UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[gambling_cruiser]

snip
Summary:

The overwhelming public perception, the official USAF definitions, most respected contemporary dictionary definitions, and definitions provided by UFO interest groups, all define UFOs as something unexplained or alien ... anything but mundane. Only in casual conversation and specific contexts does the word imply a definition as simple as the literal interpretation of the words that make up the initialism. Therefore, as has been stated in the past, it is misleading for skeptics to portray UFOs as simply some "unidentified" object in the sky when they are by definition extraordinary.

With this definition of UFO you will not get much agreement (next to zero) that they exist.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mr. Albert:

You may think you are within your legal rights to defame me on the Internet, with express intent to create widespread dissent against me via Google searches, but unless you can prove that I fabricated ARF 200-2 Feb. 05 1958, you have no evidence to show that I have been dishonest in any way. It is perfectly fair for me to use it as part of my position.

Also, your tactic of defaming my character with intent to cause me personal and financial difficulty, and bully me off the forum rather than engage in friendly debate only proves that you will stoop to the lowest level to attain your position. This is not what I would think is acceptable behavior for a forum that purports be an example for students and educational institutes. So again, please ... let us continue in a civilized manner.

Mr Fology:

What the hell is this garbage?

Is this comedic interlude meant to distract us from your total lack of evidence, your inability to conduct proper research due to your deeply ingrained, quasi-religious belief in flying saucers, your blatant attempts to create the appearance of some kind of partnership with the JREF in furtherence of your own (commercial?) ends or a combination of all of these things?

It's working about as well as a barbed wire kite.

In this spirit I offer in addition to AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, the following contemporary and common language definitions in support of my position:

<cherry picked list of definitions>

When will you be addressing Puddle Duck's posts regarding to your continued reference to the superseded AFR that you insist we should be using as a reference?

Apart from that:

He is apparently going to continue to be dishonest with his redefinitions and cherry picking.

This echoes my thoughts as well. Maybe it's just me and Mr Timbo that feel this way, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Popular Interpretation:

The UFO phenomenon has become deeply engrained in modern culture and virtually every popular usage of the word conjures up imagery of alien craft, usually a flying saucer. Not only is this blatantly self evident in the ubiquitous portrayals of UFOs as alien craft in every form of media from cartoons to advertising, it is also apparent in modern definitions as provided above. Consequently whenever the word UFO is used, it is never without inference or reference to an extraordinary object that defies conventional explanation.

And if it's good enough for cartoons and advertising then, by golly, it should be good enough for the meanie sceptics of the JREF Forum.

Are you for real??? I don't think so.

Official Interpretation:

Official interpretations evolved through various phases based on the results of early investigations in which it was presumed that the observers were able to tell mundane objects from flying saucers and UFOs, however as many UFO reports turned out to have common explanations, more specific definitions were created to screen out mundane objects from the reports the USAF were interested in ... which were the residue of non-mundane objects and were called UFOs.

He is apparently going to continue to be dishonest with his redefinitions and cherry picking.

I hope we can get out of this loop soon.

Commentary

Every in depth official definition from the people who created the word UFO during the official investigations define the word UFO in such a manner as to eliminate many mundane explanations.

<573rd iteration of UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!">

He is apparently going to continue to be dishonest with his redefinitions and cherry picking.

I'm sure I recognise that tree. We've definitely been this way before, Kemo Sabe.

Summary:

The overwhelming public perception, the official USAF definitions, most respected contemporary dictionary definitions, and definitions provided by UFO interest groups, all define UFOs as something unexplained or alien ... anything but mundane.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Even if this wasn't irrelevant in this forum, the AFR you want to use is obsolete.

Only after careful cherry picking.

ie. Your own and similar flying saucer clubs.

Only in casual conversation and specific contexts does the word imply a definition as simple as the literal interpretation of the words that make up the initialism.

Codswallop.

Therefore, as has been stated in the past, it is misleading for skeptics to portray UFOs as simply some "unidentified" object in the sky when they are by definition extraordinary.

Unidentified ≠ extraordinary, with or without scare quotes. Your conclusion is invalid.

 

[Akhenaten]

Um ... Timbo ...

How is using the mosted respected independent dictionary on the planet ( Oxford ) and the official definition by the people who created the word itself ( USAF ), and the definition by the undisputed scientific expert who studied them ( Hynek ), and pointing out the ubiquitous portrayal in modern culture of UFOs as alien craft, in any way "cherry picking"? I've just spanned the enitire range of usage from the specialized to the general public at large. There is no cherry picking at all here ... only the truth that you refuse to accept.

