UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

Its undeniable that parts of UFOlogy share a lot of similarities with cults and religions. Esoteric UFOlogy is the prime example of this. I remember back in my UFOnut times some UFOlogists praying for the enlightned and superior UFOnauts, others were eager to receive "revelations" from the aliens while others claimed to receive messages from them... Heck, we saw it right here at JREF.

Contactees with their revelations and messages may create small sects of followers. Some people are eagerly awaiting the aliens' arrival, an event supposed to change Earth's history, quite often in some sort of apocalypse. Some sects even have their temples, books, rituals and clothes the faithfull are supposed to wear. I could go on, but its overkill.

If ufology denies this aspect of UFOlogy, only two options are left:
1. He is arbitrarily selecting aspects of UFO phenomena to build his own UFOlogy.
2. He is just ignorant of UFO phenomena.
IMHO option (1) is the answer.

There is a vast chasm between the critical thinking he claims to apply to his field and the actual critique he will apply to the idea of UFOs being alien.

 

[Stray Cat]

 

[23_Tauri]

It's option #1, if you look at his web page. His dismissive attitude to the more "esoteric" aspects of UFOlogy is plain - look at how he dismissed Snads space fishes. He is completely unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to logically demonstrate how his reasoning is different from believers of cryptozoology, religion, and the like.

Indeed. Look how Murph dismisses the Raëlian sect within the church of UFOlogy:
http://www.ufopages.com/Common/Control/Reframe_T1.htm?../../Reference/FS/Murphy-02a.htm

ufologists do not take the group seriously

but note also that this is partly because:

Vorilhon's ( Raël's ) story also has a number of logical inconsistencies and the so called revelations lack originality.

Hmmm... does that remind anyone of anything we've been hearing of late?

 

[23_Tauri]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Alien-Crux.jpg[/qimg]

Very good, btw.

 

[ufology]

In general personal memory is a flawed evidence. If a historian were studying the subject a written statement produced soon after the events would be the best of the possibilities. The more time that passes after the event the more likely the memory will altered byhindsight and influenced by later knowledge.

Ufology, your statements are at the poorest end of the scale. You are not showing inconsistency when asked several times over the years, your facts are changing each and every time a flaw is shown. There isno way of knowing if you change your calculations to fit what you thought you saw, or alternatively if you are changing data as you go to try and keep the story plausible.

Each time something changes, each self correction, each revision is a degrading of the evidence. It is now at the point it can not be evidence, historical or scientific, because we have zero reasons for assuming it will not change further.

Tomtomkent,

When there is a lack of precision in my wording and I fix it, I've improved the account, not degraded it. So changing the word "size" which is relatively vague, to "as wide as a VW Beetle seen from the side", to indicate more precisely what I meant is perfectly acceptable. It didn't go from being a ball of light to a mother ship.

You've also taken no issue with the skeptics here having the object go from being some kind of alien craft about 3Km away to being a bug a few feet away. That is a huge difference, not to mention I also saw the object in the morning light as well. Since you have no problem with some third party coming along who didn't even see the object chinging it to suit their own skeptical agenda, your bias is duly noted.

 

[ehcks]

Tomtomkent,

When there is a lack of precision in my wording and I fix it, I've improved the account, not degraded it. So changing the word "size" which is relatively vague, to "as wide as a VW Beetle seen from the side", to indicate more precisely what I meant is perfectly acceptable. It didn't go from being a ball of light to a mother ship.

<snip>

The bolded is wrong. The original story is what you thought you saw. The altered story is an attempt to change that into something believable, but isn't what you thought happened.

It changes from a misinterpretation into a lie.

 

[ufology]

Why? Not only appeal to authority, but selective appeal to authority. Reason?

As for still believing that military pilots are more likely to spot and alien spaceship from a hypnogogic illusion, or enemy aircraft, didn't you read Puddle Duck's post? Or is your fantasy of the men in uniform so entrenched that even when one of them tells you it's not true you still can't accept it?

I wouldn't worry too much though, love-struck lasses have this problem all the time.

Tauri,

I've never claimed military pilots are invulnerable, only that they deserve greater credibility. Why? Because military pilots have to undergo rigorous training including psychological and physical stress testing. They also have to be able to identify a wider range of aircraft, including foreign military aircraft. They also have a lot more to lose by attempting a hoax. These are all very good reasons to put more trust in a military pilot than other people who merely sport academic credentials, don't have any flying experience at all and have little to lose by creating a hoax.

 

[Marduk]

Tauri,

I've never claimed military pilots are invulnerable, only that they deserve greater credibility. Why? Because military pilots have to undergo rigorous training including psychological and physical stress testing. They also have to be able to identify a wider range of aircraft, including foreign military aircraft. They also have a lot more to lose by attempting a hoax. .

you mean like these pilots
http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/F86-01a.htm

Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole."

