UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

It's irronic.

I see what you did there.

 

[Access Denied]

One of these is not like the other…

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "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." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

[missing text restored and highlighted below with underlined emphasis mine, extraneous text struck out]

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "It is the opinion that: The phenomenon is something "real and not visionary or fictitious, that there were are objects probably approximating in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb [and] , maneuverability (particularly in roll) , general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and motion which must be considered evasive behavior when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled craft either manually, automatically or remotely." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

Ah yes, the infamous Twining memo that retail UFOlogists like Stanton Friedman and Timothy Good deliberately misquote in order to sell their snake oil to the unsuspecting “true believers”…

Where exactly did you get that “quote” from ufology? Citation please.

Here’s the original text…

The Twining Memo
http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/twining.htm

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.​

Here’s how it currently appears on Wikipedia…

Unidentified flying object (§3.1.1 After 1947 sightings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#After_1947_sightings

[note placement of quotation marks]

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.[44]

As is stands right now it appears you’re the one who edited it before you posted it here in order to deceive others and I'm inclined to report this.

AD

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[John Albert]

I checked the revision history of that page and it doesn't appear that paragraph has been edited recently.

That language bastardized from Twining was originally added in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&oldid=49873025 and hasn't been corrected since.

"05:20, 24 April 2006 66.117.135.19 (talk) (53,592 bytes) (→History: additional historical details/quotes on early USAF investigations; citations provided)"

Somebody ought to edit the entry and set the record straight.

 

[Access Denied]

And it should be noted the Twining memo was in response to the intelligence requirement as (requested and later) set forth in the Schulgen memo…

http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/Schulgen.htm

“For the purpose of analysis and evaluation of the so-called "flying saucer" phenomenon, the object sighted is being assumed to be a manned aircraft, of Russian origin, and based on the perspective thinking and actual accomplishments of the Germans.”
Which, to put things in their proper perspective, is based on relatively few sightings* in the wake of Kenneth Arnold’s sighting on June 24th, 1947 going “viral” in the national press…

“The first sightings in the U.S. were reported around the middle of May. The last reported sighting took place in Toronto, Canada, 14 September. The greatest activity in the U.S. was during the last week of June and the first week of July.”

*117 total for all of 1947, of which only 15 or 16 were considered to be UNKNOWN according to the later Battelle study. The Schulgen memo was drafted in October.

 

[GeeMack]

Imagine that, a dishonestly re-edited version of a memo gets passed among "ufologists" as if it were true. I guess that's what you get when your life's motto is...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

So the meanies forgot to mention something?...

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "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." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force - I think he could tell the difference between the above an fairies.

You forgot to mention this is another common, mundane lie excreted by "ufology" practitioners, chunks torn off and swallowed whole like buzzards gnawing a carcass, then flown back to the nest and regurgitated to their young, the next hatch of gullible pseudoscientists. Yes, you forgot to mention that. Surely it was just an oversight.

 

[carlitos]

Just to reiterate that, by asking whether the Chief of Staff of the USAF could "tell the difference" between alleged flying saucers and fairies, the poster called ufology clams that Twining saw this stuff personally. Is that the case? Was the Chiief of Staff of the USAF one of the guys with the sightings?

 

[EHocking]

Well an argument from authority is better than an argument from no authority ... which is what the skeptics here consistently offer. Simply stating "agument from authority" doesn't negate its value without evidence showing how it does ... so show us how the USAF Chief of Staff couldn't tell the difference between fairies and and a structured metallic flying object of unknown origin.

j.r.

How about answering this post by Astrophotographer and followed up by Access Denied on the subject, here and here, i.e., the well informed posts that actually discusses what the CoS ACTUALLY wrote and not what "ufologists" have misrepresented in the paragraph that you quote.

For your reference, here is a PDF of the letter written by Twining.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well an argument from authority is better than an argument from no authority ... which is what the skeptics here consistently offer. Simply stating "agument from authority" doesn't negate its value without evidence showing how it does ... so show us how the USAF Chief of Staff couldn't tell the difference between fairies and and a structured metallic flying object of unknown origin.

j.r.

ufology, any chance of you ever providing that evidence that the USAF Chief of Staff witnessed either a fairie or a structured metallic flying object of alien origin?

 

[Access Denied]

…in the paragraph that you quote.

From Wikipedia and edited apparently.

For your reference, here is a PDF of the letter written by Twining.

Ugh, that’s a link to an incomplete copy at a pay site run by the Woods (the elder of which Friedman, father of the Roswell Myth, worked for in the 60s) who published the hoaxed “MJ-12” documents.

