UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

We also know with certainty that if there were a light that did what I described, that its distance could be estimated with reasonable accuracy.

No. Not even "if" it were true. Human beings cannot estimate the distance of a light in the night sky. Can't do it. Sorry. 40 year old memories of a "light", tired eyes at a party listening to some Zeppelin (wink wink), human memory being fallible and what-not. No. You are convincing no one here.

 

[ufology]

... In the specific case at hand, Mr. J. Randall Murphy (proprietor of the pseudoscience bookstore "Ufology Society International"), we see you defending your usage of an outdated USAF ... bla bla bla

Mr. Albert:

Nice try and so what? You've taken my example out of context and twisted it to suit your purposes. I provided a historical USAF definition within a historical context to describe what the historical usage was and how it evolved into the modern interpretation which is the glaringly self-evident fact that the vast majority of people understand the word UFO to mean some kind of alien craft. My position has also been backed by numerous independent historical and modern references. Go read them all again in context this time.

 

[GeeMack]

We also know with certainty that if...

If? 'Nuff said. It was gods putting images in your head to mess with you. Prove it wasn't.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mr. Albert:

Nice try and so what? You've taken my example out of context and twisted it to suit your purposes.

The purpose is to demonstrate your no-holds-barred approach to your self-appointed mission to define alien flying saucers into existence.

I provided a historical USAF definition within a historical context to describe what the historical usage was and how it evolved into the modern interpretation which is the glaringly self-evident fact that the vast majority of people understand the word UFO to mean some kind of alien craft.

Ther only thing that's glaringly self-evident is the desperation with which you cling to the idea that if you say something often enough it will become true.

It's getting to be kind of embarrassing.

My position has also been backed by numerous independent historical and modern references.

Your position is that UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!" and it hasn't, nor will it ever be, backed by anything.

Even the appearance of an actual, really-truly, alien flying saucer wouldn't do it for you.

Go read them all again in context this time.

The context of the null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin?

I don't think that's going to help you very much.

 

[John Albert]

Mr. Albert:

Nice try and so what? You've taken my example out of context and twisted it to suit your purposes.

No, that's precisely what you have done with your dishonest and ridiculous redefinition of the acronym "UFO" to mean something other than "unidentified flying object."

I provided a historical USAF definition within a historical context to describe what the historical usage was and how it evolved into the modern interpretation which is the glaringly self-evident fact that the vast majority of people understand the word UFO to mean some kind of alien craft.

You took that historical definition from 1958 out of its historical context of an obsolete, superseded air force regulation, and tried to reapply it in our modern-day 21st Century context of civilian life in the year 2011. And it just doesn't work.

You're obviously wrong about what "the vast majority of people understand the word UFO to mean," because nobody but you seriously uses the term to mean what you're trying to force it to mean. You can't even convince the other credulous UFOlogists (including your old pal Rramjet) over at the Paracast Forums that "UFO" means what you're trying to make it mean.

"UFO" means "unidentified flying object." It's an acronym, originally penned to represent those exact words. Every dictionary in the world says "unidentified flying object" for the definition of "UFO."

Maybe you could find that definition in this book:

...if it existed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe you could find that definition in this book:


[qimg]http://oi56.tinypic.com/2r295kk.jpg[/qimg]


...if it existed.

This thread has been a gold mine for the nomination thread.

 

[TjW]

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. You aren't being successful at it, but that's what you're trying to do. You've dishonestly cherry picked an outdated and superseded definition to support your fantasy that some UFOs are Alien Space Ships.

Answer the question which has been asked numerous times: If you mean Alien Space Ship why do you not say Alien Space Ship?

I suspect it's because then his field of study would be ASSology. On the bright side, that would probably increase the number of hits on the website.

 

[John Albert]

Is is National Speculate Day? Because if is it, I'm speculating on unicorns. It's the horn, see.

You're starting to sound like a cryptozoophile!

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, why are eye witness reports nearly worthless? Well the answer is highlighted when one of the posts here claims that the object they saw was thousands of feet across. How was that estimated? At what height? Too low, and it would blot out all your view, making the estimation worthless, at any height whereit could be seen totaly it would be visible for tens of miles in all directions.

Think that sounds silly? Go ask your friends, with out the aid of the internet, how high or how large andhow far away clouds are. You will likely get a wide range of answers. When you discuss an unfamiliar shape, with no point of comparrison, some will claim to see something larger further away, somesmallerbut closer. Some will state two objects docked or merged, others that they just went past each other on a line of sight, but were miles apart.

If, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, you are discussing a single point of light, it is truly impossible to even begin to judge distance or speed.

 

[ufology]

So, why are eye witness reports nearly worthless? Well the answer is highlighted when one of the posts here claims that the object they saw was thousands of feet across. How was that estimated? At what height? Too low, and it would blot out all your view, making the estimation worthless, at any height whereit could be seen totaly it would be visible for tens of miles in all directions.

Think that sounds silly? Go ask your friends, with out the aid of the internet, how high or how large andhow far away clouds are. You will likely get a wide range of answers. When you discuss an unfamiliar shape, with no point of comparrison, some will claim to see something larger further away, somesmallerbut closer. Some will state two objects docked or merged, others that they just went past each other on a line of sight, but were miles apart.

If, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, you are discussing a single point of light, it is truly impossible to even begin to judge distance or speed.

Tomtomkent:

I think you are being a bit judgmental, but the questions you pose are still fair to ask and should be asked. Perhaps you should ask the person who saw the object how they were able to determine the distance and size. It was suggested that I could not have determined the size or distance of the object I saw too, but I demonstrated how I did it with reasonable accuracy. Maybe they have some kind of answer you had not considered. Can you please post a link to the sighting you are referring to?

 

[Akhenaten]

It was suggested that I could not have determined the size or distance of the object I saw too, but I demonstrated how I did it with reasonable accuracy.

You may have come up with some claims about how you determined the size and distance of your alleged sighting but there's no way that you can assert that you've demonstrated anything about it at all, let alone degrees of accuracy.

You seem to be putting the unicorn before the conveyance.

 

[ufology]

You may have come up with some claims about how you determined the size and distance of your alleged sighting but there's no way that you can assert that you've demonstrated anything about it at all, let alone degrees of accuracy.

You seem to be putting the unicorn before the conveyance.

Akhenaten:

Actually, not only can I assert it, I have asserted it, and demonstrated it through logic and reason, which is far more than your mere proclaimations can offer. If you can counter the explanation I gave on how the distance can be calculated, then do so. Otherwise leave your unconstructive comments in your sarcophagus.

 

[Stray Cat]

Nearly every single actual number that ufology has given as an estimated measurement of his sighting has been shown to be wildly inaccurate. Why would anyone assume that his other 'estimations' are any more valid?

Also I asked this a few weeks ago and it was ignored;
ufology, could you see the surface of the lake from your position at the time of these sightings?

 

[John Albert]

It was suggested that I could not have determined the size or distance of the object I saw too, but I demonstrated how I did it with reasonable accuracy.

"Reasonable accuracy"?!?

Let's just check that margin of error with other statements.
In one of your posts here, you claim the object rose 200ft in the air, yet on your website you claim it was 300m, now we have a TOTALLY DIFFERENT HEIGHT.

Let's see now, turning terrain on in GoogleMaps and looking across the lake from west to the east, we see Four Points Mountain, Mount Tegart and Mt Bryan - coming in at 1870m, 2340m and 2440m respectively.

To give you the benefit of the doubt and to reduce the error margin as much as possible, let's use the height of Four Points Mountain as a guide.

2/3rds of 1870m is 1246m.
ETA: Ack. Let's apply some trigonometry here.
Assume Four Points Mountain is 7.8km distant, then an object at 3km distant that appears to be 2/3 of the way up it would be at about a height of 480m. Still a significant variation in the height estimates from ufology...

So, did this object rise, 300ft, 200m (656ft) or 1246m (4088ft) 480m(1570ft) in the air before zooming off northwards?

And given the 3 different accounts from you on the matter, can we really rely on your assertion that any of your numbers come anwhere near "a minimal margin of error for all practical purposes."?

"Reasonable accuracy," huh?

Your "minimal margin of error" appears to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 200-1500%

ufology: The reason I asked was in relation to this which you wrote on 24th July:

"The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake."
ETA: Source

Now looking at the relevant details in Google Earth (it's really the first chance I've had to look at this in any sort of detail).
I plotted the positions you've given and that we've estimated (because you bothered for some reason about giving the exact location away) your position at the time of the sighting, which can't really be too far out.
Here is the overhead view:

The blue helicopter is actually set to show a 4608ft above ground level, so when we put Google Earth into "Ground Level" view, we see it in relation to the mountains behind.

