UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

The official USAF definition from AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958 is perfectly valid within the context I've used it. If you don't think so then revisit my post that outlines the importance of context within a discussion.

This is a blatant attempt to semantically justify your own belief that UFOs are some form of alien craft and not possibly the result of unknown mundane causes.

These objects are by their very definition alien to our civilization.

See? You're trying to redefine a word in such a way to make it appear to prove the existence of pseudoaliens without the need for actual evidence. You don't really think we're all that stupid, do you?


Let's look at that definition again, shall we?

2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:

a. Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).

b. Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.
(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.

c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.
​

That definition describes something that is unprovable by its very nature. There's no way the USAF could possibly prove that they have ruled out all possible mundane causes for all UFO sightings, short of providing physical, verifiable evidence.

The fact that the studies conducted under the USAF did not reveal any mundane cause, that does not mean no mundane cause exists.

The fact that they did not detect or believe a hoax, confabulation, or human error does not mean that a hoax, confabulation or human error was not the actual cause.

In other words, if this is indeed the position the USAF researchers adopted regarding UFOs, then those researchers made a huge jump to conclusion. It means they were engaged in the practice of pseudoscience, and not real science.


I can also prove by your own words that this USAF definition was cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of your argument.

In another post, you stated:

The word evolved through several official definitions, the Feb 05, 1958 being the most precise for reporting purposes.

By your own admission in the quote above, the definition you cited was not even the only official USAF definition! As you say, the definition "evolved through several official definitions."

There were other definitions, yet you specifically cherry-picked that one out of all the others. You go on to make the claim that its language reinterprets the word "unidentified" to mean something other than the plain English definition.

Finally you assert your preferred definition as the only valid one for the acronym "UFO," and expect all of us to just throw out the actual words in the acronym in favor of this arcane USAF definition from 1958.

Just like you did with the words "critical thinking," "pseudoscience," "ufology" (even the word "truth"), you're trying to obtain an unfair advantage by using semantic distortions to skew the language in your favor. That is a dishonest debating tactic, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

Tsk, tsk... very dishonest of you, Mr. J. Randall Murphy!

That is a fallacy of redefinition, with a garnish of appeal to authority, a special pleading on the side, and a nice cherry-picking on top. (I have to admit, I do get a kick out of your technique of nesting logical fallacies. It makes the debunking that much more fun.)

Of course, despite all your dishonest semantic gymnastics we all know and understand exactly what the acronym "UFO" actually means.

How do we know this?

Simple.

We all speak the English ******* language. "UFO" is a common term in popular usage, therefore it has a universally-accepted definition. There's no need to revert back to some arcane 60-year-old USAF document to redefine a word we already know.


I already presented 7 sources that all say "UFO" means "unidentified flying object," so that's the definition we'll be using.

 

[ufology]

Your highlighting of "statements of witnesses" is kind of dubious. UFOlogy does not constitute a trial or official inquiry, but (allegedly) an area of research.

When it comes to critical thinking, anecdotes alone are no evidence to support extraordinary claims.


ETA: and what's with all the FONT tags? Jesus H. Christ!

The interrogation of an Air Force pilot constitutes an inquiry by officials and the highlighted points in the first most common usage are also relevant. Now I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goal posts here, and that's OK for the sake of discussion. In fact I'll do it for them.

The next thing they'll want instead of evidence is proof, and then they'll move the goal posts some more and want physical scientific proof. So eventually the standard of proof will be set beyond the means to provide it during this discussion, then they'll claim to have proven their point. Which as we already know is that there is no available physical scientific proof of an alien presence on Earth. I case the skeptics have forgotten again already, I've already conceeded that point a long time ago.

My position has always been that the non-physical evidence, scientific and otherwise is sufficient to say that it is reasonable to believe that some UFO cases represent the presence of alien craft on or near Earth. Where exactly they come from and how they work I don't claim to know.

 

[Resume]

The interrogation of an Air Force pilot constitutes an inquiry by officials and the highlighted points in the first most common usage are also relevant. Now I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goal posts here, and that's OK for the sake of discussion. In fact I'll do it for them.