Instead of all this ginning about with definitions, why don't you just cut to the chase and present your evidence of alien spacecraft and we'll worry about what to call them after we see what they look like?

 

[ufology]

False. They were screening out obvious known objects. They were interested in sightings that had insufficient information to ID. Non-mundane had nothing to do with it.

You're right in that the interpretations evolved. But you got stuck in a definition half way through the evolution, in the '58 edition rather than continuing to the final form in the '66 edition of AFR 80-17.There were 3 follow-on editions after your '58 edition.

The original "word" they created to replace flying saucer was UFOB, it got changed to UFO when a newer edition superceded the first edition.




Wrong again. The final definition in 80-17 is simplified to
a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.
You can't get much more simple and succinct than that. It does nothing to indicate non-mundinity. Simply not enough information.

If you don't follow the superseding editions to their end, you are being dishonest and trying to cherry pick. If you want to use the USAF definition, you have to follow it to the end. Once a new edition is published, the old edition is invalid. If you can't accept the new definition, don't reference or use the USAF definition. It was never intended to be used as a universal encyclopedia entry for the rest of the world. It was an in-house definition for reports.

Once again. The last known definition is a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.
If you don't like this one, don't use the USAF definition

I've already been through this. If you read through AFR 80-17, 19 September 1966 instead of simply dealing with the initial definition you see that it isn't much dirrent than AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, in that much of the same provisions are there, but they have been moved around and made more confusing. Specifically:

In section 7. Guidance in Preparing Reports; we see the following:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
You also find that the context is more in keeping with what I've described earlier in that there is a differentiation between UFOs themselves, UFO sightings, and UFO sighting reports. Clearly this version of the Air Force procedures is also trying to rule out mundane phenomena that once again to quote: " ... should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

In addition to the above, since these early official definitions have been the subject of debate regarding how well they represent a contemporary view, I again point out the overwhelmingly obvious circumstance that the vast majority of people, when they hear the word UFO, instantly associate it with an alien craft ... then there are the independent dictionary definitions provided earlier as well.

Now all of this doesn't mean every unidentified object seen in the sky is a UFO and the null hypothesis that is so dear to certain posters here cannot be applied. In some cases it has, but in other cases it hasn't. For example.

OK: "All unidentified objects in UFO reports are mundane objects or phenomena."

NOT OK: "All UFOs are mundane objects or phenomena."

Similarly it is not appropriate for someone explaining UFOs to portray them as mundane objects by using out of context literal definitions of the first word in the initialism, and knowingly doing so goes beyond merely innapropriate to misleading.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Maybe I'm missing a few things here that ufology can clear up.
1. How does one make the jump from "Unidentified Flying Object" (irrespective of whose definition you use), to "Vehicle of Extraterrestrial Origin"?

2. While this is a very long thread and your original post included quite a number of links (so it's certainly possible that I've simply skimmed past the important parts), every piece of "evidence" you've listed here that I've seen so far can be boiled down to one statement, "I saw something in the sky and I don't know what it was". In other words, eyewitness statements, which are the most unreliable type of evidence that can be presented.
What evidence, other than witness statements, do you have to support your position?

 

[Akhenaten]

With this definition of UFO you will not get much agreement (next to zero) that they exist.

This seems to be the (misguided) reason for Mr Fology's desperatie approach to the matter of definitions. He seems to be hoping that if he can get people to accept that UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!" then because people already acknowledge the existence of UFOs they will be obliged to acknowledge the existence of aliens.

It's not as honest as admitting that he has no evidence, but at least it's got some entertainment value.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Maybe I'm missing a few things here that ufology can clear up.
1. How does one make the jump from "Unidentified Flying Object" (irrespective of whose definition you use), to "Vehicle of Extraterrestrial Origin"?

Because it apparently behaves in a way that no known human craft can. Based on assumptions that the observer witnessed some kind of craft and that it was actually moving at the speeds they thought it was.

2. While this is a very long thread and your original post included quite a number of links (so it's certainly possible that I've simply skimmed past the important parts), every piece of "evidence" you've listed here that I've seen so far can be boiled down to one statement, "I saw something in the sky and I don't know what it was". In other words, eyewitness statements, which are the most unreliable type of evidence that can be presented.
What evidence, other than witness statements, do you have to support your position?

