UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[aggle-rithm]

Anecdotes are evidence ...

True...they serve as irrefutable evidence that people can tell stories.

 

[Paul2]

What we've been discussing is the reliability of memory, and I contend that it is not such a "poor servant" as the skeptics self-servingly suggest. Rather, in healthy people it is quite amazing.
j.r.

It's not so much that we skeptics are saying that memory is poor (although that may be a more extreme position that some may take), but the prior, really necessary point is that memory is sometimes wrong and therefore must be corroborated if it is to be used as real evidence, more than just a story.

 

[dlorde]

It's not so much that we skeptics are saying that memory is poor (although that may be a more extreme position that some may take), but the prior, really necessary point is that memory is sometimes wrong and therefore must be corroborated if it is to be used as real evidence, more than just a story.

It's not really an extreme position. Memory, in general, is poor and extremely labile, and is often wrong (significantly inaccurate) - particularly for eye-witness events where perceptual interpretation is also error-prone, and where contact with other witnesses is likely to modify it. The evidence suggests that memory of details is much poorer than is popularly believed.

Of course, there are techniques that can be used to retain information longer, but few people use them.

 

[John Albert]

My memory is that he originally posted his story in the Extraterrestrials thread, one of several he bumped when the "Is ufology a pseudoscience" thread got locked for a while. The mods moved some posts to this thread, and the rest to AAH.

But I could be wrong.

ETA: This GeeMack post on the 23rd July from the AAH thread split from Extraterrestrials quotes part of his UFO story, so that's definitely where he originally posted it. He later posted it again in another thread (I think that was the Knowers/Believers thread) and those posts too got moved to this thread.

That's the one!

I knew it was some thread other than the "Knowers/Believers," because I specifically remember how the conversation went down in there. Ufology resurrected the thread, entreating people to weigh in on the subject of UFOs. Then when the skeptics from all the other threads showed up, he told them to butt out, saying this thread is specifically intended for him and the "fence-sitters" to comment on the discussion. Eventually, when the conversation didn't proceed as he'd intended, he left that thread and didn't return to it until after all the other zombies had been merged into the "Pseudoscience" and "Evidence" threads. It was then that he returned to the "Knowers/Believers" thread, seeking refuge for his story from the rigors of critical analysis.

Thank you for correcting my own fallible human memory.

I've watched the video and It's entertaining ... it's also a complete misrepresentation to say that eye-witnesses in general jump to the conclusion of extraterrestrial spaceships every time they see an unidentified light.

Of course, not all eyewitnesses jump to the conclusion of "OMG Aliens!", but that's precisely what you're doing!

His portrayal of the term "unidentified" in the context of UFO is also misrepresented. To quote an excerpt from USAF AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958...

No, he's right-on with that.

The initials "UFO" literally represent the words "unidentified flying object," not "OMG Aliens!" Hence, the acronym "UFO" and not "OA."

His concept of memory is misrepresented with respect to ufology in that he uses the example of passed down memories as retold by multiple people to reach a conclusion that eye-witness testimony is "the worst kind of evidence", when in fact, most UFO reports and studies on file are from first-person sources and passed to others in hard copy or digital form which preserves the original information.

I agree that his invocation of the "telephone game" is not the best possible illustration of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, but the point he makes is right on. Anecdotes are the worst possible form of evidence. Your own blatant misremembered details, confirmation bias, and special pleadings in this very thread are proof of that, whether or not you choose to acknowledge the fact.

His presentation that humans are "poor data taking devices" and "that's why we have machines", is an example of the technocratic propoganda that we regularly see in skeptics.

"Technocratic propaganda"? Just like a true, dyed-in-the-wool pseudoscientist to invoke a conspiracy theory to discredit a valid point of contention.

Machines fail all the time and lose data or garble it up. Machines are also fallible.

This is a disingenuous argument. Most failings of machines are due to human error. Most mechanical errors in detection and measurement devices can be corrected through calibration, repair, or replacement of the equipment.

The human CNS, on the other hand, has far more serious issues:

• A bad memory will continue to be bad, and will only get worse over time.

• When an event is recalled/recounted from memory, the brain usually embellishes it with false details. These falsehoods then become associated with the event in the person's memory, the confabulations compounding every time the memory is recalled.

• The human mind is highly suggestible. Memories can easily be implanted, either deliberately or inadvertently.

• People commonly mistake things they saw in a dream or viewed on TV, in movies, or videogames, for real events they experienced themselves.

• People regularly confabulate stories for fun, profit, fame, "ego trips" and other psychological reasons.

