UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

I am not an astronomer, and can't waste any more time on moon phases this AM. I think that on Rramjet's alleged sighting, it was a young moon, visible low on the horizon to the ENE WNW.

Around 5 degrees under the horizon accordning to Cartes du Ciel.

 

[carlitos]

Ah, thanks. My mistake, probably due equally to my lack of time zone fluency as to my lack of astronomical prowess.

 

[EHocking]

...In all my life I have never seen a cape Barren goose in the area...

I was in Norway a week ago and didn't see a single White-tailed Eagle.

Proof that they don't exist in Norway.

Can't you see the fault in your "logic"?

 

[Paul2]

Ughh –you people…

It matters not what you all think (or would like to believe). The goose hypothesis is a simply a red herring. The objects I and the two other witnesses observed were not geese. That’s the bottom line here.

However I will admit to one mistake in my approach. I did start with the assumption that because I knew that the objects we sighted were not geese, then I defended the sighting against the geese hypothesis on that basis. One might call it starting with the conclusion. This obviously was a mistake and has lead to some confusion.

In the 1950s the Cape Barren Goose was thought to be close to extinction, so low were their numbers. Even today they are rare in the Otways.

One reference above was to the geese in the Colac lakes area. If you look here (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...vtmtfs&sig=AHIEtbSEPjoZYt75D6d1_DP7XOhTfL6BqA) you will see a bird count on page four for 2009. You will see that far from the geese being present in the lakes suggested by the poster above, there was just 12 of them in Lake Weering.

There is also another factor that must be taken into account. In the summer of 2008/2009, many of the lakes in the area were completely dry (eg; http://www.otway.biz/lakecolac.html).

Moreover, if you go here (http://www.birdata.com.au/maps.vm) and type in “Cape Barren Goose” you will obtain the distribution data for the bird. Cape Otway and the coastal Otway region is not in that habitat region.

It is just not a place the birds go to or fly over. In all my life I have never seen a cape Barren goose in the area. Now of course, while nothing can ever be counted as impossible – it is totally implausible to explain my sighting as Cape Barren Geese.

Forgive me this emotional reaction that contributes nothing to the substance of the argument, but

Holy mother of God, by all that is Right and True on this Sacred Orb and throughout the Heavens, on the Honor of my Ancestors, invested thereby; That statement, Rramjet, is un - [insert your own adjective] - believable. I thought I had seen it all.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Ughh –you people…

Ughh.....nobody is putting a gun to your head to stay, post your personal sightings, claim to know everything, or start threads on UFOs. You made this bed....Ughh.

No, you described some satellites that travelled as a threesome (the NOSS I believe). I challenged you to demonstrate they were at the location at the time. There were four objects in my sighting.

I did provide a lot more than a NOSS discussion but you seemed to have ignored it (by accident or on purpose, I am not sure).

On two occassions, I posted passes of satellites where two independent satellites appeared to be moving in formation across the sky in the same direction:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7445005&postcount=9858

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7451477&postcount=10015

This was done for this weekend and I saw/photographed the first pass. One of the satellites was fainter than expected but had I been at my dark sky site, I would have easily seen it.

I then looked ahead to the next night and discovered an interesting pass, which I mentioned at post 10022:


I guess it is a lot more possible than I thought. The following is a pass I have at my home location tomorrow night:

NOSS 3-3 (A) 4.2 20:40:41 10° SSW 20:47:24 71° ESE 20:54:17 10° NE
NOSS 3-3 (C) 4.2 20:40:47 10° SSW 20:47:30 70° ESE 20:54:22 10° NE
Cosmos 2219 Rocket 2.2 20:41:37 10° SSW 20:47:11 77° ESE 20:52:56 10° NNE
Cosmos-2242 3.0 20:43:14 10° S 20:47:31 74° E 20:51:53 10° NNE

All four satellites (one being a satellite pair) pass through the same area of sky over a twenty second period traveling in the same general direction. While two are in formation, the others would APPEAR to be in formation with the pair. Mind you, I have not bothered to look hard for this situation. What it indicates is that such conditions are not as rare as others (and myself) have thought.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7451564&postcount=10022

So, to have several satellites in the same area of the sky going in the same direction is not too rare if I can find a sample after looking at just three nights (I did not even look at the AM predictions). I am sure I can come up with similar predictions if I bothered to look further but, like digging up all those old TLEs, it would be a wasted effort because.....

