UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[AdMan]

It's been explained to you often enough that I can only suppose that it is your dishonesty manifesting itself again.

Isn't it patently clear by now that this is it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Isn't it patently clear by now that this is it?

Sadly, yes.

 

[John Albert]

Now let's take the essential part:

" ...there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft."​

thats not the essential part, the essential part was that to determine the truth they launched Project Sign which declared negative conclusions in January 1953

so that'll be fictitious then, like your credibility in this thread
​

The Wikipedia page hasn't been corrected yet? I thought somebody in this thread had already pointed out the dishonest editing of the "Twining memo" in that particular article...

Aha! I knew it!

It was AccessDenied who pointed out the subterfuge:

One of these is not like the other…

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "real and not visionary or fictitious, that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability, general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and evasive behavior when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force - I think he could tell the difference between the above an fairies.

[missing text restored and highlighted below with underlined emphasis mine, extraneous text struck out]

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "It is the opinion that: The phenomenon is something "real and not visionary or fictitious, that there were are objects probably approximating in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb [and] , maneuverability (particularly in roll) , general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and motion which must be considered evasive behavior when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled craft either manually, automatically or remotely." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

Ah yes, the infamous Twining memo that retail UFOlogists like Stanton Friedman and Timothy Good deliberately misquote in order to sell their snake oil to the unsuspecting “true believers”…

Where exactly did you get that “quote” from ufology? Citation please.

Here’s the original text…

The Twining Memo
http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/twining.htm

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.​

Here’s how it currently appears on Wikipedia…

Unidentified flying object (§3.1.1 After 1947 sightings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#After_1947_sightings

[note placement of quotation marks]

A further review by the intelligence and technical divisions of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field reached the same conclusion, that "the phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious," that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar," suggesting a controlled craft. It was thus recommended in late September 1947 that an official Air Force investigation be set up to investigate the phenomenon. It was also recommended that other government agencies should assist in the investigation.[44]

...

So you can see that whomever edited the Wikipedia entry to include that excerpt from the so-called "Twining Memo" severely edited the source material to make it sound far more conclusive that the actual gist of the thing.

Regardless, none of the USAF's pseudoscientific "findings" of the 1950s mean diddly-squat by today's standards.

Here we are, 60+ years later. Human culture on Earth has gone through several major technological revolutions. We've had exponential increases in the business of air travel and the scientific exploration of space. We continually photograph and map every square foot of terrain on the planet every minute of every day. We have achieved total military domination of every nautical mile of airspace over every continent. We have millions and millions of video cameras constantly scanning images of their surroundings every few seconds. We have a space station that is manned 365 days of the year. We have satellites that can detect radiation ranging from ELF to gamma rays, can see to the edge of the Universe, and can read the license plates of automobiles on the ground. We have airplanes that can shoot down ICBMs using particle-beam lasers. We've made incredible technological advances in the detection, identification, and tracking of aircraft, space flotsam, near-Earth objects, comets and asteroids throughout the solar system; we can even detect and examine planets orbiting around distant stars. All this progress in all areas of science related to aviation and space exploration, yet there's still not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrials or otherworldly craft flying around in our skies.

Why, despite all these advancements, is the study of UFOlogy still stuck in the mid-late 1950s?

Why are you guys still poring over 60-year-old sighting reports, trying to "rule out mundane causes" to support your belief in outer space aliens?

Where's the evidence to falsify the null hypothesis?​

 

[ufology]

Should read the header, my bad.

Apparently (please correct me if I'm mistaken), you claim this is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, yet you admit you have no scientifically acceptable evidence to corroborate your position ...
... Does that pretty much define your position, or did I miss something?

Chuck:

No problem Chuck and thanks for the acknowlegement. It's easy to make assumptions on these threads and I'm glad to clarify my position for you.

The first thing is that you seem to be under the false impression that most ufologists consider ufology to be a science unto itself. You have probably been told this by some anti-ufology skeptic and simply assume it's true. In actual fact, there are few ufologists ( if any ) who consider ufology to be a science unto itself. I certainly don't and neither does my group ( USI ), which has around 2000 members worldwide. However USI and other major groups like MUFON advocate the use of science when appropriate. The difference is of key importance.

Advocating the use of science to study UFOs is not the same as calling ufology a science unto itself. When science is being done in ufology, science is taking place, but not as ufology. Rather it is as astronomy or meteorology ... etc. For example, if a UFO investigator needs to establish the position of Venus on a particular date and time, then astronomy, not ufology facilitates the acquisition of that information.

