UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/WNS_1952_01a.JPG

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...

As the above clearly indicates it is yet another claim that something happened. It's not a signed statement from the pilots, it's not a transcript of an interview or debriefing with the person(s) directly involved. It is once again someone who is recapitulating, without detail, what someone else claims to have experienced. This time it appears to be from an official source but still, it's not evidence. It's a claim that evidence exists. See the difference?

 

[Stray Cat]

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:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/WNS_1952_01a.JPG

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.

However Ruppelt even though he was in Washington at the time of this UFO flap, didn't see any of it first hand. As he couldn't muster up a staff car to get to the AF base, so he sulked and went back to Blue-Book headquarters in Ohio (dedication to your job there).

And talking of official documents that not only Ruppelt could see but the ones which have since been released under the FoI, (You provide a single example above), perhaps you could also post the document where the USAF (specifically Blue Book remembering that Rupplet supposedly had first hand knowledge of all the relevant information) concludes that the radar returns were most likely caused by "mirage effects caused by double inversion", a position backed up by the CAA Technical Development and Evaluation Center.

 

[23_Tauri]

Is the last 50-60 years gazillions of ufo's have been spotted, noticed, photographed and filmed. Close encounters of every kind you can think of......

The problem is that until now, not a single piece of really convincing evidence in form of clear and unmistaking pictures or footage has been shot. Why is that? ...... Why do they vanish after giving these messages, or after exposing themselves, leaving the witness in a state of confusion. This witness often questions himself... He can't tell the story becauae nobody would believe him/her. A blue cube with translucent people? Hahaha, how much did you drink?

I am certain that the majority of these witnesses tell the truth. What is the matter here? In my opinion, and that of certain UFO investigators, these UFO's do not come out of space. They are no visitors from other planets. They do not have messages for mankind. It is an intelligence that comes from our own planet......

To which ufology replied:

Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.

But.....

Anecdotes are evidence ... just not physical empirical evidence......

I pursued the topic on the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread specifically because I could state from firsthand knowledge that I know alien craft exist and have been seen flying around the Earth's atmosphere, whereas here I'm expected to discuss evidence and proof, which is a different concept altogether.

j.r.

(could quote more, but you’ve all read the thread)

Snadert refers to anecdotal evidence, lots of it. And film. And photographs. So do you. But you say that there’s as much evidence for Snardert’s skyfishes as there are for Pegasus and unicorns, unlike your metallic, saucer-shaped craft, for which there is apparently plenty of reliable evidence.

So, my question to J Randall Murphy remains: Why the double standard, ufology?

Why is Pseudoblobology a science in your book, but not Aeroichthyology?

 

[Correa Neto]

Everything is fine up to the point when the above quote says, "will find an equally hard time while refuting other interpretations built using the same methodology". The fact is that the cryptoid space creatures have been debunked using analysis of images and investigation that shows exactly how such phenomena on video can be recreated. However the UFOs I mentioned, especially the ones that were referenced by the USAF as structured metallic craft have not been debunked. The only thing skeptics can do is dismiss them.

Why you dismiss the idea of unknown spaceborne or upper atmosphere Si-based lifeforms actually being the source of reports "referenced by the USAF as structured metallic craft"? It was very clear in one of my previous posts, for example, when I mentioned Si- based outer skins giving a metallic appearance, that I was not talking just about blobs. Do you think any of the many armed forces in the world which use flying vehicles actually trains its crews to identify skybeasts?

Please explain decision-making process. How evidence was selected, evaluated and the conclusions built over them. Please show us how and why you dismiss the idea of unknown spaceborne or upper atmosphere Si-based lifeforms.

You could also do the same regarding time travellers (from the past an the future), visitors from other universes, gods, tulpas, elementals, Nazi craft from secret bases at the Moon or at Earth's polar regions, hidden civilizations, etc.

Are the processes you used to dismiss these ideas unbiased? Or they were influentiated by the following (deeply entrenched in your mind) preconceive notion: (some) UFOs are the products of extraterrestrial visits.

Do you know by the way, there's a very simple way to explain the whole plethora of diverse reported things which compose UFO phenomena? It is unbiased, its not pseudoscientific, it has no need for incredible mental contortions, special pledges, CT theories, appeals to ignorance...

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, 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?