I might accept the satellite explanation as potentially plausible except for two things: the leading pair of objects was oscillating about a central point between them and where would their illumination have come from (given it was midnight – and given the transit time)?

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

Well, we have your word, which doesn't count for much on this matter that they "oscillated" around a central point and that the transit time was indicative of an angular speed of 1.75 degrees/second (compared to the 0.5-1.0 deg/second of most satellites). Hmmm.......once again, to quote Feynman, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” We all know how you have the monopoly on understanding the "principles of perception" (even though you still never can explain it to anybody clearly) but I think I will go with what is known about how people often report satellites as UFOs (look at the MUFON and NUFORC databases of how people report the ISS as a UFO is very telling). If you can't recognize that you have the potential for error in observation, then there is no point trying to research all those TLEs.

EDIT: Ooops forgot the "midnight" thing. You were just past the solstice at 38 degrees south latitude. You were also on DST, if I am correct. So the actual time would be 10:45 standard time. In any case, the tip of the earth's axis allows the sun to illuminate satellites that make passes much later at night from your location. Here at 43 degrees North latitude, we have satellite passes all night long in summer so I would expect a similar situation for you in the southern hemisphere during your summer at 38 degrees.

 

[Jocce]

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

It's really interesting how you keep ignoring other plausible explanations. You can't really have missed it each time I post it? You really don't want to find a mundane explanation do you?

 

[Stray Cat]

It matters not what you all think (or would like to believe). The goose hypothesis is a simply a red herring.

The objects I and the two other witnesses observed were not geese. That’s the bottom line here.

Did I mention you were likely to substitute the verifiable for the anecdotal?

In the 1950s the Cape Barren Goose was thought to be close to extinction, so low were their numbers. Even today they are rare in the Otways.

Unless you ask some birdwatchers... but then we're not looking for thousands of them, or even hundreds, in fact not even ten. As long as there are Mmmmmm... four, that'll do.

One reference above was to the geese in the Colac lakes area. If you look here (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bYG6xtCY-dkJ:www.greeningaustralia.org.au/uploads//Our%2520Solutions%2520-%2520Toolkit%2520pdfs/VIC_bak_nletter_21__Autumn__09.pub2.pdf+lake+colac+cape+barren+geese&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESikDW1QwpzcbBvyfxtoHdngRgCE4TKOBujDk49J8B9wzP8KTHKwN1n32FCVzyaCqa5unxnk6rsuCsGrDnDmR14QYxBqQDMmi8YgaQCcNdZyVGMqGb2lMQ1V6k0jyXV81Avtmtfs&sig=AHIEtbSEPjoZYt75D6d1_DP7XOhTfL6BqA) you will see a bird count on page four for 2009. You will see that far from the geese being present in the lakes suggested by the poster above, there was just 12 of them in Lake Weering.

There is also another factor that must be taken into account. In the summer of 2008/2009, many of the lakes in the area were completely dry (eg; http://www.otway.biz/lakecolac.html).

The geese don't need water from the lake, they can land on land and they can drink sea water. Dry lake beds can have advantages for some birds and birds use every advantage they can get.

Moreover, if you go here (http://www.birdata.com.au/maps.vm) and type in “Cape Barren Goose” you will obtain the distribution data for the bird. Cape Otway and the coastal Otway region is not in that habitat region.

How many times?
If you had seen four lights building a nest or landing and nibbling the grass you may have a point. You saw them fly overhead.

It is just not a place the birds go to or fly over. In all my life I have never seen a cape Barren goose in the area. Now of course, while nothing can ever be counted as impossible – it is totally implausible to explain my sighting as Cape Barren Geese.

So if you've never seen a Cape Barren goose fly over, there is a very high possibility that you wouldn't be able to identify one if it did.

So no geese and the satellite hypothesis might have potential, but remains entirely speculative (and doesn’t really fit with the observational data anyway).

There is no observational data. There is an anecdote about someone who saw something he couldn't identify who incorrectly claims West is North, that there are no geese in an area where geese have been seen by birdwatchers and where they are known to live within very easy flying distance and their habits often bring them from the islands to the mainland all along that stretch of coastline. Who claims there is no light source whilst he less than 1km away from a lighthouse...etc. etc. etc.
And to top it all, he shifts the burden of proof onto Astophotographer regarding satellite data.

