UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Archer:

First off, before we apply the concept to ufology, let's examine your assertion that you can't give credence to something just because it's not something else.

Not only is your assertion illogical, it is also untrue. Logic dictates that if something is not a part of one set, then it cannot be something within that same set. Therefore it must be something else. Let's begin with some familiar examples:

Consider the art and practise of gold panning. A process of screening and observation is used to remove what isn't the gold and concentrate the sample down to where only the nuggets remain. Similarly coin sorters screen coins by their individual properties. Gravel screens do the same thing by removing what isn't from what is. Data can be similarly screened to eliminate a wide range of irrelevant information. For example, if we take a sample of 10,000 people and are lookiing for only 25 year old females, we can just as easily remove the ones who aren't to get the information as we could look for the ones who are. Using Boolean operations, you can run a data searches for things that "don't contain the words" just as easily as you can search for things that do. Lastly, we have the process of Deductive Reasoning:

From Wikipedia:

Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never false nor true. Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge.

Consequently your assertion that such thinking does not represent critical thought is in error. The process is widely used and recognized. It may or may not provide proof, but that isn't rellevant to the point you had made. It is still most certainly a form of critical thinking. Therefore when it is being used, regardless of the subject matter, it cannot be maintained that mere "non-critical acceptance" is taking place.

If you don't agree, please state your reasons.

Then why do some UFOs [using your definition] later turn out to be mundane?

 

[Stray Cat]

Archer:

First off, before we apply the concept to ufology, let's examine your assertion that you can't give credence to something just because it's not something else.

Not only is your assertion illogical, it is also untrue. Logic dictates that if something is not a part of one set, then it cannot be something within that same set. Therefore it must be something else. Let's begin with some familiar examples:

Consider the art and practise of gold panning. A process of screening and observation is used to remove what isn't the gold and concentrate the sample down to where only the nuggets remain. Similarly coin sorters screen coins by their individual properties. Gravel screens do the same thing by removing what isn't from what is. Data can be similarly screened to eliminate a wide range of irrelevant information. For example, if we take a sample of 10,000 people and are lookiing for only 25 year old females, we can just as easily remove the ones who aren't to get the information as we could look for the ones who are. Using Boolean operations, you can run a data searches for things that "don't contain the words" just as easily as you can search for things that do.

It's a mistake to think you can use this to determine something that isn't already known.
Imagine if we didn't know what gold was... How would you use "extracting what isn't gold" from the pile?

 

[ufology]

I don't think anyone really has an issue with 'screening' out certain things.
Where UFOlogy massively fails is this 'screening' process isn't good enough (and never will be good enough) to rule out all mundane possibilities.
Every so often I read of UFO reports which due to investigation are found to have mundane causes and even after 60 years, new mundane explanations are being found.

As a result of UFOlogy relying on a flawed screening system, any resemblance to critical thinking is lost when a few things are ruled out, nothing is 'ruled in' and yet the conclusion can still somehow be "OMG - Aliens"

Stray:

Your comments are fair. So long as it's understood that these so-called decades later explanations don't prove with any certainty that "OMG - Swamp Gas" any more than it proves "OMG - Aliens". Hoax explanations are just a possible as hoaxes themselves. Also, "OMG-Aliens" isn't the de facto standard. The bias favors mundane explanations, and in the presence of good information, and the absence of a mundane explanation, even after careful investigation, an alien possibility is not unreasonable to consider.

 

[Toke]

Stray:

Your comments are fair. So long as it's understood that these so-called decades later explanations don't prove with any certainty that "OMG - Swamp Gas" any more than it proves "OMG - Aliens". Hoax explanations are just a possible as hoaxes themselves. Also, "OMG-Aliens" isn't the de facto standard. The bias favors mundane explanations, and in the presence of good information, and the absence of a mundane explanation, even after careful investigation, an alien unicorns, fairies, Thor, etc. possibility is not unreasonable to consider.

Fixed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Stray:

Your comments are fair. So long as it's understood that these so-called decades later explanations don't prove with any certainty that "OMG - Swamp Gas" any more than it proves "OMG - Aliens".

You still don't understand the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

It doesn't matter which mundane explanation because we know that the mundane exists. Not so with OMG PseudoAliens.

Hoax explanations are just a possible as hoaxes themselves. Also, "OMG-Aliens" isn't the de facto standard.

No, the default is mundane. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation because we know the mundane exists. Not so with OMG PseudoAliens.

The bias favors mundane explanations, and in the presence of good information, and the absence of a mundane explanation, even after careful investigation, an alien possibility is not unreasonable to consider.