Perhpas it would help if you explained why you can't answer it.

 

[ufology]

As the above clearly indicates it is yet another claim that something happened. It's not a signed statement from the pilots, it's not a transcript of an interview or debriefing with the person(s) directly involved. It is once again someone who is recapitulating, without detail, what someone else claims to have experienced. This time it appears to be from an official source but still, it's not evidence. It's a claim that evidence exists. See the difference?

So we shouldn't believe F-94 jets were scrambled in pursuit of the UFOs during the Washington National sightings, or that the pilot reported the phenomenal speed of the object he saw, or that they were tracked on radar, because the example I gave was only an official document from microfilmed Project Bluebook archives ... and not an actual transcript? There are reasonable people in the world and there aren't. See the difference?

 

[laca]

So we shouldn't believe F-94 jets were scrambled in pursuit of the UFOs during the Washington National sightings, or that the pilot reported the phenomenal speed of the object he saw, or that they were tracked on radar, because the example I gave was only an official document from microfilmed Project Bluebook archives ... and not an actual transcript?

No, that's why we shouldn't believe you.

There are reasonable people in the world and there aren't. See the difference?

Yes. You're not on the side you think you're on.

 

[Jocce]

So we shouldn't believe F-94 jets were scrambled in pursuit of the UFOs during the Washington National sightings, or that the pilot reported the phenomenal speed of the object he saw, or that they were tracked on radar, because the example I gave was only an official document from microfilmed Project Bluebook archives ... and not an actual transcript? There are reasonable people in the world and there aren't. See the difference?

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that without access to the original and complete data that eventually resulted in this report, we don't know if we'd reach the same conclusion as the writer. In other words, no repeatability.

 

[Archer17]

You'd likely need an antiquated radar for such repeatability, get my drift?

 

[Akhenaten]

So we shouldn't believe F-94 jets were scrambled in pursuit of the UFOs during the Washington National sightings . . .

Well, the memorandum says that they "were dispatched from New Castle AFB, Delaware, for the purpose of intercepting objects which have been sighted by radar."

Seems reasonable, I suppose. It's what interceptors are for.

I note, however, your use of the emotive "scrambled" where the memorandum uses "dispatched". A small point, but telling.

. . . or that the pilot reported the phenomenal speed of the object he saw,

Not quite. According to the memorandum "One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects" so all we're looking at here is a report that a report was made of something happening. Naturally you are unable to see that this isn't anything like a first-hand account but that doesn't alter in any way the fact that it is, like all of your stories, anecdotal.

Further, I note that according to YOUR reference, "The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the 'incredible' speed of the object", not its 'phenomenal' speed.

You should at least try not to misquote your own references.

In any case, we don't know what the context of the remark was. Perhaps he said "It appeared to have been going at incredible speed" or "It must have been going at incredible speed to have disappeared from radar". The point is, we have no idea what he actually said.

. . . or that they were tracked on radar, because the example I gave was only an official document from microfilmed Project Bluebook archives ... and not an actual transcript?

Stray Cat has already mentioned the radar returns in Post #11442.

" . . . that the radar returns were most likely caused by 'mirage effects caused by double inversion', a position backed up by the CAA Technical Development and Evaluation Center."​

Sounds pretty good to me. A lot more reasonable than "OMG . . . aliens!" at any rate.

There are reasonable people in the world and there aren't. See the difference?

Indeed. Reasonable people say things like "The Director of Intelligence advises that no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained."

UFOs, in other words.

UNreasonable people come along 60 years later and say things, like "OMG . . . aliens!".

Huge difference, as a matter of fact.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your continued running away from this question is noted:

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?

So let's try a different question.

So we shouldn't believe F-94 jets were scrambled in pursuit of the UFOs during the Washington National sightings, or that the pilot reported the phenomenal speed of the object he saw, or that they were tracked on radar, because the example I gave was only an official document from microfilmed Project Bluebook archives ... and not an actual transcript? There are reasonable people in the world and there aren't. See the difference?

Were these structured craft or were they bright lights that the jets were dispatched to intercept?

 

[ufology]

Your continued running away from this question is noted:

So let's try a different question.

Were these structured craft or were they bright lights that the jets were dispatched to intercept?