Rramjet, you are one who claims you have eliminated mundane possibilities, you have claimed in the past to use strict scientific means of doing this and yet this single case alone shows clearly that your method is: "Meh, it woz ayleeuns so it can't have been anything else"

 

[John Albert]

Yes, for an organisation that pretends to public outreach and education they have a very peculiar way of going about it. I could have sworn that ridicule, abuse, misrepresentation and obfuscation were not particularly effective teaching methods – but of course that just my opinion. LOL.

Consider it from our perspective:

This is an organization dedicated to promoting skepticism, critical thinking, and good science. So of course lots of people come here out of a genuine interest in the disciplines of science and critical thinking. Many are also drawn to the worthwhile pursuit of exposing charlatans and quacks who deceive the public with their pseudoscientific false claims.

Then we get people who come here for a totally different purpose. We get pseudoscientists, quacks and charlatans showing up to hawk their woo, or simply engage us skeptics in debate. These people are not interested in becoming skeptical or learning the methods of critical thinking. They're here to push an agenda, defend their quack business, or simply troll. Many of them are so neck-deep in their pseudoscience that they have no clue about how actual science is done or how the real world operates, yet they often pretend to wisdom and knowledge beyond the stars.

How are we supposed to deal with these people? We can strive to persuade them that their magical way of thinking is a dead end that will only result in fraud, lies, and the false illusion of knowledge; we can try and try to convince them that skepticism and science are the best way mankind has yet devised for figuring out the Universe; we can conclusively demonstrate the error of their ways innumerable times through ongoing discussions.

But if they never back down from their expository and argumentive modes of communication long enough to actually listen and consider the facts we're presenting, what recourse do we have? Should we just start agreeing with them just to make nice? Are we supposed to just abandon critical thinking and the scientific method that has resulted in so much human progress, just because some obstinate charlatan on the Internet is trying to argue that geese do not exist in an area where ornithologists have hundreds of recorded observations of them, or that the use of radio transponders inhibits radar from detecting aircraft?

One can only take so much crap before realizing how pointless it is to carry on with the niceties. After awhile it becomes necessary to cut one's losses and start going the other way with it. If you guys are stubbornly unwilling or unable to stop asserting that you're always right, then there's nothing we can do for you. Until you're ready to admit your mistakes and the faulty nature of your current style of reasoning, to stop pretending you know everything and actually make an effort to learn, then our hands are tied. At some point we're stuck in the unfortunate position of considering it a lost cause and making an example of you, so others will be able to see for themselves the kind of foolishness one can get into by rejecting all logic and reason in favor of some pet "woo" belief.

So go ahead, keep calling us "debunkers" and characterizing us as the enemy. You're just making our job that much easier for us.

 

[GeeMack]

Unless you ask some birdwatchers... but then we're not looking for thousands of them, or even hundreds, in fact not even ten. As long as there are Mmmmmm... four, that'll do.

Greylag Geese and Magpie Geese are also seen near enough to Apollo Bay to account for a sighting of an unidentified flying object. Such a lack of identification would be almost expected from someone wholly incapable of recognizing particular birds and being completely unqualified to understand their habits.

 

[John Albert]

I have presented only one case where the DNA evidence showed something out of the ordinary

Was that the story of the guy who had a blonde hair wrapped around his knob, that he claimed was from a female Pleiadian ET?

That DNA was positively identified as human.

 

[Stray Cat]

Was that the story of the guy who had a blonde hair wrapped around his knob, that he claimed was from a female Pleiadian ET?

That DNA was positively identified as human.

Aaah, but didn't you know... Genuine alien hair has a cloaking device that makes it look and test exactly like human hair. That's how you can tell it's real alien hair.

 

[corbin]

No, it's possible to believe that an object is non-mundane as long as you close your eyes and ears to any mundane explanations. We can clearly see that happening with the pseudoscientists here.

Even if that is happening in this thread, my statement is still true. In fact, your response has little to do with my statement.

Regarding the two mundane explanations offered, satellites seems far more plausible to me than glowing geese. Don't you agree that if the sighting is as described, the geese explanation seems a bit of a stretch?

Throughout the course of the thread I realized that the satellite hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Another possibility that can't be ruled out is that Rramjet's story isn't exactly accurate. I don't think this case defies mundane explanation. This case, however, is not nearly as strong as some of the ones in the UFO studies. In fact, this one would likely be classed as either the result of a known phenomenon, having no credibility (personal anecdotes from ufologists I suppose are less credible than somebody who has no motivation to lie), or having insufficient information. In some cases, however, none of these things apply.