The next thing they'll want instead of evidence is proof, and then they'll move the goal posts some more and want physical scientific proof. So eventually the standard of proof will be set beyond the means to provide it during this discussion, then they'll claim to have proven their point. Which as we already know is that there is no available physical scientific proof of an alien presence on Earth. I case the skeptics have forgotten again already, I've already conceeded that point a long time ago.

My position has always been that in the evidence is sufficient to say that it is reasonable to believe that some UFO cases represent the presence of alien craft on or near Earth. Where exactly they come from and how they work I don't claim to know.

Anecdotes are claims. Evidence is the material used to establish the veracity of the claim. Do you have any?

 

[carlitos]

....
Now I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goal posts here, and that's OK for the sake of discussion. In fact I'll do it for them.

The next thing they'll want instead of evidence is proof, and then they'll move the goal posts some more and want physical scientific proof. So eventually the standard of proof will be set beyond the means to provide it during this discussion, then they'll claim to have proven their point. Which as we already know is that there is no available physical scientific proof of an alien presence on Earth. I case the skeptics have forgotten again already, I've already conceeded that point a long time ago.
...

No, "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest form of argument, and you won't find any "skeptic" doing that here.

"Proof" is something that you just dishonestly introduced into a discussion about "evidence." You did it. We saw you do it. It's going to sit on this forum for a long time for the convenence of google users.

Projection is a defense mechanism. It's a tool your brain is using to blame "skeptics" for your failure to falsify the null hypothesis. This is very dishonest stuff you're doing here.

 

[John Albert]

The interrogation of an Air Force pilot constitutes an inquiry by officials and the highlighted points in the first most common usage are also relevant. Now I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goal posts here, and that's OK for the sake of discussion. In fact I'll do it for them.

Yeah, that might have constituted evidence during that official inquiry, but it does not constitute evidence for us in our investigations at this point, because we don't have that pilot here to question, now do we?

All we have to go on is some report of UFO stories, written over half a century ago with nothing else to back it up.

Sorry, but that ain't "evidence."

My position has always been that the non-physical evidence, scientific and otherwise is sufficient to say that it is reasonable to believe that some UFO cases represent the presence of alien craft on or near Earth. Where exactly they come from and how they work I don't claim to know.

In other words, it's just your opinion. You make no claims to being able to justify your beliefs in pseudoaliens beyond taking for granted some stuff you saw written in a book. Correct?

 

[ufology]

That definition describes something that is unprovable by its very nature. There's no way the USAF could possibly prove that they have ruled out any and all mundane causes for all UFO sightings, short of providing physical, verifiable evidence.

The fact that the studies conducted under the USAF did not reveal any mundane cause, that does not mean no mundane cause exists. The fact that they did not detect or believe a hoax, confabulation, or human error does not mean that a hoax, confabulation or human error was not the cause.

Again what we need to realize is that context that makes all the difference. If object conformed to the mundane objects in the lists, then it was not reported as a UFO. However if there was sufficient information to compare the object to those in the lists, and the object by logical deduction could not have been anything in the list of mundane objects, then the report was considered to have been valuable enough for further investigation.

So Mr. Albert is correct in that it isn't possible to conclusively rule out any and all mundane causes for all UFO sightings, so they just threw out the ones they couldn't prove to begin with and dealt with the ones they were unable to rule out on the initial screening. So for example, if the object was determined to have been a balloon or there was a reasonable chance it was a balloon, it would not be classed as a UFO. And if it might have been a balloon, but there wasn't enough information to make a reasonable conclusion, then it went into the insifficient data pile and again was not classed as a UFO. So the bias was not in favor of the object being unknown. Even if it could not be positively identified as an aircraft but had aircraft like characteristics ( marker lights, exhaust, contrails, engine noise ... whatever ) then it was classed as an aircraft.

