UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Sorry, ufology, I wasn't clear. I meant general principles regarding hoaxes, as I had asked you about previously.

May I ask for direct answers to these questions?

Hey Paul,

I see your point with certain sightings. One of the best examples of historical cases is the Sitgreaves National Forest incident. There are believers and skeptics on both sides of that one ... even in the ufology community. More often than not I find myself pointing out factors that the believers didn't know about.

But others ( like the Washington National sightings ) can be determined ( beyond reasonable doubt ) to have not been hoaxes. The reasons are as stated previously.

Personally I think hoaxes are a much bigger problem today because of the advent of digital media editing, and sites like You Tube, where anyone can post whatever and the quality can be so good that most people can't tell the difference between a fake and the real thing. That's one of the reasons I came here to the JREF, to try to enlist some fair minded skeptics with respect to evaluating contemporary cases. Unfortunately most of the crowd here doesn't differentiate the various factets of ufology from one another and therefore don't recognize that certain approaches to the phenomenon can be taken seriously.

Lastly, In my experience talking with people over the years, you also get a feel for who is genuine and who isn't. I know that's not scientific, and really good con-artists can fool even trained investigators, but I don't find it reasonable to believe that all the objects that have been classed as UFOs or "Unknown" are the result of such expert hoaxes, particularly those from commercial and military pilots who stand to lose a lot by fabricating such stories.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ufology do you realize that most mis-perceptions can't get resolved because the info about the UFO is so bad. Only in lucky circumstances enough info is available to show that commercial and military pilots (your "professional" observers) can't tell if something unknown is small and nearby or big and far away (like reentering space debris).

 

[FG10]

(snip)but I don't find it reasonable to believe that all the objects that have been classed as UFOs or "Unknown" are the result of such expert hoaxes, particularly those from commercial and military pilots who stand to lose a lot by fabricating such stories.

I agree with this but then no one is suggesting that all 'ufo events' are the result of hoaxes. Those that are not hoaxes (and I would think the majority are not hoaxes) are more likely to have mundane explanations formed from confirmation bias than extraordinary explanations - especially given the phenomenal lack of good empirical evidence for visitation of ETs ever since the whole charade began.

Btw, can you answer the question from my previous post.

 

[ufology]

Ufology do you realize that most mis-perceptions can't get resolved because the info about the UFO is so bad. Only in lucky circumstances enough info is available to show that commercial and military pilots (your "professional" observers) can't tell if something unknown is small and nearby or big and far away (like reentering space debris).

In the USAF studies, misperceptions were determined through investigation, and those that could not be determined were thrown in the "insufficient information" pile, therefore ( again ), the group of unknowns didn't include objects for which a misperception was a possibility. Consequently the misperceptions that couldn't be resolved were irrelevant to the number of unknowns.

However cruiser's point is well taken in post Blue Book ufology. Civilian groups don't have the resources and authority that the USAF had to acquire detailed information about civilian and military aircraft, balloon launches, astronomical data and background checks.

Consequently we civilians only have each other to depend on for high quality cases. But those are really hard to acquire and verify. And we still need to contend with the growing possibility of hoaxes ( as discussed earlier ). I don't take any amateur video I see on You Tube seriously, and had I not had my own sighting in 1975, I'd be much more doubtful that ufos had even stayed around after the mid 1960s.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So why don't the USAF appear to take this stuff seriously any more?

 

[Akhenaten]

In the USAF studies, misperceptions were determined through investigation, and those that could not be determined were thrown in the "insufficient information" pile, therefore ( again ), the group of unknowns didn't include objects for which a misperception was a possibility. Consequently the misperceptions that couldn't be resolved were irrelevant to the number of unknowns.

Blah, blah, blah.

The bottom line is that there's insufficient information for any of these reports. They're all unknowns.

Are you trying to tell us that when all is said and done that this investigative process leaves us with some number of UFO reports that we can safely conclude were actually alien spacecraft?

This reminds me of nothing so much as claiming to be able to eliminate misperceived images of Jeebus and his mum on pieces of toast and arriving at the conclusion that a percentage of such reports were genuine, divinely created portraits.

However cruiser's point is well taken in post Blue Book ufology. Civilian groups don't have the resources and authority that the USAF had to acquire detailed information about civilian and military aircraft, balloon launches, astronomical data and background checks.