I've not "run away" from any question, I've already stated that I'd answered it before ... the post ( if we are still talking about the same question ) is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7529975&postcount=11387

To quote part of the answer: "I did answer ... glowing spheres are another class of UFO. A case would be the Washington National sightings."

The above also answers your question about what was seen and tracked on radar. The public explanations for the Washington National incident have often cited temerature inversions and lens flares, but even modest investigation makes it obvious that these explanations are cover stories.

All you'll find supporting the lens flare cover story is one highly publicized photo ( showing what are probably lens flares ) and some conveniently questionable theories about temperature inversions interfering with radar to produce returns.

If you look deeper you'll also find comments by a USAF pilot to the news media describing how his jet encounterd the bluish white spheres. You'll also find a few supporting documents, like the one posted earlier. You'll also realize that the probability of temperature inversions causing the kind of returns that behaved in the manner they did ( speeds and precision ), from radars at two separate locations, that gave ground controllers information accurate enough to vector jets to the objects that were seen is almost zero.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've not "run away" from any question, I've already stated that I'd answered it before ... the post ( if we are still talking about the same question ) is here:

The question was in the post you quoted. If you look carefully, I'm sure you'll be able to find it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7529975&postcount=11387

No, the answer is not there.

To quote part of the answer: "I did answer ... glowing spheres are another class of UFO. A case would be the Washington National sightings."

Unfortunately, that does nothing to answer the question. The question (again) is:

"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?"

The question is in the sentence immediately preceeding this one (this one with the words "this one" in the text). I've made the question italicized so that it would be easier for you to pick up on. I've put quotation marks around it, too, in case there is any question about what the question is. Here it is again in a quote box:

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?

Do you now see what he question is? It's above this line of text.

The above also answers your question about what was seen and tracked on radar. The public explanations for the Washington National incident have often cited temerature inversions and lens flares, but even modest investigation makes it obvious that these explanations are cover stories.

What evidence do you have that the UFOs at Washington were glowing spheres?

All you'll find supporting the lens flare cover story is one highly publicized photo ( showing what are probably lens flares ) and some conveniently questionable theories about temperature inversions interfering with radar to produce returns.[

Your claim that lens flare and temperature inversion are cover stories will need some supporting evidence.

If you look deeper you'll also find comments by a USAF pilot to the news media describing how his jet encounterd the bluish white spheres. You'll also find a few supporting documents, like the one posted earlier. You'll also realize that the probability of temperature inversions causing the kind of returns that behaved in the manner they did ( speeds and precision ), from radars at two separate locations, that gave ground controllers information accurate enough to vector jets to the objects that were seen is almost zero.

Actually, looking deeper is how temperature inversion became a plausible answer. It's a mundane answer so the UFOlogists don't like it. We certainly don't want to be credulous and base our belief in UFOs as alien spaceships based on anecdotes, do we?

 

[TjW]

See, the problem, RoboTimbo, is that you need to put the question on the other side.
In the middle of the other side.
Away from everything else on the other side.
In parentheses.
In capital letters.
Quotated.
The following words:

"(KID, 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?)"

I'm certain he'll respond as though you've got a lot of damn gall to ask.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It would be easier for all involved if you just submitted a pre-approved list of questions that will be answered, and indicated that all other questions will either be ignored or re-stated as one of the pre-approved questions.

 

[John Albert]

I've not "run away" from any question

All of this evidence appears to indicate otherwise:

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?

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?

If you don't know what it is, then how does that prove it was made by a non-human civilization?

Air Force pilots have already been trained and tested and the invetigators have already interrogated them and evaluated the facts. Just because skeptics don't accept that doesn't mean there is no value to it. The probability that the USAF jet pilot who chased a UFO for several minutes during the day in plain view and closed with 500 yards, close enough to determine it to be a disk shaped craft travelling at the speed of sound ... was actually hallucinating the entire event or mistook it as a canopy reflection or some other mundane thing is almost zero. The margin of error is small enough for the report to be considered reliable and true.

Which bit of all that guff are you claiming as the testable evidence?

Ufology please tell me how the Air Force trains it's pilots to identify ufos.

My question remains, what is the difference between this 'evidence' for intelligent/intelligently controlled craft/entities/UFOs, which is the sort of thing that Snad was alluding to, and your intelligently controlled UFOs, ufology?