I have been reading this thread from both ends and the answer seems to be none.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now all of this doesn't mean every unidentified object seen in the sky is a UFO and the null hypothesis that is so dear to certain posters here cannot be applied. In some cases it has, but in other cases it hasn't. For example.

OK: "All unidentified objects in UFO reports are mundane objects or phenomena."

NOT OK: "All UFOs are mundane objects or phenomena."

One of the above is a proper null hypothesis and the other is some wishful thinking by a pseudoscientist.

Do you really think, Mr Fology, that we can't tell which is which?

Similarly it is not appropriate for someone explaining UFOs to portray them as mundane objects by using out of context literal definitions of the first word in the initialism, and knowingly doing so goes beyond merely innapropriate to misleading.

Using the word 'unidentified' to mean 'unidentified' is misleading???

Geeze, Louise, give it a rest.

 

[23_Tauri]

Encarta Dictionary: UFO (plural UFOs) unidentified flying object: a flying object that cannot be identified and is thought by some to be an alien spacecraft

See that bit I've made bigger?

NOTE: UFO was a word created by the USAF to replace the phrase flying saucer, therefore UFOs and flying saucers are synonymous in casual conversation. Here we have two definitions of flying saucer:

No. Just no. Ufology, they aren't, really they aren't. Truly, I tell you, these two phrases are not synonymous in casual conversation. In your house maybe, but not anywhere else.

The term UFO is therefore not simply a reference to a generic "unidentified" object in the sky, but to something extraordinary. Whether it is proven to be extraordinary or not is irrelevant. It is similar in nature to the word "truck" e.g. "I see a truck ahead". Simply because the truck might turn out to be a station wagon, does not mean that the word "truck" suddenly means something other that what it was meant to convey.

Again, no! Just no! (I am sitting here and squeaking "NO!" a lot this morning, it's kinda cute rather than annoying, but you'd have to be here to know that). Both trucks and station wagons come from Earth and are built by Earthlings. We have truck-loads of evidence for the existence of both types of vehicle. The same cannot be said for spaceships piloted by Zork and his pals from Alpha Crateris.

 

[ufology]

Maybe I'm missing a few things here that ufology can clear up.
1. How does one make the jump from "Unidentified Flying Object" (irrespective of whose definition you use), to "Vehicle of Extraterrestrial Origin"?

2. While this is a very long thread and your original post included quite a number of links (so it's certainly possible that I've simply skimmed past the important parts), every piece of "evidence" you've listed here that I've seen so far can be boiled down to one statement, "I saw something in the sky and I don't know what it was". In other words, eyewitness statements, which are the most unreliable type of evidence that can be presented.
What evidence, other than witness statements, do you have to support your position?

Chuck Guiteau:

Thank you for your question chuck. I am happy to answer.

Q: "How does one make the jump from "Unidentified Flying Object" ( irrespective of whose definition you use ), to "Vehicle of Extraterrestrial Origin"?"

A: What we are dealing with in recent posts is the lexicon of ufology; how the jargon and definitions apply in various contexts. It is important to understand this in relation to the "Research" part of the thread topic, because so many people get it mixed up and the small things can make all the difference. So please bear with me. First I'm going to be very specific with respect to your question. Although the phrase "unidentified flyng object" has the same initials as the word UFO, the word UFO was created by the USAF to replace the phrase "flying saucers", which were presumed to be extraterrestrial craft. So immediately people began associating the phrase UFO with alien craft, and that is the way it's been ever since.

Now your question could also mean, how do people make the mental jump from what is being investigated in a UFO report, or what they are observing, from being merely an unidentified object in the sky, to an alien craft, or from a UFO ( generic ) to a UFO ( specific e.g. non-mundane or alien craft )?

The answer to the above is that a process of elimination is used. The USAF definitions tried to define several characterisitics of several different types of known phenomena, that when ruled out leave only the conclusion that the object was non-mundane. The incident during the Washington National sighting where a USAF jet interceptor was vectored by radar to a visible object that the pilot pursued, but could not catch due to it's "phenomenal speed", is one example. Or it could be as simple as you see something yourself, that as an intelligent, well informed, healthy, unimpaired person simply knows from the evidence of your senses, is so foreign, that it must be alien.

At this point many people simply jump to an extraterrestrial explanation based on the logical assumption that the infrastructure required to manufacture such advanced technology ( UFO mother ships for example ) would be so complex that it simply could not be hidden on Earth without us knowing about it, and therefore it must be extraterrestrial.