So by the time a UFO report made to the evaluation phase, we are looking at a highly filtered group. Something like a bird or balloon or conventional aircraft would have been ruled out because there was sufficient information to do so. For example, the pilot sees what he thought could be a balloon, but on closer inspection could not have been a balloon, as in the case of the USAF pilot who dove in from 40,000 and came within 500 yards of the object doing Mach 1, and clearly saw in broad daylight that it was a disk shaped craft. At that point we can conclusively rule out "mundane" objects. The only remaining explanation is pure fabrication. However USAF pilots face serious consequences ( court martial ) for such a fabrications. So it's not like the claims of some private pilot with nothing to lose and only publicity to gain. In my view cases where military and professional pilots have seen UFOs their evidence has weight.

 

[ufology]

Yeah, that might have constituted evidence during that official inquiry, but it does not constitute evidence for us in our investigations at this point, because we don't have that pilot here to question, now do we?

All we have to go on is some report of UFO stories, written over half a century ago with nothing else to back it up.

Sorry, but that ain't "evidence."

In other words, it's just your opinion. You make no claims to being able to justify your beliefs in pseudoaliens beyond taking for granted some stuff you saw written in a book. Correct?

I don't use the word "pseudoaliens" so I can't answer the question above.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, why do you continue to not answer this question:

How then do you tell the difference between the ones that are [UFOs by your chosen definition] and the ones which are misperceptions, hoaxes, misidentification, etc?

 

[John Albert]

I don't use the word "pseudoaliens" so I can't answer the question above.

Then just replace the word "pseudoaliens" with the paranormal intelligence of your choice, and answer the question, please:

In other words, it's just your opinion. You make no claims to being able to justify your beliefs in <non-human intelligent beings> beyond taking for granted some stuff you saw written in a book. Correct?

 

[Paul2]

Something like a bird or balloon or conventional aircraft would have been ruled out because there was sufficient information to do so. For example, the pilot sees what he thought could be a balloon, but on closer inspection could not have been a balloon, as in the case of the USAF pilot who dove in from 40,000 and came within 500 yards of the object doing Mach 1, and clearly saw in broad daylight that it was a disk shaped craft. At that point we can conclusively rule out "mundane" objects.

This must mean all mundane objects; but where did you show that all mundane objects were ruled out? You only discussed some, not all.

The only remaining explanation is pure fabrication.

Oops, you forgot

hoax, confabulation, or human error

an optical illusion, an hallucination, or a made-up lie.

misperceptions, hoaxes, misidentification,

I can't wait to see how you're going to rule these out "conclusively." (repetition of alternate hypotheses left in for completeness)

 

[Robrob]

For example, the pilot sees what he thought could be a balloon, but on closer inspection could not have been a balloon, as in the case of the USAF pilot who dove in from 40,000 and came within 500 yards of the object doing Mach 1, and clearly saw in broad daylight that it was a disk shaped craft. At that point we can conclusively rule out "mundane" objects. The only remaining explanation is pure fabrication. However USAF pilots face serious consequences ( court martial ) for such a fabrications. So it's not like the claims of some private pilot with nothing to lose and only publicity to gain. In my view cases where military and professional pilots have seen UFOs their evidence has weight.

Of course his close contact with the object would have been recorded on his and ATC's radar.

 

[Jocce]

The interrogation of an Air Force pilot constitutes an inquiry by officials

Rramjets main problem was that he claimed he had such evidence as:

- radar information
- signed witness statements
- interrogations of pilots
- etc

However, rather than show it he presented articles where someone else claimed to have examined such evidence and come to certain conclusions. Now, a corner stone of scientific work is repeatability and without access to data I can't look at it and see if I come to the same conclusion. I ask you once again if you have a case you like to discus where you feel that the evidence is strong. Discussing semantics for page after page seems to me to be a huge derail of this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course his close contact with the object would have been recorded on his and ATC's radar.

Like this:

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
At that point we can conclusively rule out "mundane" objects. The only remaining explanation is pure fabrication. However USAF pilots face serious consequences ( court martial ) for such a fabrications. So it's not like the claims of some private pilot with nothing to lose and only publicity to gain. In my view cases where military and professional pilots have seen UFOs their evidence has weight.