There is no presence of good information for OMG PsuedoAliens and no lack of mundane ones. Unless you suddenly remembered some actual evidence for OMG PseudoAliens? No?

 

[ufology]

Then why do some UFOs [using your definition] later turn out to be mundane?

Timbo:

The objects in some UFO reports sometimes turn out turn out not to be UFOs because investigation into the report reveals that there is a reasonable probability that the object was a mundane object rather than a UFO. For example, in such cases it may have been determined that a balloon, aircraft, or astronomical explanation coincided with the visual location of the object in the UFO report. This however is not proof that the object was in-fact a mundane object, only that it is reasonable to propose that the mundane object and the object in the UFO report were one in the same. Because the bias in investigation favors mundane objects, the new information gained during investigations can conceivably cause an original assessment to be ammended ... even years later.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo:

The objects in some UFO reports sometimes turn out turn out not to be UFOs because investigation into the report reveals that there is a reasonable probability that the object was a mundane object rather than a UFO. For example, in such cases it may have been determined that a balloon, aircraft, or astronomical explanation coincided with the visual location of the object in the UFO report. This however is not proof that the object was in-fact a mundane object, only that it is reasonable to propose that the mundane object and the object in the UFO report were one in the same. Because the bias in investigation favors mundane objects, the new information gained during investigations can cause the original assessment to be ammended ... even years later.

Have any ever turned out to be non-mundane, even years later?

 

[ufology]

Have any ever turned out to be non-mundane, even years later?

Robo:

I read a report not so long ago that the SR-71 was used for many secret missions and it was so secret and so far advanced at one point that it was responsible for UFO reports from radar tracking stations. This is a bit dubious as the YF-12A was pictured in a National Geographic layout back in 1960s, and they were basically the same aircraft.

Another example were skyhook balloons. In some cases ground crews lost track of them and they were reacquired by following UFO reports.

Mind you, we are using the word UFO in the context of references to the undentified airborne objects in UFO reports, as opposed to the context of what we actually mean by the word UFO. So we are now no longer discussing descriptive usage.

May I ask where you are going with this? Perhaps we can just skip to the crux of the issue?

 

[Toke]

...May I ask where you are going with this? Perhaps we can just skip to the crux of the issue?

So if a mundane cause cannot be proved it must be aliens?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

I read a report not so long ago that the SR-71 was used for many secret missions and it was so secret and so far advanced at one point that it was responsible for UFO reports from radar tracking stations. This is a bit dubious as the YF-12A was pictured in a National Geographic layout back in 1960s, and they were basically the same aircraft.

Not sure what that has to do with the question.

Another example were skyhook balloons. In some cases ground crews lost track of them and they were reacquired by following UFO reports.

Not sure what that has to do with the question.

Mind you, we are using the word UFO in the context of references to the undentified airborne objects in UFO reports, as opposed to the context of what we actually mean by the word UFO. So we are now talking about a different issue than before, when we were discussing descriptive usage.

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm still talking about UFOs.

May I ask where you are going with this? Perhaps we can just skip to the crux of the issue?

Leading you to see that you are starting with your conclusion of OMG PseudoAliens and that it isn't justified due to a total lack of evidence.

You should recognize that multiple people sighting the same UFO does not equal OMG PseudoAliens (see Campeche and the Mexico City sightings).
You should recognize that you subscribe to a pseudoscientific null hypothesis of "Some UFOs are alien in origin" which is unfalsifiable.
You should by now understand that you cannot eliminate all mundane explanations so you have no way of saying therefore OMG PseudoAliens.
You should by now understand that there has never been a UFO which turned out to be OMG PseudoAliens.
You definitely know that many UFOs (using your cherry picked definition) have turned out to be mundane, despite your wishing that UFO meant alien spaceship.
You should understand by now that believing that UFOs are evidence of alien spacehips is as useful as believing that a hair found on your sofa is evidence of werewolves.
You've proven that you are close minded due to your absolute refusal to change your mind and give up your unfalsifiable null hypothesis or your unevidenced beliefs.
You've learned that the skeptics are the open minded ones who are willing to change their minds in the presence of actual evidence.

 

[ufology]

So if a mundane cause cannot be proved it must be aliens?

Toke:

Of course not. However when mundane objects can be ruled out, as in the case of the USAF pilot in pursuit of a flying disk at mach 1 during daylight who closed to within 500 yards, or an F-94 pilot who after being vectored by radar to a UFO reports his aircraft was surrounded by glowing spheres of light that then streaked off at phenomenal speed, it's no longer a matter of proving they weren't mundane objects, it was obvious they weren't. Such UFOs are alien to our civilization, plain and simple.