• People will always be subject to confirmation bias, the psychological mechanism behind the "arguments from ignorance" that Dr. Tyson referred to.

• People's perceptions are highly fallible and easily-fooled by factors like scale, distance, and direction of movement (we actually see in 2½D, not 3D). Remember Dr. Tyson's comments on "optical illusions" ("brain failures!").

• People make mistakes. A LOT. Like, a HELL of a LOT.

• People tend to give themselves far too much credit where their perceptions, memories, and reasoning are concerned. That is the reason why science has developed techniques like peer review and independent reproduction/verification of experimental results and findings.

I loved his comment that "Photoshop probably has a UFO button".

He's surprisingly not that far off. When I was studying computer graphics in college about 12 years ago, a friend of mine gave me a CD full of Photoshop plug-ins, one of which was called "UFO." After installation, this plug-in would appear as an entry in the "Filter > Render" menu. Its purpose was to render a glowing orb or disc with full control over the size, x-y proportion, brightness, color, luminosity, glow intensity, and other factors. I just tried Googling it but unfortunately I couldn't find anything. This was back in the days of P-shop 5.5 or so, but I imagine it must still be available on the Web somewhere.

I agree that the evidence for establishing the reality of UFOs does not presently meet the standards of evidence required by scientists in a lab e.g. objective physical evidence such as an "alien ash try". However labs aren't where all science is done

True, science is often conducted "in the field," but the scientific method still applies. Which means unfalsifiable sources such as anecdotes are still not valid as evidence.

the pursuit of knowledge can also take place outside ... of the scientific method through the use of observation, philosophy, experience, and critical thinking.

And we all know what that's called, don't we?

Say it with me, kids. All together now:

"PSEUDOSCIENCE!"

And BTW, critical thinking is not involved in this approach, or else your methodology would discount anecdotes as valid evidence.

I agree that some amateur astronomers have seen UFOs and that because they are better at identifiying anomalous objects than the average person, it is more likely that the incidence of them incorrectly reporting UFOs is lower than in untrained people.

It's quite magnanimous of you to agree with the professional astrophysicist and life-long amateur astronomer on this point.

However not all sightings are at night and there isn't much for an astronomer to see in the daytime except for the Sun and Moon and the odd planet or passing space station. So they aren't usually looking at the sky as intently during the day

Got a source or any evidence to support your contention in that bolded part?

...whereas people like pilots are, so this might also be a contributing factor to why fewer amateur astronomers see UFOs than the general population.

So you basically just completely dismiss all the stuff he said about human fallibility and unreliability when it comes to eyewitness accounts?

Of course you do. Your entire faith depends upon it.

 

[ufology]

Ufology I see that you did not comment on instant speed change and the needed acceleration.

What is the above referring to? In what context should I be making the reference?

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

What is the above referring to? In what context should I be making the reference?

j.r.

This: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7520277&postcount=11129

 

[ufology]

.

So you basically just completely dismiss all the stuff he said about human fallibility and unreliability when it comes to eyewitness accounts?

I don't just "completely dismiss all the stuff he said". I said that it is a misrepresentation of the actual situation. He used the example of passing a story on verbally from child to child until it was no longer the "same story". Had he used the example of an actual UFO report from among those on record, you would be dealing with a written record. So true analogy would be that you would take the story in written form, such as a report or a book and you would then pass that around the room ... tell me how much would the story in the book change when it gets back to the starting point? The answer is "not at all". But such false analogies are often used to misrepresent what goes on in ufology, it demonstrates considerable bias, and this actually came from an intellectual. Like I said, the video is entertaining, but mostly innacurate and misleading.

j.r.

 

[Resume]

I don't just "completely dismiss all the stuff he said". I said that it is a misrepresentation of the actual situation. He used the example of passing a story on verbally from child to child until it was no longer the "same story". Had he used the example of an actual UFO report from among those on record, you would be dealing with a written record. So true analogy would be that you would take the story in written form, such as a report or a book and you would then pass that around the room ... tell me how much would the story in the book change when it gets back to the starting point? The answer is "not at all". But such false analogies are often used to misrepresent what goes on in ufology, it demonstrates considerable bias, and this actually came from an intellectual. Like I said, the video is entertaining, but mostly innacurate and misleading.

j.r.

He also dealt with argument from ignorance. "I don't know what I saw, so it's a UFO/alien spacecraft."

Classic example.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, when will you be able to answer this?

So, what corroborating evidence do you have that your memory of your perception of your sighting decades ago is infallible?