Rubbish. The only one of these areas where the USAF might have the advantage over civilian agencies is in knowledge of the whereabouts of its own aircraft, and having been a member of the military myself I'm inclined to doubt even this much. Astronomical data? The bloody Mayans had "the resources and authority" to collect that.

Consequently we civilians only have each other to depend on for high quality cases.

Are high quality cases the ones where we actually have an alien raygun to study? Alien bodies to disect?

But those are really hard to acquire and verify.

Really hard? Bit of an understatement.

And we still need to contend with the growing possibility of hoaxes ( as discussed earlier ). I don't take any amateur video I see on You Tube seriously, and had I not had my own sighting in 1975, I'd be much more doubtful that ufos had even stayed around after the mid 1960s.

Spoken like a True Believer™. Unfortunately that's absolutely the last thing a serious researcher would want to sound like.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

You're making that complaint because you think that claims in favour of the existence of flying saucers and claims against are equally valid, when such is not the case.

Apply the same reasoning to claims of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and see if you feel the same.

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

Not if their statements are in line with the null hypothesis, which in this case is that there are no aliens zipping about the place in flying saucers.

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

In the case of flying saucers, the debunkers are in exactly the right position - the one that sides with a reality which doesn't include flying saucers. In order to overturn that position the believers need to demonstrate to the debunkers, by means of evidence, that their perception of reality has been mistaken.

This is the burden of proof (I prefer burden of evidence) which you deny is upon the believers, but deny as you will, you still have exactly zero flying saucers to point at and say "See! I told you so!"

With the above in mind, I've also provided information in support of the answers I've given. The debunkers here have provided none.

Information in support of a complete lack of flying saucers? What do you reckon that would look like, ufology?

Hundreds of eyewitness reports saying "I didn't see anything"? Thousands of photographs without fuzzy blobs of light in them? A million hours of recordings of blank radar screens?

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.

I assume you mean evidence, rather than proof, but in any case, all you've provided evidence for is some UFOs. Big bloody deal.

The extraordinary claim that you keep making is the one for aliens in flying saucers and that's the one for which you're being called upon to provide evidence. The requirement for you to produce this evidence is dependant solely on your own requirement to be believed.

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

A proclamation that there are no flying saucers is supported quite nicely by the reality of there not being any flying saucers. If you wish to give the lie to such a proclamation then you have to alter reality to the extent that you can point to a flying saucer and say "Well what's that then?"

How close do you think you and all the other believers that have fronted up in the last sixty-odd years are to doing that?

 

[Paul2]

Hey Paul,

I see your point with certain sightings. One of the best examples of historical cases is the Sitgreaves National Forest incident. There are believers and skeptics on both sides of that one ... even in the ufology community. More often than not I find myself pointing out factors that the believers didn't know about.

UFology, that was not the direct answer to my questions that I had hoped for. For instance, I don't know which of my ideas you "see [the] point" to."

But others ( like the Washington National sightings ) can be determined ( beyond reasonable doubt ) to have not been hoaxes. The reasons are as stated previously.

Also, it seems like so many credulous people have a real aversion to re-stating things. For the life of me I don't see why. If you are interested in clarity and precision of thought, of getting things just as correct as you can, it seems to me that you would welcome the opportunity to state things again, as precise answers to specific questions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

It seems as if you are saying that any UFO sighting that hasn't been proven to have a mundane explanation is, by default, an alien spaceship. If that isn't the case, please clarify.

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.

Actually, the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

is the "debunkers" position in a nutshell. If you claim that any UFO sightings are not of mundane origin, you have the burden of proof to prove your claim. Note that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so anecdotes won't do it. I can't believe we've gotten this many posts into this thread and you still don't understand that.

So, yes, you have the burden of proof to prove your claims. Why would you think otherwise?

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.

I was right, you still don't understand. The "debunkers" don't have to prove the mundane exists. It's the pseudoscientific creduloids who must prove that the non-mundane exists. Note that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pseudoscientific unfalsifiable anecdotal claims won't do that.

ufology, are you saying that some UFO sightings are alien spaceships?

 

[John Albert]

Hi Ufology, what a bunch of BS!
Aliens over Washington is not an extraordinary claim?
WTF in what dreamworld do you live?

It's Dreamland.

Speaking of "Dreamland," how is it that this thread has gotten to 288 pages with only a few brief, scattered mentions of Area 51 and alien cadavers?

What about Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB?