In addition to the link I gave, Jan Aldrich (Project 1947) has a good historical discussion and a complete photographed copy of the original letter here…

Twining Letter
http://www.nicap.org/twining_letter.htm

ETA: Astrophotographer has a good discussion of this on his site too..

What Did the Air Force Really Know?
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AFdocs.htm

 

[EHocking]

From Wikipedia and edited apparently.

Pretty much the point of your posts and Astrophotographer's.

Ugh, that’s a link to an incomplete copy at a pay site run by the Woods (the elder of which Friedman, father of the Roswell Myth, worked for in the 60s) who published the hoaxed “MJ-12” documents.

In addition to the link I gave, Jan Aldrich (Project 1947) has a good historical discussion and a complete photographed copy of the original letter here…

Twining Letter
http://www.nicap.org/twining_letter.htm

ETA: Astrophotographer has a good discussion of this on his site too..

What Did the Air Force Really Know?
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AFdocs.htm

My Googlefu failed me. I recognised the "MJ-12" reference and had a hazy memory of the hoaxish nature of the "reference" - but my "excuse" is that I was too lazy to follow that up.

That'll teach me.

 

[Access Denied]

Pretty much the point of your posts and Astrophotographer's.

Yeah, I probably could have worded that better.

Not sure what fabricating an alleged direct quote is called on teh internets (par for the course?) but where I come from, that’s known as fraud.

My Googlefu failed me. I recognised the "MJ-12" reference and had a hazy memory of the hoaxish nature of the "reference" - but my "excuse" is that I was too lazy to follow that up.

That'll teach me.

No complaint on this end…

SOM1-01-ET Technology Recovery and Disposal Manual: $5 + $8 S&H
Opportunity To Highlight The Incestuous Nature Of UFOlogy: Priceless

 

[ufology]

I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate ... The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.

Win ... lose ... how do we decide? There is no way to present meaningful evidence on this forum. It's all just words or pictures on a screen that in and of themselves prove nothing. The skeptics have a particular mindset that short of being taken on a mothership cruise will never convince them that some UFOs are alien craft, and even then they'd probably find a way to doubt it. On the other end of the spectrum are the witnesses who know from firsthand experience that some UFOs are alien craft. Because the skeptics refuse to consider anecdotal evidence, the gulf between the believers and the skeptics will remain in place until those mothership cruises I mentioned become readily available. Until then nobody can win this debate.

Perhaps some progress could be made if some of the more open minded skeptics were to agree to evaluate individual cases to determine how reasonable they are. That is the reason I came to the JREF forum, but to date no such skeptics have come forward to offer any genuine and constructive help in this regard. Rather, my efforts have evoked far more mockery and ridicule than anything else. It's been highly adversarial and a real disappointment.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Win ... lose ... how do we decide? There is no way to present meaningful evidence on this forum. It's all just words or pictures on a screen that in and of themselves prove nothing. The skeptics have a particular mindset that short of being taken on a mothership cruise will never convince them that some UFOs are alien craft, and even then they'd probably find a way to doubt it.

Wanna buy some straw? You're going through it at quite a rate.

On the other end of the spectrum are the witnesses who know from firsthand experience that some UFOs are alien craft.

They're just anecdotes, dude, no matter how you try and spin it.

Because the skeptics refuse to consider anecdotal evidence, the gulf between the believers and the skeptics will remain in place until those mothership cruises I mentioned become readily available. Until then nobody can win this debate.

Wrong. There is no debate.

The null hypothesis is that UFOs have mundane explanations and if the believers wish to overturn that hypothesis then they'll be needing to produce some evidence.

Got any, ufology?

Perhaps some progress could be made if some of the more open minded skeptics were to agree to evaluate individual cases to determine how reasonable they are. That is the reason I came to the JREF forum, but to date no such skeptics have come forward to offer any genuine and constructive help in this regard. Rather, my efforts have evoked far more mockery and ridicule than anything else. It's been highly adversarial and a real disappointment.

Speak for yourself. It's not only been educational for anyone wanting to observe pseudoscience in action but it's been a real hoot.

 

[ufology]

It's not only been educational for anyone wanting to observe pseudoscience in action but it's been a real hoot.

OK Akhenaten ... You call mockery and ridicule educational? What I've been through here is more like cyber-bullying boot camp. One of these days such tactics are going to offend the wrong person and it won't seem like such a "hoot" then.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

ok akhenaten ... You call mockery and ridicule educational? What i've been through here is more like cyber-bullying boot camp. One of these days such tactics are going to offend the wrong person and it won't seem like such a "hoot" then.

J.r.

y.a.n.a.l.

 

[GeeMack]

Win ... lose ... how do we decide? There is no way to present meaningful evidence on this forum when there isn't any.

Fixed that for you.