Think of four points of light going overhead. Think of any explanation you want to for them. Anything. Just as long as it isn't mundane. Suppose you stay rooted to the spot because you can't believe your eyes. You just know that it's PseudoAliens, probably Pleidians come to probe Uranus.

Suddenly, they wheel lower in the sky and land on the mountainous terrain of Cape Otway and begin feeding on the local greenery boulders.

Do you:

a. Suddenly feel foolish for thinking geese were here to probe Uranus?

b. Tell your story of Pleidians to an internet forum for critical thinking so that people point and laugh at you?

Again, doesn't address the point that its not impossible, or even unlikely, for something to not fit the accepted model of reality, yet not be positively identified. For something to no longer fit the accepted model of reality only requires that the data be compared with the accepted model. No alternative model is required. An alternative model will be speculated upon or fully realized later, but its not necessary.

I think a big part of the debunker mindset is that there are so many mundane explanations, that it seems unlikely that any one of these cases could escape mundane explanation. I think there is a more methodological and exact way of looking at UFO cases... the event itself and the accuracy of the description of the event are separated.



The event itself-

1. Can the sighting be explained by a mundane object? If yes, discard case. If no, move onto step 2. The focus shifts from the event itself to the accuracy of the description of the event. Note: Answering "no" implies that there is enough information to plausibly rule out any mundane explanations. Cases with insufficient information are also discarded.


Accuracy of description- (either the witness is lying about the event, or mistaken about the event, or some combination; the point is to invalidate the description of the event itself, because at this point, if the description is taken at face value, then we have a non-mundane UFO.)

2. Is the sighting credible? (in other words, is the witness lying?) If no, discard case. If yes, move onto step 3.

3. Is the sighting reliable? (in other words, is the witness mistaken about the event?) To test reliability you look at things like other witnesses, time passed since description, etc. If no, discard case. If yes, then you can derive from a probability tree the probability of this case being descriptive of a non-mundane UFO.




A lot of these determinations have a degree of subjectivity (particularly steps 2 and 3), which is why this is a game of probability and statistical analysis, not proofs. At this stage, its a pseudoscience in the same way that psychology is a pseudoscience - doesn't mean we throw everything out the window because there is some subjectivity.

 

[carlitos]

Mundane explanation, not mundane object.

Sorry corbin, pet peeve. Along with "debunker mindset" but I'll leave that to others.

 

[corbin]

Mundane "object" is the right word to use in step one.

That's almost the whole point of the method - to separate the event itself (object) from the accuracy of the description. (encompasses explanation, origin, cause, etc.)

 

[Stray Cat]

Mundane "object" is the right word to use in step one.

That's almost the whole point of the method - to separate the event itself (object) from the accuracy of the description. (encompasses explanation, origin, cause, etc.)

No... mundane "explanation" is correct. A person can be 'credible', 'reliable' and 'honest' and still perceive seeing something they can't identify.

 

[John Albert]

Mundane "object" is the right word to use in step one.

That's almost the whole point of the method - to separate the event itself (object) from the accuracy of the description. (encompasses explanation, origin, cause, etc.)

No... mundane "explanation" is correct. A person can be 'credible', 'reliable' and 'honest' and still perceive seeing something they can't identify.

And the things they see are not always physical objects.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Even if that is happening in this thread, my statement is still true. In fact, your response has little to do with my statement.

No, your statement is still incorrect and my response had everything to do with it. Give me an example of when your statement is true without resorting to made up god of the gaps arguments.

Regarding the two mundane explanations offered, satellites seems far more plausible to me than glowing geese. Don't you agree that if the sighting is as described, the geese explanation seems a bit of a stretch?

The more Rramjet digs, the more plausible geese highlighted from some external source seems. It doesn't matter, though. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation is the right answer. The null hypothesis hasn't been falsified. There is no point in worrying about which mundane explanation it is. The only time to get excited is when the null hypothesis is falsified.

Throughout the course of the thread I realized that the satellite hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Another possibility that can't be ruled out is that Rramjet's story isn't exactly accurate. I don't think this case defies mundane explanation. This case, however, is not nearly as strong as some of the ones in the UFO studies. In fact, this one would likely be classed as either the result of a known phenomenon, having no credibility (personal anecdotes from ufologists I suppose are less credible than somebody who has no motivation to lie), or having insufficient information. In some cases, however, none of these things apply.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's satellites or geese or chinese lanterns or airplanes in formation. When it is proven to be PseudoAliens, then it will matter. Anecdotes that are unfalsifiable aren't going to be doing any proving. Nor are they going to be falsifying the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

Again, doesn't address the point that its not impossible, or even unlikely, for something to not fit the accepted model of reality, yet not be positively identified. For something to no longer fit the accepted model of reality only requires that the data be compared with the accepted model. No alternative model is required. An alternative model will be speculated upon or fully realized later, but its not necessary.