 

[Stray Cat]

Had he used the example of an actual UFO report from among those on record, you would be dealing with a written record. So true analogy would be that you would take the story in written form, such as a report or a book and you would then pass that around the room ... tell me how much would the story in the book change when it gets back to the starting point? The answer is "not at all".

Then you completely missed the point of what he was saying.
He was talking about human perception not the printing process.

Information in (be it seeing a light in the sky with your own eyes, or hearing a short sentence from the person stood next to you) is quite often not the same as information out (telling people about the lights in the sky, or even simply recalling your own memory of it as you contemplate the event later... or repeating what the person stood next to you just said).

Human fallibility is not limited to UFO reports, the example he used was totally appropriate.

 

[Marduk]

During June of 1975, I was with my girlfriend Karen at her parent's ranch on the west side of Lake Windermere

At midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs.

When it landed it went dark and stayed on the ground until about 2:00AM. Then it lit up, ascended straight up to about 200 meters, stopped instantly for about two seconds,

The second time it came up it was around 4:00AM and by then both of the girls had nodded off. The orb repeated the same maneuver as it had the first time, then settled back into the forest and went dark.

Around 6:00AM the light of dawn began to illuminate the valley well enough to make out where the orb had landed. the orb came up again. It rose vertically to about 200 meters and stopped instantly.

Nice two hour intervals in june
why, that almost sounds like the mating habits of

During the breeding season in June, groups of hundreds of male fireflies of the species Photinus carolinus fly above the ground for about two hours each evening looking for mates.

lets just go over what you saw again, you saw a ufo impersonating firefly flight behaviour (figure eights), during firefly mating season (june), in an area densely populated by several species of firefly, they even got the 2 hour period of activity correct

and you can't think of a single mundane explanation

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

 

[John Albert]

I don't just "completely dismiss all the stuff he said". I said that it is a misrepresentation of the actual situation. He used the example of passing a story on verbally from child to child until it was no longer the "same story". Had he used the example of an actual UFO report from among those on record, you would be dealing with a written record. So true analogy would be that you would take the story in written form, such as a report or a book and you would then pass that around the room ... tell me how much would the story in the book change when it gets back to the starting point? The answer is "not at all". But such false analogies are often used to misrepresent what goes on in ufology, it demonstrates considerable bias, and this actually came from an intellectual. Like I said, the video is entertaining, but mostly innacurate and misleading.

I see what you did there.

You just seized on one minor talking point in his entire speech and used that to conclude that the entire argument is "mostly innacurate and misleading." What about all the other valid points that Dr. Tyson made in that discussion, regarding the fallibility of human perception and reasoning?

As I said above:

...you basically just completely dismiss all the stuff he said about human fallibility and unreliability when it comes to eyewitness accounts?

Of course you do. Your entire faith depends upon it.

 

[ufology]

I see what you did there.

You just seized on one minor talking point in his entire speech and used that to conclude that the entire argument is "mostly innacurate and misleading." What about all the other valid points that Dr. Tyson made in that discussion, regarding the fallibility of human perception and reasoning?

As I said above:

We were talking about memory so I stuck with that one point. But I can just as easily show his misrepresentation on other points as well, for example the way he frames the issue of UFOs in a manner that is entirely out of context with the official definition that I posted earlier and was simply hand waved by another poster.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

We were talking about memory so I stuck with that one point. But I can just as easily show his misrepresentation on other points as well, for example the way he frames the issue of UFOs in a manner that is entirely out of context with the official definition that I posted earlier and was simply hand waved by another poster.

j.r.

In the other thread, we posted about 20 "official definitions" for UFO. All of them said "unidentified flying object."

Unidentified ≠ aliens.

ETA - definitions

 

[ufology]

In the other thread, we posted about 20 "official definitions" for UFO. All of them said "unidentified flying object."

Unidentified ≠ aliens.

The official USAF definition from United States Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 clearly explains that the word "Unidentified" when used in the context of the word UFO, does not simply mean the same thing as it does during common usage on its own. Informed skeptics know this to be true but still misrepresent the word UFO by trivializing it through incorrect common definitions that play on uninformed audiences. Such misrepresentation isn't something that will enhance the reputation of skeptics or the JREF.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

The official USAF definition from United States Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 clearly explains that the word "Unidentified" when used in the context of the word UFO, does not simply mean the same thing as it does during common usage on its own.

<drama queen bit snipped>

I'm not in the Air Force, so I'll not rely on them to define common terms for me, thanks very much.

If I did care about how the USAF defined "unidentified" 53 years ago (!), I'd probably have a go at them for using "object" in their acronym of choice.

Anyway, looking at the thread topic, did the USAF ever provide evidence for not only UFOs but "aliens?"