Snad has anecdotal and photographic "evidence" just like you do. What makes his "evidence" any less verifiable than yours?

So you're really claiming that the saucer-shaped object in your logo isn't meant to represent this object in the image that's right next to it on your website?

How is memory self-correcting? Are you saying that memory, all by itself, when it makes a mistake, somehow is able to correct that mistake? Can you give some details here?

And yet you have failed to demonstrate the logic that differentiates your belief that *some* UFOs are alien craft from the logic that:

assumes Gods

or

assumes intra-spacial fish and insects.


I can't see the difference. Others here can't see the difference. Why not help us out and just take us through it logically?

The falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are mundane in origin"​

What do you have to falsify it?

What we're really after here is evidence. Do you possess any?

...and that's only the questions you've dodged within the last 10 or so pages.

There are plenty more to be found throughout this and several other threads.

 

[ufology]

The question was in the post you quoted. If you look carefully, I'm sure you'll be able to find it.


No, the answer is not there.


Unfortunately, that does nothing to answer the question. The question (again) is:

"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?"

The question is in the sentence immediately preceeding this one (this one with the words "this one" in the text). I've made the question italicized so that it would be easier for you to pick up on. I've put quotation marks around it, too, in case there is any question about what the question is. Here it is again in a quote box:

Do you now see what he question is? It's above this line of text.

What evidence do you have that the UFOs at Washington were glowing spheres?

Your claim that lens flare and temperature inversion are cover stories will need some supporting evidence.

Actually, looking deeper is how temperature inversion became a plausible answer. It's a mundane answer so the UFOlogists don't like it. We certainly don't want to be credulous and base our belief in UFOs as alien spaceships based on anecdotes, do we?

The question ... first posted here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7529808&postcount=11371

asks: "Can you give us an example of a sighting where the UFO was not a structured metallic craft but still meets your chosen definition of UFO?"

So I gave an answer as was asked for and an example.

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?" was the prefix to the question I have answered and I had also answered that question by pointing out that sufficient information from which to reasonably determine misperceptions, hoaxes, misidentifacation etc ... had to have been available otherwise the sighting report was thrown into the "insufficient information" pile and never made it through the screening. Sufficient information would be finding evidence of a hoax such as an admission by the hoaxer with some corroborating facts ... possibly also evidence in the way of an object ... e.g. a hubcap or model of some kind.

Misidentifications often turned out to be balloons or planets, and those although not proven to have been causal were considered to have been probable given the data ( times of balloon launches, planetary positions, weather etc. ) ... Remember that the bias was not in favor of it being a UFO, so if an object reasonably conformed to a known object or phenomenon, that's how it was classed.

As for the poster's claim that temperature inversions were the result of deeper investigation ... that is completely misleading as any examination of the incident given what we know now reveals. Furthermore the suggestion that it is rejected out of bias has no foundation. Personally I've pointed out what I believe to have been mistakes in identification right here on this forum recently ( the floating ice crystals and optical tricks that gave rise to reports of objects near space vehicles ). Another explanation I offered was for a former poster's sighting in Australia, for which I proposed he might have observed tethered satellites.

Consequently I can say that it is not my bias that dismisses the temperature inversion theory ... but it is the bias of the skeptics that make them offhandedly accept the P.R. story given by USAF staff who were not even part of the official UFO investigation office at the time ( Project Blue Book ). If skeptics didn't blindly accept the P.R. cover story, then they ( the skeptics ) would offer an explanation for how two independent radar stations had returns of objects in the same locations that according to experienced radar operators didn't look like or move like weather anomalies and facilitated the vectoring of USAF jets to the objects, where the pilots visually spotted the objects.

Additionally: from WIkipedia:

"Almost from the moment of General Samford's press conference, eyewitnesses, UFO researchers, and Air Force personnel came forward to criticize the temperature inversion/mirage explanation. Captain Ruppelt noted that Major Fournet and Lt. Holcomb, who disagreed with the Air Force's explanation, were not in attendance at Samford's press conference. Ruppelt himself discovered that "hardly a night passed in June, July, and August in 1952 that there wasn't a [temperature] inversion in Washington, yet the slow-moving, solid radar targets appeared on only a few nights" (Ruppelt, 170).