Personally I find, based on the overwhelming number of personal experiences where alien craft have been reported, that the probability of them all being mistakes or hoaxes based on poor information is so low as to make the reality of such craft a virtual certainty, even if you haven't seen one yourself ( which I have ). Once you accept that there are craft alien to our civilization, it's not hard to accept the probability that they are ET.

Lastly, the above explains how the "jump" is made from merely seeing or studying to believing that it is reasonable based on probabilities, to accept the reality of alien visitation. However that is not the same as "believing in" something, as in accepting it as an assumed undeniable truth. Even I don't go that far except with my own experience. For other people's individual experiences I go on investigative information. For the rest of the UFO witnesses in general, I accept that many of them are telling the truth because I can't be the only person who has had such an experience. In fact the objects described by one of the pilots during the Washington National sightings ( bluish white spheres ) sound very much like the same thing I saw in 1975.

As for the rest, I can't explain how people come to believe in what I call "woofology", ( although to many skeptics it's all woo ). For example, I have no idea about the truth of "space brothers" or "reptilian overlords" or "alien channellers".

Q. Eyewitness statements are the most unreliable type of evidence that can be presented. What evidence, other than witness statements, do you have to support your position?

A. Eyewitness statements may be unreliable in some situations and really good in others. Human perception has scientifically established parameters of accuity. For example, that's what allows us to determine visual accuity and make perfect eyeglasses. Human vision is even better within its range than most hardware because of the way we can discern the dynamic range of a scene. Combine this level of visual accuity with people whose physical health and limits are known by extensive baseline testing ( such as air force pilots ), and the probability that they accurately report what they see under favorable conditions is very high, far better than the information you get in virtually every fuzzy UFO photo I've seen that hasn't been shown to be a hoax.

To answer specifically with respect to "other" evidence. The only other evidence there is that we know of for certain in that regard are radar tracking records, bits of so-called "trace evidence", and fuzzy photos/videos. The most impressive radar tracking evidence I've seen was presented by the Belgian Air Force. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI

Maybe some skeptic here will debunk it like the MIG pursuit video, I dunno. I'm open to that because I haven't seen this incident debunked yet.

FYI:

150 knots = about 172 MPH
990 Knots = about 1,140 MPH

 

[gambling_cruiser]

BS, wiffle, waffle, woo-ffle!
I don't watch youtube so what is there to see, please explain.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
However that is not the same as "believing in" something, as in accepting it as an assumed undeniable truth. Even I don't go that far except with my own experience.
Snip

Bring out the laughing dogs!

 

[Sideroxylon]

<snip>

To answer specifically with respect to "other" evidence. The only other evidence there is that we know of for certain in that regard are radar tracking records, bits of so-called "trace evidence", and fuzzy photos/videos. The most impressive radar tracking evidence I've seen was presented by the Belgian Air Force. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI

Maybe some skeptic here will debunk it like the MIG pursuit video, I dunno. I'm open to that because I haven't seen this incident debunked yet.

FYI:

150 knots = about 172 MPH
990 Knots = about 1,140 MPH

Being the honest and rigorous researcher that you are, you must have critically examined this yourself. Let's hear you problematise suggestions that what was observed was an alien craft.

 

[Akhenaten]

Chuck Guiteau:

Thank you for your question chuck. I am happy to answer.

Q: "How does one make the jump from "Unidentified Flying Object" ( irrespective of whose definition you use ), to "Vehicle of Extraterrestrial Origin"?"

A:

<even more semantic gobbledigook + argumentum ex anecdotum>

Leap of Faith™

Q. Eyewitness statements are the most unreliable type of evidence that can be presented. What evidence, other than witness statements, do you have to support your position?

A.

<pseudoscience>

The Pseudoscientists' Foolproof Method for the Quantizing of Eyewitness Accuracy™ and Rramjet's Infallible Process of Elimination™ have already been thoroughly discredited here. At least you could try to be original.

To answer specifically with respect to "other" evidence. The only other evidence there is that we know of for certain in that regard are radar tracking records, bits of so-called "trace evidence", and fuzzy photos/videos. The most impressive radar tracking evidence I've seen was presented by the Belgian Air Force. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI

Maybe some skeptic here will debunk it like the MIG pursuit video, I dunno. I'm open to that because I haven't seen this incident debunked yet.

You haven't seen it because, like all pseudoscientists, you only see what you want to see.

