UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

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.

Nope, if anything the debate has moved backwards.
Not many people are debating where they came from, they are debating if they came at all.
That ufologists still cling to 60 year old reports, studies and ufo cases is testament to how little they have moved forward since those times.

 

[Rramjet]

How can reports with Insufficient information (9 in the Excellent report category and 27 in the good report category) be classified as Excellent or Good? Wouldn't they belong in the "poor" pile? If they were excellent reports, one would think that there would be enough information to make a call on it. It demonstrates the subjective nature of the classification system.

”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)​

Meaning of course that the categorisation was the very last step in the process, after all the other quality controls had been instituted - and where it was found that “ 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.”.

This of course demonstrates the high quality of the research - wherein the different processes involved in assessing the reports are compartmentalised (independent) from each other, so that even if a report could make it all the way through the preliminary quality controls, it could still fall at the very last hurdle.

 

[ufology]

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.

The above quote takes the work of others and criticizes it out of context and is therefore a misprepresentation of their work and as such has no value in this discussion.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

The above quote takes the work of others and criticizes it out of context and is therefore a misprepresentation of their work and as such has no value in this discussion.

Yes sure, welcome to Dodge City... population 3

 

[Rramjet]

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.

This red area below is ... well, lie is a pretty strong word.

OMG. Your own map demonstrates my contention that ‘there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will.” is true!

I have indicated that the UFO debunkers ignore the evidence – but this takes the cake! Here the UFO debunker links to a map which proves my contention to be true - and yet themselves somehow come to an opposite conclusion and then accuse me of lying! LOL.

So given that, how might this particular UFO debunker handle an explanation for UFOs?

Lights in the night sky could just be ... lights.

Yes of course, why didn’t I think of that? That explains it all! All those pinpoints of lights you see in the sky above you at night (if you’re lucky enough to live away from a city) could be … lights…

 

[GeeMack]

”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)​

Meaning of course that the categorisation was the very last step in the process, after all the other quality controls had been instituted - and where it was found that “ 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.”.

This of course demonstrates the high quality of the research - wherein the different processes involved in assessing the reports are compartmentalised (independent) from each other, so that even if a report could make it all the way through the preliminary quality controls, it could still fall at the very last hurdle.

Here's an easy one: Upon final consideration, was the identity of the ones in the "INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION" category known?

(You'll notice by asking this as a simple yes/no type question, I'm providing an opportunity for any "ufologist" to offer another dishonest argument, to give us another argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, or another argument by dishonestly redefining terms. A pseudo-scientist would take full advantage of that opportunity to bat around a couple more lies and logical fallacies. An honest, objective person would just answer the question.)

 

[Rramjet]

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.

There are no geese in the area, never have been, (and I suspect) never will be. Carlitos demonstrated that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_barren_Goose.png).

Besides, how do you explain that "geese" could be lit in such a way - at midnight - so as to be indistingushable in character from stars/satellites?

And if you think the satellite hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis, then find a solution that would explain four objects in a row with the first two oscillating about a central point between them, flying south to north over Cape Otway at 11:45 at night in December 2008...

 

[John Albert]

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.

Equally silly is the idea of Rramjet trying to impose his subjective opinion of what constitutes a "plausible mundane explanation" as a definitive fact.

Plausibility is an opinion, a subjective value judgment. Plausibility cannot be measured on any objective scale. Any two people might have very different opinions about whether something is plausible, and neither of them reliably be proven right or wrong in their assessment. It's a matter of opinion. A hundred different researchers could assess the same body of cases and come to a hundred different conclusions as to which cases "defy plausible mundane explanation" and which don't.

It's just another dishonest means for him to assume a pretend authority in his own personal judgments on UFO cases.

Rramjet, you can copy and paste as many definitions as you like, but that does not address this valid criticism I have just made.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are no geese in the area, never have been, (and I suspect) never will be. Carlitos demonstrated that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_barren_Goose.png).

Besides, how do you explain that "geese" could be lit in such a way - at midnight - so as to be indistingushable in character from stars/satellites?

And if you think the satellite hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis, then find a solution that would explain four objects in a row with the first two oscillating about a central point between them, flying south to north over Cape Otway at 11:45 at night in December 2008...

So what do you think it was?