It's all just words or pictures on a screen that in and of themselves prove nothing. The skeptics have a particular mindset that short of being taken on a mothership cruise will never convince them that some UFOs are alien craft, and even then they'd probably find a way to doubt it.

That distortion of the skeptics' mindset is surely not an honest assessment, and the argument seems to indicate a severe misunderstanding of the general skeptical position.

On the other end of the spectrum are the witnesses who know from firsthand experience that some UFOs are alien craft.

Interesting that no objective evidence has ever been offered to support that claim.

Because the skeptics refuse to consider anecdotal evidence, the gulf between the believers and the skeptics will remain in place until those mothership cruises I mentioned become readily available. Until then nobody can win this debate, which makes it a pointless exercise.

Actually from the scientific perspective, objectively, where reality isn't abandoned in favor of some made-up "truth", the debate remains unmoved from where it began, with the null hypothesis:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."​

Perhaps some progress could be made if some of the more open minded skeptics were to agree to evaluate individual cases to determine how reasonable they are.

See this thread, UFOs: The Research, the Evidence. It has been an exercise in futility, what with all the open minded skeptics evaluating the alleged cream of the crop of individual cases. Of course when all is said and done, the debate remains unmoved from where it began, with the null hypothesis:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."​

That is the reason I came to the JREF forum, but to date no such skeptics have come forward to offer any genuine and constructive help in this regard.

Maybe because the help didn't indulge the fantasy notion that, how was that phrased?...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

It does not mean, of course, that genuine and constructive help was not freely offered. Lots of logical fallacies were explained. Many, many mundane explanations were provided. The null hypothesis was described. The meaning of "ufology" and the definition of pseudscience were thoroughly explored, and "ufology" was determined objectively and by definition to be pseudoscience. That seems like a heapin' helpin' of constructive help. Unfortunately, even after all these cooperative skeptics' valiant efforts, it looks like there are "ufology" advocates who still, and with no objective evidence to back the position, "aim to illuminate the truth [...] that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin".

Rather, my efforts have evoked far more mockery and ridicule than anything else. It's been highly adversarial and a real disappointment.

Yes, the efforts, the arguments, the fallacies, and the unsupported claims have earned all the mockery and ridicule they've received. Nice that it wasn't directed at anyone personally, eh?

 

[ufology]

Yes, the efforts, the arguments, the fallacies, and the unsupported claims have earned all the mockery and ridicule they've received. Nice that it wasn't directed at anyone personally, eh?

Too Bad GeeMack ... but just because it's not directed at anyone in particular, but a whole group of people, doesn't make it OK ... and it definitely doesn't make it "educational".

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Win ... lose ... how do we decide? There is no way to present meaningful evidence on this forum.

Actually, there is. You've just decided to go the route of presenting unfalsifiable anecdotes, which is pseudoscientific in its approach.

It's all just words or pictures on a screen that in and of themselves prove nothing. The skeptics have a particular mindset that short of being taken on a mothership cruise will never convince them that some UFOs are alien craft, and even then they'd probably find a way to doubt it.

You must have received your new shipment of straw!

On the other end of the spectrum are the witnesses who know from firsthand experience want to believe that some UFOs are alien craft.

ftfy

Because the skeptics refuse to consider anecdotal evidence, the gulf between the believers and the skeptics will remain in place until those mothership cruises I mentioned become readily available. Until then nobody can win this debate.

You should read some of the threads you post in. They go for hundreds of pages of skeptics considering anecdotal evidence extraordinary claims. I think you really mean that the credulous believers are close-minded to any other possibility than PseudoAliens.

Perhaps some progress could be made if some of the more open minded skeptics were to agree to evaluate individual cases to determine how reasonable they are.

You should read some of the threads that you post in. They go on for hundreds of pages of skeptics evaluating individual cases and determining that they haven't been shown to be explained by PseudoAliens. It's the credulous believers who close-mindedly refuse to believe anything other than PseudoAliens

That is the reason I came to the JREF forum, but to date no such skeptics have come forward to offer any genuine and constructive help in this regard. Rather, my efforts have evoked far more mockery and ridicule than anything else. It's been highly adversarial and a real disappointment.

j.r.

The evidence of your posts says that you came to the JREF with an agenda of enlisting help in your war with the Raelians and to attempt to dishonestly ask for open dialogue with skeptics to see if there could be some middle ground. Unfortunately, you simply wanted skeptics to believe your stories about PseudoAliens and you had no intention of engaging in critical thinking.

 

[RoboTimbo]

To Bad GeeMack ... but just because it's not directed at anyone in particular, but a whole group of people, doesn't make it OK ... and it definitely doesn't make it "educational".

j.r.

No. You've simply taken the mockery of your logical fallacies and uncritical thinking as mockery of you personally.