So what constitutes ufology then? The largest part of ufology is ufology history. Ufology history consists of informal ( non-scientific ) collections of UFO cases, opinions and trivia sold as mass market books or magazines for the public at large ( non-scientists ). The other largest facets that makeup ufology are popular science, mythology, art, and culture. All these are clearly outside the bounds of academic science. These facts make ufology a topic of interest that many people find very interesting. If ufology were to come close to any class of academic discipline, it would fall largely under the humanities with certain areas intersecting the natural sciences.

Now turning to how the above relates to my personal position on UFOs. I make no claim that ufology is a science unto itself. Nor do I contend that I have any scientific evidence to back up my position. My position is based on my own personal observation, studies of historical cases, and the accounts of people whom I've talked with who claim they have also had a UFO experience. I may know UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. But I can't prove it at this point in time, and I freely and openly admit that. The reason I'm here on the JREF is to establish a connection with skeptics who can provide opinions on various cases, engage in constructive discussion about the topic, and serve as a more receptive participant to others who have an interest in UFOs and have come to the JREF forum to see what it has to offer.

 

[Jocce]

formerly secret documents have been released both voluntarily and via the FOIA ... huge numbers of them.

This is evidence that secret documents can be realeased, not that documents about alien visits are kept hidden. You're confused.

 

[Jocce]

See Paragraph 7. a. Guidance in Preparing Reports.

" ... 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."

Yes, not reporting identified mundane objects and objects that with a high level of certainty can be assumed to be mundane seems to be a good idea. But, how do you go from there to "the rest is alien"?

 

[ufology]

The Wikipedia page hasn't been corrected yet? I thought somebody in this thread had already pointed out the dishonest editing of the "Twining memo" ... bla bla bla

Mr. Albert

Paraphrasing or simply stating the same opinion is not "dishonest editing". Besides, the essential information, no matter how you look at it, is still the fact that USAF investigators and scientists concluded that UFOs are real craft of unknown origin. These people were in a far better positions than you and the little band of skeptics here to observe, investigate and make that determination. So I'll take their word for it over yours ( no offense ).

You do make some good points sometimes though, and I respect your opinion that so far as you're concerned, you choose to assume no alien craft have ever been seen, at least until such time as your null hypothesis is proven false ... or perhaps the day you see one for yourself. All I ask in the meantime is that you don't confuse your fair assumptions with certain proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Wudang]

As John went on to say
"Why, despite all these advancements, is the study of UFOlogy still stuck in the mid-late 1950s?"

You do make some good points sometimes though, and I respect your opinion that so far as you're concerned, you choose to assume no fairies have ever been seen, at least until such time as your null hypothesis is proven false ... or perhaps the day you see one for yourself. All I ask in the meantime is that you don't confuse your fair assumptions with certain proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[ufology]

Yes, not reporting identified mundane objects and objects that with a high level of certainty can be assumed to be mundane seems to be a good idea. But, how do you go from there to "the rest is alien"?

To anaswer the above and your other point on the documents. Not only have many documents been released under the FOIA, many were found and not released, therefore proving they have them but they aren't letting us see them.

Returning to the definition, what we're seeing in post AFR 200-2 Feb. 05 1958 versions are watered down versions that brought the project inline with post Robertson Panel politics. Still, the intent of the screening process, when viewed in its historical context, was to eliminate as many known natural and manmade objects or phenomena as possible.

Simply because later versions don't go into the same detail as earlier versions doesn't mean they wanted to investigate birds, planets, blowing garbage or any other mundane objects any more than they did before. In other words, so what if they don't list every possible mundane object on the planet? We still know what screening was intended for ... to separate UFOs from every known natural or manmade object or phenomena as much as possible.

And yes we can safely presume the above with 100% confidence. What do you think would happen if a USAF pilot chose to report a blowing piece of tin foil as a UFO and used the excuse, "Well it doesn't say not to report them." Get the point?

Now, if what they were looking for wasn't anything manmade, and it wasn't anything natural, what else could they have been looking for? The only thing left is unnatural and non-manmade ... and if we didn't make it who did? The only thing left to conclude is something alien, at least to our experience and understanding. This does not necessitate the inclusion of E.T. but it certainly excludes human civilaztion, and that still makes it alien to us.

Now the other crucial point I'm making is that this doesn't prove that the objects in those reports were actually alien craft. All it proves is what they were looking for were alien craft. Again this speaks to the meaning of the word UFO. It is not and never has been a word that was intended to simply mean what the separate definitions of the words that formed the acronym are defined as. It is a complete misrepresentation to claim that any such definition is accurate. The word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft. It always has and it always will.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Chuck:

No problem Chuck and thanks for the acknowlegement. It's easy to make assumptions on these threads and I'm glad to clarify my position for you.