 

[Rramjet]

It has been pointed out to you several times that both categories contain UNIDENTIFIED objects so there is nothing erroneous about it. Your baseless opinion to the contrary can be, and is, dismissed.

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. 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) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are no geese in the area, never have been, (and I suspect) never will be. Carlitos demonstrated that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_barren_Goose.png).

Besides, how do you explain that "geese" could be lit in such a way - at midnight - so as to be indistingushable in character from stars/satellites?

And if you think the satellite hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis, then find a solution that would explain four objects in a row with the first two oscillating about a central point between them, flying south to north over Cape Otway at 11:45 at night in December 2008...

The process of elimination has eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations and your alleged sighting positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, so what do you think it was?

 

[carlitos]

OMG. Your own map demonstrates my contention that ‘there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will.” is true!

I have indicated that the UFO debunkers ignore the evidence – but this takes the cake! Here the UFO debunker links to a map which proves my contention to be true - and yet themselves somehow come to an opposite conclusion and then accuse me of lying! LOL.

So given that, how might this particular UFO debunker handle an explanation for UFOs?

Yes of course, why didn’t I think of that? That explains it all! All those pinpoints of lights you see in the sky above you at night (if you’re lucky enough to live away from a city) could be … lights…

As opposed to "objects" or "craft" - yes.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Yeah right...

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...

The "red area", it must be noted, does not include Cape Otway!

 

[GeeMack]

OMG. Your own map demonstrates my contention that ‘there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will.” is true!

Actually all this shows is your complete lack of qualification to understand birds, their ranges and habits. To suggest it supports your claim is definitively another argument from ignorance. Any particular bird that might be found in the range indicated on that map would not even be considered odd if it were to be seen within several miles of Apollo Bay.

This also shows the dishonest bastardized contortion of the scientific process so often employed by the woo believers. Even if one particular species of goose was shown to have never been in that area, which hasn't occurred, that doesn't negate the possibility of other goose species being there, or the extremely non-extraordinary case of geese being outside their normal range. Nor does it eliminate the wholly plausible explanation that some other kind of bird might be seen and mistaken for ET/aliens by someone with no qualifications in ornithology and a die-hard faith that aliens exist.

The plausible mundane goose/bird possibility has not been eliminated by those applying rational thought to the issue.

 

[ufology]

Nope, if anything the debate has moved backwards.
Not many people are debating where they came from, they are debating if they came at all.
That ufologists still cling to 60 year old reports, studies and ufo cases is testament to how little they have moved forward since those times.

The above statement is not based on accurate information. The following are a few quotes in support of my original statement that the consensus was that UFOs are real. These quotes are from some of the first investigations, and the attitude has never changed. However it has taken on a slightly different angle in that they say UFOs don't represent a threat to national security. So what? That isn't the same as saying they don't exist.

==================

In a preliminary defense estimate, the air force investigation decided that, "This ‘flying saucer’ situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomenon. Something is really flying around."

A further review by the intelligence and technical divisions of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field reached the same conclusion, that "the phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious," that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar," suggesting a controlled craft.

It was thus recommended in late September 1947 that an official Air Force investigation be set up to investigate the phenomenon. It was also recommended that other government agencies should assist in the investigation.

This led to the creation of the Air Force’s Project Sign at the end of 1947. In August 1948, Sign investigators wrote a top-secret intelligence estimate to that effect. The Air Force Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg ordered it destroyed.

The existence of this suppressed report was revealed by several insiders who had read it, such as astronomer and USAF consultant J. Allen Hynek and Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, the first head of the USAF's Project Blue Book.

Another highly classified U.S. study was conducted by the CIA's Office of Scientific Investigation (OS/I) in the latter half of 1952 after being directed to do so by the National Security Council (NSC). They concluded UFOs were real physical objects of potential threat to national security.

One OS/I memo to the CIA Director (DCI) in December read, "...the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention... Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such a nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or any known types of aerial vehicles."

The matter was considered so urgent, that OS/I drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the NSC proposing that the NSC establish an investigation of UFOs as a priority project throughout the intelligence and the defense research and development community.

===============

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sorry but I have been remiss in responding.

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.

You can say it is implausible all you want but you presented it to this forum to be evaluated. If the forum considers the explanations plausible, then you are going to have to accept it. The problem is that you are too close to the sighting. It is your personal sighting and you have convinced yourself that you could not have made a mistake (Remember Feynman's quote about yourself being the easiest person to fool). This means your objectivity to what is implausbile and plausible is lost.