First: we cannot rule out mundane objects, we can only say the pilot didn't recognize the object as mundane.
Second: How do you think to make a case for a court martial with only one eye-witness (the acused pilot) and no physical evidence?
If the pilot was pissed up about chasing a not existing object (radar failure due to the limitations of the radars of the 1950s) and decided to play a game, there is no way you could prove that he didn't see something unidentified. So his risk is limited to writing a report and lieing to the interrogating officer, whith zero risk to get caught. Any discrepancies would be believed to be a result of the unusual situation.
How will you ever rule this out - the pilots name is unkown, no official report exists, only Ruppolts memory.

 

[ufology]

Rramjets main problem was that he claimed he had such evidence as:

- radar information
- signed witness statements
- interrogations of pilots
- etc

However, rather than show it he presented articles where someone else claimed to have examined such evidence and come to certain conclusions. Now, a corner stone of scientific work is repeatability and without access to data I can't look at it and see if I come to the same conclusion. I ask you once again if you have a case you like to discus where you feel that the evidence is strong. Discussing semantics for page after page seems to me to be a huge derail of this thread.

In most cases it will always be someone else who has disclosed the evidence first. However if we consider someone like Ruppelt who had headed Project Blue Book and saw such reports firsthand, then I'm fine with accepting it has having been factual. Here is a supporting document that came from microfilmed archives in reference to the Washington National Sightings in 1952:

As the above clearly indicates, we are not discussing teenage ghost hunters or psychic alien channeling here or trying to scam senior citizens out of their savings ... we're talking genuine agencies of the US Government, real USAF pilots and RADAR operators all concerned over sightings over real objects over the nation's capitol.

 

[John Albert]

...if we consider someone like Ruppelt who had headed Project Blue Book and saw such reports firsthand, then I'm fine with accepting it has having been factual.

Of course, somebody like that would have to be above reproach, wouldn't they? It would be just impossible for such a man to speak anything but 100% Truth.

I mean, there's absolutely no chance that any USAF officer might, after retirement, decide to supplement his pension by authoring a tell-all book to cash in on the popular UFO flap of the mid-late '50s, or even to write anything sensational or controversial for the purpose of selling books, would he?

I'm also sure his memory was completely flawless in recalling every detail of the many thousands of reports that crossed his desk during his career. It's unthinkable that he might have mistaken or embellished anything, especially when citing phantom reports that were mysteriously destroyed by the top brass after he read them, right?

As the above clearly indicates, we are not discussing teenage ghost hunters or psychic alien channeling here or trying to scam senior citizens out of their savings ... we're talking genuine agencies of the US Government, real USAF pilots and RADAR operators all concerned over sightings over real objects over the nation's capitol.

Yeah, because we all know that military folks are all 100% scientific and rational, never superstitious, and the US Armed Forces never waste money and resources on total and complete pseudoscientific nonsense.

Right?

 

[Aepervius]

Like this:

Subtle

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The testable evidence was the pilot and his report, who as a USAF pilot had already been tested and evaluated for his ability to observe, take action and report...

Oh really? Name the course in the Air Force UPT program that covers this as it pertains to the thread topic. Perhaps the relevant pages in the Airmen's Manual? Oh, but there is this question on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test:

Question #24: Where are the tits on an alien babe?
a) Front
b) Front and back
c) On the inside
d) Both of the above
e) Some of the above
f) Return to a)

 

[Aepervius]

Oh really? Name the course in the Air Force UPT program that covers this as it pertains to the thread topic. Perhaps the relevant pages in the Airmen's Manual? Oh, but there is this question on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test:

Question #24: Where are the tits on an alien babe?
a) Front
b) Front and back
c) On the inside
d) Both of the above
e) Some of the above
f) Return to a)

As per total recall : 3 , on the front.

 

[John Albert]

As per total recall : 3 , on the front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...o_the_Galaxy_characters#Eccentrica_Gallumbits