 

[Toke]

Toke:

Of course not. However when mundane objects can be ruled out, as in the case of the USAF pilot in pursuit of a flying disk at mach 1 during daylight who closed to within 500 yards, or an F-94 pilot who after being vectored by radar to a UFO reports his aircraft was surrounded by glowing spheres of light that then streaked off at phenomenal speed, it's no longer a matter of proving they weren't mundane objects, it was obvious they weren't. Such UFOs are alien to our civilization, plain and simple.

That sound amazing, I really think you should share the documentation for those new cases with, not only the rest of the UFO community, but also sceptics and the USAF.

You do have documentation, right?

 

[TjW]

Toke:

Of course not. However when mundane objects can be ruled out, as in the case of the USAF pilot in pursuit of a flying disk at mach 1 during daylight who closed to within 500 yards, or an F-94 pilot who after being vectored by radar to a UFO reports his aircraft was surrounded by glowing spheres of light that then streaked off at phenomenal speed, it's no longer a matter of proving they weren't mundane objects, it was obvious they weren't. Such UFOs are alien to our civilization, plain and simple.

How did a <your definition of UFO, which apparently includes ruling out mundane objects> become mundane objects again, since mundane objects had been ruled out?

 

[ufology]

Leading you to see that you are starting with your conclusion of OMG PseudoAliens and that it isn't justified due to a total lack of evidence.

I think you are confusing the idea of a reasonable probability with a foregone conclusion. During any single investigation, there is no foregone conclusion "OMG Pseudoaliens" ( whatever that is supposed to mean ).

The bias during analysis or investigation is toward a natural or manmade terrestrial explanation ( what you would call mundane ). So unless there is high confidence that no natural or manmade object explains the sighting, then we conclude the sighting was probably natural or manmade. When the reverse is true, we conclude the opposite.

As for what constitutes evidence. We consider information to be evidence and we give it whatever weight we think it deserves based on factors that indicate reliability. Scientific information ranks very high. Below that is a heirarchy of information based on reports. Ultimately a single case of genuine scientific proof would take precedence over the rest. But in the absence of that, there is more evidence in favor than against, and it is not reasonable to dismiss it.

 

[Toke]

I think you are confusing the idea of a reasonable probability with a foregone conclusion. During any single investigation, there is no foregone conclusion "OMG Pseudoaliens" ( whatever that is supposed to mean ).

The bias during analysis or investigation is toward a natural or manmade terrestrial explanation ( what you would call mundane ). So unless there is high confidence that no natural or manmade object explains the sighting, then we conclude the sighting was probably natural or manmade. When the reverse is true, we conclude the opposite.
As for what constitutes evidence. We consider information to be evidence and we give it whatever weight we think it deserves based on factors that indicate reliability. Scientific information ranks very high. Below that is a heirarchy of information based on reports. Ultimately a single case of genuine scientific proof would take precedence over the rest. But in the absence of that, there is more evidence in favor than against, and it is not reasonable to dismiss it.

I wonder about that confidence and opposite.
Where would you get that confidence from?
What exactly is that opposite?

It sounds just like "It did not look like a firefly to me, therefore Aliens."

 

[ufology]

How did a your definition of UFO, which apparently includes ruling out mundane objects become mundane objects again, since mundane objects had been ruled out?

TJW:

The word UFO has different meanings in different contexts. A UFO report does not assume the object in the report is a UFO, it's simply a title used to identify the kind of report it is. So the object in an unscreened UFO report has not been determined to be a UFO, and could very well be a mundane object. The object in a screened UFO report references a suspected UFO. The object in an unsolved fully investigated UFO report is a confirmed UFO, and is often assumed to be alien, but has not been scientifically proven to be extraterrestrial. There are gray areas between all these contexts. There are no known scientific investigations that physically prove UFOs are alien. In common language, the word UFO is a reference to alien craft as an identifier of what we mean to convey, as something we have seen ourselves, somone claims to have seen, or simply wants to talk about.

Other words are similarly confusing. For example the word "universe", has four basic contexts, ( religious, philosophical, astronomical, cosmological ) and a bunch of sub-contexts, plus generalized contexts, as in, "a child's universe is not bounded by preconceptions". I'm not going to detail all that here, but you get the idea.