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.

Well, we are going to have take your word for it that they oscillated. However, I have shown that independent satellites can cross the same area of sky appearing to move in formation on a regular basis.

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.

So it wasn't unique but you got excited about it? Yet, you wrote it down in your UFO journal but never bothered to check up on it when you got to an internet connection? Is this what you call curiosity? Weren't you interested in checking up on your sighting or weren't you really interested in finding a potential solution? BTW, you would not have a scan of that journal/document to present, would you? Be careful, I wouldn't want you to smudge the ink because it might be considered "evidence".

Amazing that you referred to it as "JUST ANOTHER UFO SIGHTING". How many have you had over the years? How fortunate that you can see so many unidentifieds and I haven't see any after all my years of astronomcial observations. Perhaps I am unlucky or maybe I have learned to turn my UFOs into IFOs by looking up for potential solutions.

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.

Apparently, you aren't interested in researching anything beyond what these UFO websites have told you based on what we have seen here.

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?).

Well, we finally discovered the date and location after a little bit of teeth pulling. We also discovered you don't seem interested in following up your observations. It is amazing how some scientists just have no curiousity about these things. For somebody who is interested in these aerial anamolies you seemed to lack knowledge in things like what types of birds are in your area and the satellites that are visible in your skies. What a strange way to "scientifically" approach the subject of UFOs?

 

[John Albert]

Regarding hoaxes, why should we take any ufologist's word on what quantity of cases are reliably attributed to non-objective causes (hoaxes, confabulations, etc.)?

Do the decidedly insignificant (1-2%) figures quoted by Hynek, Condon, and Hendry accurately represent just the percentage of cases in which lying or subterfuge was discovered through investigation? If so, then it stands to reason that other hoaxes probably went undetected, so the percentage of total hoaxes (discovered + undiscovered) is certainly higher, probably significantly higher.

There's no good reason to believe the researchers should be in any way inured to hoaxes. Some hoaxes in the history of science have been especially convincing, even to general scientific communities consisting of tens of thousands of trained practitioners. Think Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, the Archaeoraptor, etc. Consider also the quality of evidence involved: those hoaxes were relatively difficult to pull off because they involved the presentation of actual physical evidence in the form of bones or fossilized remains. Despite the difficulty in fabricating these hoaxes, they were all incredibly successful and enduring.

On the other hand, the study of ufology seldom examines material evidence of any kind, relying almost entirely on word-of-mouth stories and documentary forms of evidence that are easily faked (photographs, films, etc.). Other fields of study that likewise assert extraordinary claims based solely on anecdotes and easily-faked documentary evidence have always been plagued by hoaxes (think cryptozoology, spiritualism, crop circle study, etc.), so why should ufology be any exception? Hynek himself admitted that most if not all the seemingly-accurate photographs presented as proof of UFOs were fabricated hoaxes, so why should anecdotes—which are far more easily fabricated—be any different?

The nature of the business of ufology renders it particularly susceptible to significant fraud, yet its practitioners generally tend to downplay and trivialize the incidence of hoaxes, just like the cryptozoologists, ghost hunters and crop circle researchers do. So how can we know that the claim of 1-2% fraud rate is anything close to accurate?

Logic dictates there is no reliable way these researchers could possibly know for certain how many hoaxes or confabulations their investigations failed to detect, and I see no good reason to just take them at their word.

 

[Rramjet]

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

Do you know of ANY "satellites" that were trailing four in a row, with the leading pair oscillating about a central point between them, travelling south to north over Cape Otway, at 11:45 at night, in December 2008?

AstroP is your resident "expert" in that field - and you can rest assured, if there was even the sightest hint that it was possible to explain it via "satellites" - then he would have done so.

 

[GeeMack]

Yeah right...

The "red area", it must be noted, does not include Cape Otway!

Your complete lack of qualification to understand birds, their habits and ranges is noted. Consequently you will never be able to eliminate birds as a plausible mundane explanation for what you allegedly saw.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Meaning of course that the categorisation was the very last step in the process, after all the other quality controls had been instituted - and where it was found that “ 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.”.

Then it demonstrates that their process of identifying excellent and good reports was flawed. If you are missing data, it is incomplete. It can not be an excellent report if there is insufficient information.