No. It is impossible to rule out the mundane based on an anecdote. You are propounding the typical god of the gaps argument and argument from ignorance. You don't know what it is so it's PseudoAliens.

I think a big part of the debunker mindset is that there are so many mundane explanations, that it seems unlikely that any one of these cases could escape mundane explanation. I think there is a more methodological and exact way of looking at UFO cases... the event itself and the accuracy of the description of the event are separate.

No. The big part of the pseudoscientist creduloid mindset is to start with your conclusion. Rramjet's whole scheme in this thread has been to throw out case after case to challenge the "debunkers" to come up with mundane explanations which he would deny and then declare each case to be PseudoAliens.

The correct method is to start with the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

And try to falsify that.

You've simply proposed another pseudoscientific method similar to Rramjet's.

The event itself-

1. Can the sighting be explained by a mundane object? If yes, discard case. If no, move onto step 2. The focus shifts from the event itself to the accuracy of the description of the event. Note: Answering "no" implies that there is enough information to plausibly rule out any mundane explanations. Cases with insufficient information are also discarded.

Misses the point. The null hypothesis applies until it has been falsified. Wishing mundane explanations into the cornfield does not falsify it.

Accuracy of description- (either the witness is lying about the event, or mistaken about the event, or some combination; the point is to invalidate the description of the event itself, because at this point, if the description is taken at face value, then we have a non-mundane UFO.)

So it would be foolish to accept any anecdote at face value. Pseudoscientists hang their hat on them, though.

2. Is the witness credible? (in other words, is the witness lying?) If no, discard case. If yes, move onto step 3.

You missed wide swaths of this thread where it was explained why witness credibility is of no moment. The most credible person in the world can be mistaken.

3. Is the witness reliable? (in other words, is the witness mistaken about the event?) To test reliability you look at things like other witnesses, time passed since description, etc. If no, discard case. If yes, then you can derive from a probability tree the probability of this case being descriptive of a non-mundane UFO.

No, you can do no such thing. Witness reliability is of no moment. You would be better served starting with the falsifiable null hypothesis that scares Rramjet silly and try to falsify that.

A lot of these determinations have a degree of subjectivity (particularly steps 2 and 3), which is why this is a game of probability and statistical analysis, not proofs. At this stage, its a pseudoscience in the same way that psychology is a pseudoscience - doesn't mean we throw everything out the window because there is some subjectivity.

No, witness reliability or credibility is all subjective. That's why you should start with the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and attempt to falsify that. Keeping in mind that anecdotes are unfalsifiable and that's why pseudoscientists hang their hat on them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mundane "object" is the right word to use in step one.

That's almost the whole point of the method - to separate the event itself (object) from the accuracy of the description. (encompasses explanation, origin, cause, etc.)

Mundane object is incorrect until it has been proven that there is an object to be mundane. You are still looking at the problem backwards.

 

[John Albert]

Do people blow off fireworks on New Year's Eve in Australia?

I was going to bring this up. But I've already decided not to participate in this game of Rramjet's, on the general principle that this thread is just one big, 258-page argument from ignorance; a basic reversal of the burden of proof allowing Rramjet to hold court, playing "expert" at his leisure and challenging the skeptics to disprove his mythology.

Once you allow a pseudoscientist to position himself as the Supreme Arbiter Of All That Is Plausible, you may as well flush any possibility of logic, reason or critical analysis.

I'm not a "debunker" and I'm certainly not going to allow somebody like Rramjet to maneuver me into that position to justify his own ego trip.

 

[carlitos]

This object thing just bugs me. Rramjet laughed when I said "just lights" but would anyone here consider light an object? How about light reflected in haze or a cloud? When I shine a flashlight (that's a "torch" for you anglosphere denizens), it emits a beam of light, not an object.

Not to mention - lies, lucid dreams, hallucinations, confabulations, memory error, and the like aren't objects. Anecdotes certainly aren't evidence of objects.

I'm not a "debunker" and I'm certainly not going to allow somebody like Rramjet to maneuver me into that position to justify his own ego trip.

Fair point. I come and go from this exercise, mostly because I learn interesting things along the side.