 

[Resume]

We were talking about memory so I stuck with that one point. But I can just as easily show his misrepresentation on other points as well, for example the way he frames the issue of UFOs in a manner that is entirely out of context with the official definition that I posted earlier and was simply hand waved by another poster.

j.r.

What's the proper context?

 

[ufology]

I'm not in the Air Force, so I'll not rely on them to define common terms for me, thanks very much.

If I did care about how the USAF defined "unidentified" 53 years ago (!), I'd probably have a go at them for using "object" in their acronym of choice.

Anyway, looking at the thread topic, did the USAF ever provide evidence for not only UFOs but "aliens?"

If you want to be informed well enoughto comment on the definition of UFO, then you need to recognize that the word was created by the USAF as an official designation. The word evolved through several official definitions, the Feb 05, 1958 being the most precise for reporting purposes. It isn't relevant that word or the definition was created 53 years ago, other than perhaps to show that we have been studying the phenomenon for that long.

So we are still dealing with the same word created by the same people for the purpose of differentiating UFOs from known manmade or natural objects. Of particular relevance is the fact that in the official definition, unknown aircraft are not classed as UFOs. Furthermore, the mere inference from such things as contrails, exhaust or lighting, that an object could be aircraft, even if the aircraft itself is not seen, is sufficient to exclude the report from being classed as a UFO. So considering this ... I again point out that we are dealing with incidents, as have been described earlier, where objects that are not aircraft, missiles or other manmade objects or natural phenomena are seen doing things can't be explained.

As for the USAF admitting they believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial, it is well known that some USAF people believed that to be the case. But I submit that it isn't necessary to have a USAF admission of such. These objects are by their very definition alien to our civilization. It isn't necessary that they come from outer space for them to be alien to us. However given what we know about the Earth, it is reasonable to propose that no manufacturing facility for UFOs could go undetected for so long. An extraterrestrial explanation is just the next most logical suggestion.

Naturally all the above assumes that we accept that UFOs ( as officially defined ), do in fact exist, and there has been plenty of official documention to show that they do. We just don't know what they are other than some have been clearly observed to be structured metallic craft of alien origin.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

other than some have been clearly observed to be structured metallic craft of alien origin.

Most of the "UFO" stories posted in this thread aren't about "objects" at all though, so maybe you shouldn't be lecturing me about definitions, eh? Oh, and "of alien origin?" 11,000 posts and still no evidence of that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you want to be informed well enoughto comment on the definition of UFO, then you need to recognize that the word was created by the USAF as an official designation. The word evolved through several official definitions, the Feb 05, 1958 being the most precise for reporting purposes. It isn't relevant that word or the definition was created 53 years ago, other than perhaps to show that we have been studying the phenomenon for that long.

No, it's important to know the context of when the acronym was coined, during the cold war.

So we are still dealing with the same word created by the same people for the purpose of differentiating UFOs from known manmade or natural objects. Of particular relevance is the fact that in the official definition, unknown aircraft are not classed as UFOs. Furthermore, the mere inference from such things as contrails, exhaust or lighting, that an object could be aircraft, even if the aircraft itself is not seen, is sufficient to exclude the report from being classed as a UFO. So considering this ... I again point out that we are dealing with incidents, as have been described earlier, where objects that are not aircraft, missiles or other manmade objects or natural phenomena are seen doing things can't be explained.

So your light in the sky would not be defined as a UFO? I would point out that sightings of alleged UFOs have turned out to be aircraft, missiles and other manmade and natural phenomena. Which ones have turned out to be aliens?

As for the USAF admitting they believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial, it is well known that some USAF people believed that to be the case. But I submit that it isn't necessary to have a USAF admission of such. These objects are by their very definition alien to our civilization. It isn't necessary that they come from outer space for them to be alien to us. However given what we know about the Earth, it is reasonable to propose that no manufacturing facility for UFOs could go undetected for so long. An extraterrestrial explanation is just the next most logical suggestion.

It is even more well known that the USAF subscribes to the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

since that has never been falsified.

Naturally all the above assumes that we accept that UFOs ( as officially defined ), do in fact exist, and there has been plenty of official documention to show that they do. We just don't know what they are other than some have been clearly observed to be structured metallic craft of alien origin.

j.r.

Well, no. UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) trivially exist. Sometimes, once they are Identified, they are found to not be Flying and sometimes not Objects. We just don't know that any have ever been structured metallic craft of alien origin. That's why the null hypothesis has never been falsified. Only pseudoscientist UFOlogists start with an unfalsified null hypothesis.