The first thing is that you seem to be under the false impression that most ufologists consider ufology to be a science unto itself. You have probably been told this by some anti-ufology skeptic and simply assume it's true. In actual fact, there are few ufologists ( if any ) who consider ufology to be a science unto itself. I certainly don't and neither does my group ( USI ), which has around 2000 members worldwide. However USI and other major groups like MUFON advocate the use of science when appropriate. The difference is of key importance.

Advocating the use of science to study UFOs is not the same as calling ufology a science unto itself. When science is being done in ufology, science is taking place, but not as ufology. Rather it is as astronomy or meteorology ... etc. For example, if a UFO investigator needs to establish the position of Venus on a particular date and time, then astronomy, not ufology facilitates the acquisition of that information.

So what constitutes ufology then? The largest part of ufology is ufology history. Ufology history consists of informal ( non-scientific ) collections of UFO cases, opinions and trivia sold as mass market books or magazines for the public at large ( non-scientists ). The other largest facets that makeup ufology are popular science, mythology, art, and culture. All these are clearly outside the bounds of academic science. These facts make ufology a topic of interest that many people find very interesting. If ufology were to come close to any class of academic discipline, it would fall largely under the humanities with certain areas intersecting the natural sciences.

Now turning to how the above relates to my personal position on UFOs. I make no claim that ufology is a science unto itself. Nor do I contend that I have any scientific evidence to back up my position. My position is based on my own personal observation, studies of historical cases, and the accounts of people whom I've talked with who claim they have also had a UFO experience. I may know UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. But I can't prove it at this point in time, and I freely and openly admit that. The reason I'm here on the JREF is to establish a connection with skeptics who can provide opinions on various cases, engage in constructive discussion about the topic, and serve as a more receptive participant to others who have an interest in UFOs and have come to the JREF forum to see what it has to offer.

So what you're saying is that ufology is not a science, it is a belief system, indistinguishable (according to your description), from any other religion.
That would seem to be at odds with your stated purpose here inasmuch as religions, by definition, are not subject to Aristotelian logic.

 

[ufology]

So what you're saying is that ufology is not a science, it is a belief system, indistinguishable (according to your description), from any other religion.
That would seem to be at odds with your stated purpose here inasmuch as religions, by definition, are not subject to Aristotelian logic.

Chuck:

So again it appears that you have been misled. Ufology is not a "belief system". We define it this way: "Ufology is the title used for the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. Those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists."

More here: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

Belief systems like religions are a completely different concept than ufology. In ufology nobody is required to believe anything. Critical thinking is encouraged, and the only thing we at USI require is a genuine and constructive interest in the phenomenon. There are no dues, no deities and no worship. People come and go as they please and are free to present their own views. Everyone is welcome including scientists and skeptics. We welcome evidence that debunks cases as much as hearing about interesting cases that have not been debunked. If you are looking for a UFO religion, have a look at the Raelians. They are a recognized religion. They are not ufologists and are markedly different in their beliefs and practises.

 

[John Albert]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You do realize that little antimetabole is a common platitude used by religious people to justify their illogical belief in gods?

Its phrasing may sound poetic and profound, but it's really just a clever way to express an argument from ignorance. Such willful ignorance leaves the door open to any number of unsupported (and unsupportable) beliefs: from ET to bigfoot, to gods and angels, to leprechauns and unicorns, to anything any damn fool could imagine off the top of his head.

Of course it's true that you can't logically prove a universal negative, but evidence of absence can be determined to reliably prove a negative within a set of definite boundaries.

For example, "I don't have my keys" is a negative that can easily be proven by checking all my pockets to determine that no set of keys is on my person. Likewise, it's quite easy to prove that "there is no miniature civilization of 2mm tall humanoid beings living on top of my coffee table." Negatives can be proven within a manageable set of boundary conditions.

As I pointed out in my post above, we have countless technologies surveilling and monitoring every square foot of our planet at all times. Likewise, we're constantly monitoring the airspace and the solar system around us. We actually have systems in place to track extraterrestrial objects like comets, asteroids, and NEO's, as well as the millions of scraps of space junk orbiting around our planet. That situation creates a pretty limiting set of boundary conditions.

If there really were alien craft zipping around our skies, wouldn't you expect one of the myriad monitoring devices to catch them in action whenever they appear? Why don't we ever see any videos of aliens or flying saucers that aren't obvious hoaxes? Wouldn't you expect the scientists at NASA, the ESA and the private space agencies to know all about them? It just doesn't make sense. Considering all that, I'd say there's some pretty compelling evidence of absence where alien spacecraft are concerned.

Of course it isn't conclusive proof that ET visitation does not occur. But as you often like to say, it's a reasonable conclusion given the circumstances.