 

[Aepervius]

TJW:

The word UFO has different meanings in different contexts. A UFO report does not assume the object in the report is a UFO, it's simply a title used to identify the kind of report it is. So the object in an unscreened UFO report has not been determined to be a UFO, and could very well be a mundane object. The object in a screened UFO report references a suspected UFO. The object in an unsolved fully investigated UFO report is a confirmed UFO, and is often assumed to be alien, but has not been scientifically proven to be extraterrestrial. There are gray areas between all these contexts. There are no known scientific investigations that physically prove UFOs are alien. In common language, the word UFO is a reference to alien craft as an identifier of what we mean to convey, as something we have seen ourselves, somone claims to have seen, or simply wants to talk about.

Other words are similarly confusing. For example the word "universe", has four basic contexts, ( religious, philosophical, astronomical, cosmological ) and a bunch of sub-contexts, plus generalized contexts, as in, "a child's universe is not bounded by preconceptions". I'm not going to detail all that here, but you get the idea.

"In common language, the word UFO is a reference to alien craft"
It is indeed the case, a lot of lay people thinks UFO are alien because of the great cinematography associated with it (like encounter of the 3rd type). But in the official report UFO *IS* an Unidentified Flying Object , and not an alien craft. We are not speaking of what the common man believe, but rather what is evidence-able, demonstrable, etc... And there is no such things as alien evidenced *EVER*.

For the sake of this discussion UFO=something in the sky which could not be identified immediately, even if it is identified later in a report. Forget what the lay people might think. After all the lay folk believe (in average) in a lot of stuff for which no evidence exists, like homeopathy.

 

[ufology]

That sound amazing, I really think you should share the documentation for those new cases with, not only the rest of the UFO community, but also sceptics and the USAF.

You do have documentation, right?

Case one was documented by E.J. Ruppelt, former head of USAF Project Blue Book. You can read about it in the book he wrote. Case two was documented by reporters who interviewed one of the F-94 pilots during the 1952 Washington D.C. sightings. You'll have to hunt around to find the clipping. The pilot's name was Lieutenant William Patterson, a veteran of the Koren War. Try Google.

 

[ufology]

"In common language, the word UFO is a reference to alien craft"
It is indeed the case, a lot of lay people thinks UFO are alien because of the great cinematography associated with it (like encounter of the 3rd type). But in the official report UFO *IS* an Unidentified Flying Object , and not an alien craft. We are not speaking of what the common man believe, but rather what is evidence-able, demonstrable, etc... And there is no such things as alien evidenced *EVER*.

For the sake of this discussion UFO=something in the sky which could not be identified immediately, even if it is identified later in a report. Forget what the lay people might think. After all the lay folk believe (in average) in a lot of stuff for which no evidence exists, like homeopathy.

Aepervius;

We've been through several official definitions, and they all go beyond merely "unidentified" by making an effort to screen out mundane objects. As mentioned several times already, the word UFO was created by the USAF to replace the phrase "flying saucers" which were presumed to be alien craft. So in reality the word UFO is simply a bureaucratic euphemism for flying saucer anyway. Then there are the various contexts of usage. So for the sake of this discussion I will use the word UFO in the context that is most appropriate and will not restrict myself to usage that may not be appropriate. I suggest that you try to do the same rather than limiting yourself. It will serve you better once you get used to it.

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius;

We've been through several official definitions, and they all go beyond merely "unidentified" by making an effort to screen out mundane objects. As mentioned several times already, the word UFO was created by the USAF to replace the phrase "flying saucers" which were presumed to be alien craft. So in reality the word UFO is simply a bureaucratic euphemism for flying saucer anyway. Then there are the various contexts of usage. So for the sake of this discussion I will use the word UFO in the context that is most appropriate and will not restrict myself to usage that may not be appropriate. I suggest that you try to do the same rather than limiting yourself. It will serve you better once you get used to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#Terminology

restricting usage is *FULLY* appropriate. It is not a simple euphemism for flying saucer, and indeed the term was added because the sighting went beyond flying saucer type.

You can try to redefine yourself out of a dead corner if you want, but you cannot simply say UFO=Alien. UFO=something you do not recognize in the sky and that's it. It is not limiting, on the contrary UFO is inclusive said that way.

it is you which attempt to limit and corner the term into "alien craft" for your own agenda.

As for the "saucer" report, let me laugh. You realize why the first saucer report went so viral , right ? A journalist error reporting. He misrepresented the description, (I think that was the J Martin sighting Actually it was the kenneth Arnold Sighting) and suddenly a lot of people reported having seen the wrong description. It all went viral from there I would say. It was a forerunner for the red panda !