What about the "alien autopsy" video, and the greys, reptilians, reticulans, insectoids, and pleiadian nordics?

What about the MiB?

 

[ufology]

UFology, that was not the direct answer to my questions that I had hoped for. For instance, I don't know which of my ideas you "see [the] point" to."


Also, it seems like so many credulous people have a real aversion to re-stating things. For the life of me I don't see why. If you are interested in clarity and precision of thought, of getting things just as correct as you can, it seems to me that you would welcome the opportunity to state things again, as precise answers to specific questions.

Hey Paul, I was addressing your comment:

"Sorry, ufology, I wasn't clear. I meant general principles regarding hoaxes, as I had asked you about previously."

So I gave you a general answer ( as was asked for ).

 

[Paul2]

Hey Paul, I was addressing your comment:

"Sorry, ufology, I wasn't clear. I meant general principles regarding hoaxes, as I had asked you about previously."

So I gave you a general answer ( as was asked for ).

I understand your point, but allow me to persist. A direct answer to a few general questions is not some statements about the topic in general. Do you see the difference?

For instance, can you answer this question that I asked before, directly, here, and now, regardless whether you've answered it before? I thank you in advance.

So, if we can't find a hoax, it's not a hoax?

 

[ufology]

So why don't the USAF appear to take this stuff seriously any more?

To answer the above. The short answer is that the USAF doesn't appear to take UFOs seriously because they don't tell us otherwise. But it's a safe bet that if they detect an unidentified object in restricted air space, that they still investigate them because that's part of their job as a national defense agency. It's also interesting to note that typical USAF statements do not deny that UFOs exist, only that they aren't a risk to National Security.

 

[RoboTimbo]

To answer the above. The short answer is that the USAF doesn't appear to take UFOs seriously because they don't tell us otherwise. But it's a safe bet that if they detect an unidentified object in restricted air space, that they still investigate them because that's part of their job as a national defense agency. It's also interesting to note that typical USAF statements do not deny that UFOs exist, only that they aren't a risk to National Security.

Do you think if the USAF thought they were alien invaders from outer space that they would think that might be a threat to national security?

 

[ufology]

I understand your point, but allow me to persist. A direct answer to a few general questions is not some statements about the topic in general. Do you see the difference?

For instance, can you answer this question that I asked before, directly, here, and now, regardless whether you've answered it before? I thank you in advance.

Hey Paul ...

Your question, "So if we can't find a hoax, it's not a hoax?" was answered already. It's not a "yes" or "no" answer. If you want a single word answer, I'll rephrase it for you:

Q. So if we can't find a hoax, it's not a hoax?
A. Possibly.

If you want something more in-depth, then review my initial answer(s). If you don't think my answers are clear enough or don't address the idea you are trying to get across, then restate the question so that it can be answered with more precision e.g. "So if we can't find a hoax ( for what exactly ), it's not a hoax?" and provide an example.

 

[ufology]

Do you think if the USAF thought they were alien invaders from outer space that they would think that might be a threat to national security?

Sure Robo ... if they thought they were "invaders", I don't think there would be any doubt that they would take them seriously. Even as non-invaders, I think they would take them seriously, but probably still couldn't release detailed information without compromising national security.

 

[Agatha]

A more parsimonious explanation is that the UFOs have mundane explanations. Assuming them to be alien and then speculating on "their" motives is adding a whole lot of unevidenced entities into the mix.

 

[ufology]

A more parsimonious explanation is that the UFOs have mundane explanations. Assuming them to be alien and then speculating on "their" motives is adding a whole lot of unevidenced entities into the mix.

Hey Agatha ... if you look back to where I posted the oficial USAF definition of UFO from ARF 200-2 Feb. 05, 1958, you will see that for the definition of UFO, mundane explanations are ruled out.

To be more precise with respect to the point you probably intended to make, it would be more correct to say that; "A more parsimonious explanation is that most pre-screened UFOs reports have mundane explanations." To this statement I would also tend to agree, but those aren't the reports ufologists are interested in. We're interested in the ones that don't have mundane explanations.

 

[Agatha]

We're interested in the ones that don't have mundane explanations.

Excellent. Will you be posting any of these which don't have mundane explanations?

 

[carlitos]

I'm proud to say that, in 2011, I don't live my life defining simple terms based on arcane Air Force memos from 1958. I'm free to use logic and communicate honestly with my fellow man, no vintage Air Force memos needed.