusion regarding the origin of UFOs until there was an abundance of scientific proof. However there was a consensus that some of the reports represent real structured craft with performance characteristics far beyond any known technology of the time. All that was up for debate was where they came from, and that debate remains at the heart of the problem to this day.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually the above assumption is not entirely accurate within the context of the discussion. From Ruppelt:

"Reports are often seen in the newspapers that say: "Mrs. Henry Jones, of 5464 South Elm, said that 10:00A.M. she was shaking her dust mop out of the bedroom window when she saw a flying saucer"; or "Henry Armstrong was driving between Grundy Center and Rienbeck last night when he saw a light. Henry thinks it was a flying saucer." This is not a good UFO report.
This type of UFO report, if it was received by Project Blue Book, was stamped "Insufficient Data for Evaluation" and dropped into the dead file, where it became a mere statistic.

No, it is entirely accurate regardless of the notion you propose.
The subjective dismissing of certain reports because someone concluded that there was not enough information still leaves them as reports without enough information to allow them to be known. As such they are essentially the same as the one's that someone subjectively decided had enough information to be classified as unknown. The whole idea of not having enough information to class something as unknown is completely silly.

 

[carlitos]

When King of the Americas was asked about how he ruled out geese, that's when he added the detail to his 5 or 6 lights in the sky to be red and blue and oscillating.

I'd be interested in knowing how Rramjet ruled out satellites and space stations - maybe I missed it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Some of the people studying the UFO problem felt that the best explanation for the unexplained sightings of structured craft was that they represent some kind of extraterretrial technology. However this was only an "Estimate Of The Situation" and not a scientific conclusion. Others were more reserved and simply refused to accept any suggestion or conclusion regarding the origin of UFOs until there was an abundance of scientific proof. However there was a consensus that some of the reports represent real structured craft with performance characteristics far beyond any known technology of the time. All that was up for debate was where they came from, and that debate remains at the heart of the problem to this day.

j.r.

With our increasingly better technology in radar and don't forget FLIR, more and better telescopes, and higher resolution video, we should be detecting a lot more PseudoAliens now than we did then. With our much better armament we should easily be able to drop a few of them out of the sky where we couldn't before.

What has been the percentage increase in PseudoAliens shot down and captured? Round up to the nearest percentage point, if you like.