And by the way, there's no logical way to justify jumping to the conclusion of "aliens" by process of elimination. Logic just doesn't work that way. As they say in the South, "Y'all can't get there from here."

Not knowing what something is, does not mean you know what that thing is. The only reasonable conclusion is, "I don't know what it is." Concluding otherwise is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri:

You people just can't face the facts can you? Here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

"It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it."

....snipped for sanity......

Yes. I know. We all know. We've been telling you ad nauseam.

I know perfectly well how the null hypothesis works, ufology, it's you who's taken several weeks to try and get your head around it.

Exactly what part part about the the "null hypothesis can never be proven" are you denying is a valid part of such a hypothesis?

I didn't deny any part of it. See that bit in my last post where I wrote "no **** Sherlock?". That's called irony. Do you understand what irony is or would you like to redefine that too?
ETA:

What part about stating that "there is absolutely nothing in the documentation relating to anything alien" do you not understand is a statement of certainty and therefore assumes it has been or can be proven?

Aepervius meant the documentation that has been made available, that is in the public domain. Some ufologists read into the words written in those documents and believe they are evidence of a cover up. It isn't evidence of such. There is nothing in the documentation that says "OMG - Aleeyuns!!". Nor is there any reason to assume that the reason other documents haven't been de-classified is because they say "OMG - Aleeyuns!!" There are many reasons why such documents aren't available, as several posters here have pointed out to you.

 

[ufology]

Y
ou do realize that little antimetabole is a common platitude used by religious people to justify their illogical belief in gods?

Its phrasing may sound poetic and profound, but it's really just a clever way to express an argument from ignorance.

Mr. Albert:

All you did above is quote some related terms that don't apply and help me clarify my position. The definition of Argument from ignorance you linked into states:

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

What the above is saying is exactly what I've been pointing out all along with respect to your pet hypothesis. You cannot assert that the null hyothesis has been proven true because it has not been proven false. Or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Thank you for helping me clarify this issue. I will be sure to reference it again in the future.

 

[ufology]

Yes. I know. We all know. We've been telling you ad nauseam.
I know perfectly well how the null hypothesis works, ufology, it's you who's taken several weeks to try and get your head around it. See that bit in my last post where I wrote "no **** Sherlock?". That's called irony. Do you understand what irony is or would you like to redefine that too?

Tauri:

Well if you people all knew the null hypothesis can't be proven, then why were you people making assertions that your null hypotheses had been proven? And why did you suddenly just now have that revelation, as if you had been telling me this all along? You're are not making any sense.

I remind you of the assertion made that it was a certainty that the USAF, Space Command the MOD and other agencies have no documents confirming alien presence on Earth. And I remind you that it was asserted that it is perfectly acceptable to make such certain statements because the null hypothesis suggested it's OK. Well it doesn't ... now I'm glad we finally agree.

 

[23_Tauri]

No they wouldn't you walk in and read them; let some PFC copy them and turn them over to Wikileaks yes. And isn't it odd that amongst the reams of material that have leaked out of the government/military sieve not one word on UFOs? Almost as if no one in the government took the subject seriously.

This is such a good point. Any comment, Mr Randall Murphy? Why did Julian Assange not find the smoking alien ray-gun?

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri:

Well if you people all knew the null hypothesis can't be proven, then why were you people making assertions that your null hypotheses had been proven? And why did you suddenly just now have that revelation, as if you had been telling me this all along? You're are not making any sense.

No-one has made the assumption that the null hypothesis has been proven. Posters here are saying that the null hypothesis "all UFOs are of mundane origin" has not been falsified. Do you see the difference?
Proven = something proven
Falsifies = something disproven

I really don't see how we can make this any simpler for you.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes. I know. We all know. We've been telling you ad nauseam.

[qimg]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/bang.gif[/qimg]

I know perfectly well how the null hypothesis works, ufology, it's you who's taken several weeks to try and get your head around it.

Bloody hell. There's just no getting through is there. Some of us follows of the thread have learnt something so its not all for naught.

 

[Stray Cat]

Mr. Albert:

All you did above is quote some related terms that don't apply and help me clarify my position. The definition of Argument from ignorance you linked into states:

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

What the above is saying is exactly what I've been pointing out all along with respect to your pet hypothesis. You cannot assert that the null hyothesis has been proven true because it has not been proven false. Or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Thank you for helping me clarify this issue. I will be sure to reference it again in the future.

So you're still not getting the concept of a null hypothesis then... go figure.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is such a good point. Any comment, Mr Randall Murphy? Why did Julian Assange not find the smoking alien ray-gun?

Have you seen that bloke? He's clearly a Nord type visitor.

I googled that for the lols:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread582562/pg1