Try this:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm​

I dare say the author will be along presently to walk you through it.

FYI:

150 knots = about 172 MPH
990 Knots = about 1,140 MPH

You don't say.

 

[Resume]

NOT OK: "All UFOs are mundane objects or phenomena."

If it's NOT OK please feel free to falsify at your earliest convenience.

 

[carlitos]

It's been posted before, but we just got pummeled with a wall o'text worth of it here. My emphasis and edit in brackets.

Use of misleading language

Creating scientific-sounding terms [e.g., ufology] in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

...

Psychological explanations

Pseudoscientific thinking has been explained in terms of psychology and social psychology. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias),[71] the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for the common adherence to pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein (1991), humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.[72]

Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one’s self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information. Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.[73]

In our culture and thinking, people appear to have trouble distinguishing science from pseuodoscience. The prime reason people believe in wishful things is because they want to, it feels good and it is consoling. Many weird beliefs give immediate gratification. Immediate gratification of a person's belief is made a lot easier by simple explanantions for an often complicated and contingent world.

....

Minimizing these illusions in the real world is not simple.[65] To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.[65]

Not rationally but experientially = "I know what I saw." (and it was aliens / bigfoot / virgin mary).

ETA - Dowsing too? Come on.

 

[Cuddles]

We have truck-loads of evidence for the existence of both types of vehicle.

Are you sure you don't mean station wagon-loads?

 

[Astrophotographer]

To answer specifically with respect to "other" evidence. The only other evidence there is that we know of for certain in that regard are radar tracking records, bits of so-called "trace evidence", and fuzzy photos/videos. The most impressive radar tracking evidence I've seen was presented by the Belgian Air Force. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI

Maybe some skeptic here will debunk it like the MIG pursuit video, I dunno. I'm open to that because I haven't seen this incident debunked yet.

That is because you haven't looked very hard. The Belgium radar data was debunked some time ago. There was an analysis by two engineers (Salmon and Gilmard) that determined that several of the contacts chased by the jets were simple mistakes. At one point one of the F-16s locked onto the other F-16! In another instance, the F-16 radar gave a signal that went below the ground indicating a reflection of the signal off the ground. The data associated with these radar returns from the F-16s is very suspect based on a lot of this information.
Meanwhile, Auguste Meessen (a Belgian UFOlogist) also analyzed the data and determined that many of the radar signals that night had to do with pockets of warm air (or something of that nature). This seems to be confirmed by the radar control center directing the jets towards their first target. When the pilots reached the location, they were flying over a factor smokestack with a flashing strobe on top. The radar seemed to have been registering returns off the warm air/soot coming out of the stack.
The whole chase was initiated because the local police reported seeing strange lights in the sky and the air search radar reported unusual contacts. However, the Jets never saw any UFOs (although they did chase the radar returns). It was also interesting to note that the police officers saw the Jets flying around and, from what I recall in reading Meessen's article, they stated the jets flew right past the UFOs. This indicated to Meessen that the UFOs were probably just stars scintillating in the night sky.

You can read my take on the whole thing here:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

Marc Hallet also discusses this briefly:

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

There is enough evidence that the F-16 chase was simple mistakes on the part of the police officers in their initial observations and conditions in the atmosphere producing false radar returns (as well as operator error in the interpretation of these signals).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Um ... Timbo ...

How is using the mosted respected independent dictionary on the planet ( Oxford ) and the official definition by the people who created the word itself ( USAF ), and the definition by the undisputed scientific expert who studied them ( Hynek ), and pointing out the ubiquitous portrayal in modern culture of UFOs as alien craft, in any way "cherry picking"? I've just spanned the enitire range of usage from the specialized to the general public at large. There is no cherry picking at all here ... only the truth that you refuse to accept.

Here's the Oxford online dictionary defintion I found:

noun (plural UFOs)
a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.

Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object

So UFOs are unidentified flying objects. Did you have some question about that? What did you think of Puddle Duck's correction of your misuse of the outmoded and superceded definition that you've been cherry picking from 1958?

Are you going to continue to dishonestly try to redefine UFOs to mean alien spaceship and then claim that they exist because of your redefinition? The evidence say, Yes you will. Your dishonesty won't make UFOs be alien spaceships.

Does it really matter though? You don't have any evidence for alien spaceships.

 

[23_Tauri]

Are you sure you don't mean station wagon-loads?

Ah, no, I meant both types of music, country and western.