According to a story printed by INS, the United States Weather Bureau also disagreed with the temperature inversion hypothesis, one official stating that "such an inversion ordinarily would appear on a radar screen as a steady line, rather than as single objects as were sighted on the airport radarscope."
But the above are only tidbits. It is a complex case and this forum isn't the best place to discuss the entire incident. I suggest that those who are interested do more than just read the Wikipedia article ... also check out the sources. Look for the news clips of pilot interviews, check documents like the one I posted earlier and so on.

 

[John Albert]

It is a complex case and this forum isn't the best place to discuss the entire incident.

This is an obvious special pleading to dodge the question.

Even a cursory browse through the contents of this forum (the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology threads, especially), you'll see that some extremely complex issues—far more complex than any UFO story—are discussed very thoroughly and successfully on this forum every single day.

This is exactly the proper thread for the discussion of UFO stories, so why don't you give it your best shot?

You're the guy with the burden of proof. Either accept that burden and start providing some evidence, or just admit you've got nothing so we can move along to the next question you've previously failed to answer. You have a lot of work to do, and we're burning daylight here.

 

[ufology]

This is an obvious special pleading to dodge the question.

Even a cursory browse through the contents of this forum (the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology threads, particularly), you'll see that some extremely complex issues—far more complex than any UFO story—are discussed very thoroughly and successfully on this forum every single day.

This is exactly the proper thread for the discussion of UFO stories, so why don't you give it your best shot?

You're the guy with the burden of proof. Either accept that burden and start providing some evidence or just admit you've got nothing, so we can move along to the next question you've subsequently failed to answer. You have a lot of work to do, and we're burning daylight here.

The assertion that I am the guy with the "burden of proof" is not the case. Each person in a debate has the burden of supporting the statements they make. Debunkers are not in a position to outright deny the opponent and make unfounded proclaimations and expect that to be sufficient.

With the above in mind, I've also provided information in support of the answers I've given. The debunkers here have provided none. Remember that at this juncture we're talking about the Washington National sightings now, a well known and investigated event which is widely accepted historically to have happened. This is no "extraordinary claim" that requires me to furnish all the proof. If the debunkers are too lazy to do enough homework to support their proclaimations, that's their problem.

 

[John Albert]

The assertion that I am the guy with the "burden of proof" is not the case.

In the context of the discussion as it stands, you have the burden of proof. You have made claims that require proof, therefore the onus is on you to show evidence to support the assertions you have made.

Each person in a debate has the burden of supporting the statements they make.

Each person in a debate has the burden of supporting the claims they make.

Debunkers are not in a position to outright deny the opponent and make unfounded proclaimations and expect that to be sufficient.

This is true.

With the above in mind, I've also provided information in support of the answers I've given.

For some of your answers, several people have considered the information you provided as insufficient to adequately support the assertions you'd originally made. Consequently, they have asked follow-up questions which you have completely ignored or otherwise failed to address. That is where the debate currently stands. We're trying to get you to answer some of the questions you've been dodging.

The debunkers here have provided none. Remember that at this juncture we're talking about the Washington National sightings now, a well known and investigated event which is widely accepted historically to have happened. This is no "extraordinary claim" that requires me to furnish all the proof.

The "debunkers" (as you call them) are not the party making extraordinary claims regarding the so-called "Washington National sightings." You have made the claim that those sightings are the result of individual(s) witnessing an actual craft of non-human manufacture, and therefore you possess the burden of proof of backing up those claims. You have been directly challenged on several specific details of your claim, specifically regarding the provenance and veracity of the evidence you have presented. Therefore, it is your responsibility to answer those challenges.

If the debunkers are too lazy to do enough homework to support their proclaimations, that's their problem.

This is another argument from ignorance, an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto others to provide support for your own claims. It is a logical fallacy that you have been repeatedly making ever since you began posting here in the UFO-related threads. I am humbly asking you to please refrain from that tactic in the future, because it is improper debating protocol and a logical fallacy.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. That's how it works. Now let's not let the discussion get sidetracked any further into a meta-debate about semantics or the process of debating, OK?

You have been presented with a large number of questions which you have thus far failed to answer to anyone's satisfaction. So let's concentrate on getting those out of the way for the benefit of everyone concerned. Sound fair enough?