That's not "two thirds the height" of the mountains.

So a lot needs clarifying here. Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position.

Check out this accuracy:

Forgive me folks but I'm very confused now. Even if ufology meant 4608ft above sea level, not 4608ft relative to his location at 3000ft (which would put the object moving through an alleged vertical distance of 1608ft), it still doesn't tally with what we've been told elsewhere.

In this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7403520#post7403520

ufology wrote "The object rose about 300 feet before accellerating, and it went north and gained altitude as it went,".

300ft is nowhere near 4608ft, not even near 1608ft.

On his website, he says "ascended straight up to about 200 meters, stopped instantly for about two seconds, then traced a graceful infinity symbol about 200 meters wide at a 30 degree angle to the right ( south ) of its starting point".

200m = 656ft. More than double the 300 feet in ufology's earlier post.

We've been here before, haven't we?

Your figures are all over the damn place. You can't even keep them straight from one telling of the story to the next.

Is that what you call "reasonable accuracy"?

Without any references for scale or accurate measurements for how high/far away the object is, there's no possible way you could have determined its size with any accuracy at all.

Actually, not only can I assert it, I have asserted it, and demonstrated it through logic and reason, which is far more than your mere proclaimations can offer.

Liars can, and do "assert" lots of things. You've asserted plenty of untruths in the few short months you've been posting on these forums, but "logic and reason" have little or nothing to do with them. All you've demonstrated is your own inability or unwillingness to learn, or even to face reality.

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten:

Actually, not only can I assert it, I have asserted it, and demonstrated it through logic and reason, which is far more than your mere proclaimations can offer. If you can counter the explanation I gave on how the distance can be calculated, then do so. Otherwise leave your unconstructive comments in your sarcophagus.

Apparently 'demonstrate' is another one of those special words of yours.

For the rest of us 'demonstrate' means to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence and you've most certainly done no such thing. Ask around if you don't believe me.

Counter your calculations??? It's just a story, ufology, so there's nothing to calculate.

 

[ufology]

This is my most recent diagram:

On Google Earth, the mountain in the background where the object came over reads about 6155 ft. and the landing zone is at about 2909 ft. The lake itself is at 2621 ft. There is a rise up from the lake shore to where I was viewing from, which was at around 2750ft. When we were sitting looking out the window from inside we could not see the lake because it was obscured by the window sill. When I went outside in the morning to watch the object, parts of the lake were visible but most of the west side was not because of the landscape in the foreground. The viewing position above seems to be elevated too much from the actual view I had, but it's still a reasonable illustration to get the points across.

 

[ufology]

Calculating the Distance and Size of Airborne Objects

Counter your calculations??? It's just a story, ufology, so there's nothing to calculate.

Akhenaten

The truth of the story in this case isn't the point. It's the possibility that sizes and distances of airborne objects can be calculated with reasonable accuracy if you have the right cues. So counter the logic and reasoning I used to prove how it can be done given the cues I reported. You don't have to believe the story to do that.

 

[Stray Cat]

This is my most recent diagram:

http://ufopages.com/AN-01.png

On Google Earth, the mountain in the background where the object came over reads about 6155 ft. and the landing zone is at about 2909 ft. The lake itself is at 2621 ft. There is a rise up from the lake shore to where I was viewing from, which was at around 2750ft. When we were sitting looking out the window from inside we could not see the lake because it was obscured by the window sill. When I went outside in the morning to watch the object, parts of the lake were visible but most of the west side was not because of the landscape in the foreground.

However, back engineering your figures to fit your perception of the event at the time (40 years after the event) doesn't make your initial estimates anymore accurate does it?
And neither does back engineering your story to fit your figures.

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten

The truth of the story in this case isn't the point.

The entire point is that stories like this are completely useless as evidence.

You reaffirm this point with every post you make.

It's the possibility that sizes and distances of airborne objects can be calculated with reasonable accuracy if you have the right cues.

I think they sorted that out in the 1930s when they invented anti-aircraft gunnery.

It's got nothing to do with your story though.

So counter the logic and reasoning I used to prove how it can be done given the cues I reported.

Logic and reasoning says there's no way to know whether any of this stuff that you're reporting ever happened.

You don't have to believe the story to do that.

Damn straight.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is my most recent diagram:

I have no difficulty imagining those lines and words being drawn on the window mere feet from the observer's position, and that alleged light source being only a few millimetres across.