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/BD_047-048.htm

On the night of December 10, 1952, near another atomic installation, the Hanford plant in Washington, the pilot and radar observer of a patrolling F-94 spotted a light while flying at 26,000 feet. The crew called their ground control station and were told that no planes were known to be in the area. They closed on the object and saw a large, round, white "thing" with a dim reddish light coming from two "windows." They lost visual contact, but got a radar lock-on. They reported that when they attempted to close on it again it would reverse direction and dive away. Several times the plane altered course itself because collision seemed imminent.

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/BD_047-048.htm

As it [the light] approached the city from the east it started a left turn. I started to intercept. During the first part of the chase the closest I got to the light was 8 to 10 miles. At this time it appeared to be as large as an SNJ and had a greenish tail that looked to be five to six times as long as the light's diameter. This tail was seen several times in the next 10 minutes in periods of from 5 to 30 seconds each. As I reached 10,000 feet it appeared to be at 15,000 feet and in a left turn. It took 40 degrees of bank to keep the nose of my plane on the light. At this time I estimated the light to be in a 10-to-15-mile orbit.

your hero Ruppelt stated on these which all appear in his book

The following night a lighted balloon was sent up and the pilot was ordered up to compare his experiences. He duplicated his dogfight-- illusions and all. The Navy furnished us with a long analysis of the affair, explaining how the pilot had been fooled.
In the case involving the ground observer and the F-47 near the atomic installation, we plotted the winds and calculated that a lighted balloon was right at the spot where the pilot encountered the light.
In the other instance, the "white object with two windows," we found that a skyhook balloon had been plotted at the exact site of the "battle."
Gorman fought a lighted balloon too.

Amazing that you are ignoring evidence from your own website, You are not even a civilian pilot and you never served in the military in any capacity, at least Rramjet was an essential military target

These are all very good reasons to put more trust in a military pilot than other people who merely sport academic credentials, don't have any flying experience at all and have little to lose by creating a hoax.

so by comparisom, your own claims are worthless aren't they, you don't have any credentials at all

 

[ufology]

Its undeniable that parts of UFOlogy share a lot of similarities with cults and religions. Esoteric UFOlogy is the prime example of this. I remember back in my UFOnut times some UFOlogists praying for the enlightned and superior UFOnauts, others were eager to receive "revelations" from the aliens while others claimed to receive messages from them... Heck, we saw it right here at JREF.

Contactees with their revelations and messages may create small sects of followers. Some people are eagerly awaiting the aliens' arrival, an event supposed to change Earth's history, quite often in some sort of apocalypse. Some sects even have their temples, books, rituals and clothes the faithfull are supposed to wear. I could go on, but its overkill.

If ufology denies this aspect of UFOlogy, only two options are left:
1. He is arbitrarily selecting aspects of UFO phenomena to build his own UFOlogy.
2. He is just ignorant of UFO phenomena.
IMHO option (1) is the answer.

Correa Neto,

Ufology includes topics of UFO cults and religions. So what? Just because sociology includes topics on religion doesn't make sociology a religion. The same goes for ufology. It's just a topic of interest. The only reason these people try to class ufology as a religion unto itself are to make some label stick that they apply their scientific skepticism to in an effort to discredit it. If they can't make their argument suit the facts, change the facts to suit their argument ... it's just maneuvering. Ufology isn't on any acknowledged list of world religions anywhere. UFO cults and UFO religions are topics of ufology studies, nothing more.

 

[Marduk]

If they can't make their argument suit the facts, change the facts to suit their argument ... it's just maneuvering. .

When there is a lack of precision in my wording and I fix it, I've improved the account, .

so you are just maneuvering, by posting here
Also I notice you have completely ignored my last three posts
truth too hard to handle is it ?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The bolded is wrong. The original story is what you thought you saw. The altered story is an attempt to change that into something believable, but isn't what you thought happened.

It changes from a misinterpretation into a lie.

It also misses the point. Had the ONLY change been the estimated size, that could be argued (but on shaky ground) to be clarification. But it is not the only change. The varyingheight of the object can not be assumed to be a clarification. Those were not ambiguos wording. They were "calculated" and yet changed. The object itself seems to change from a source of light to a solid at whim. Now it was seen in the morning light.

All changes over varying tellings. All degrading the trust we can place in the story as evidence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's a religion because people in the saucer community believe a whole lot of outrageous things without justification. Sociologists could study such a social phenomena without subscribing to it.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

I've never claimed military pilots are invulnerable, only that they deserve greater credibility. Why? Because military pilots have to undergo rigorous training including psychological and physical stress testing.

Not sure why this would be relevant to an "ooh look there's a UFO" scenario.

They also have to be able to identify a wider range of aircraft, including foreign military aircraft.

Only some of them, some of the time. To refresh our memories of what Puddleduck wrote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7494494#post7494494

One of the things that has been bandied about here is that military pilots are trained observers and that their word is totally true. I have never seen a course of study along the lines of a college course titled 'Observation of Things in the Air and on the Ground - 101'. I have never heard from anyone that has ever experienced it. I don't know where it would be taught, certainly not in Undergraturate Pilot Traing (UPT). The time is filled to capacity with just learning to fly & associated academics. The most logical place would be at the school learning to fly the operational airplane and the mission (RTU), but it really won't fit there either.
Yeah, while in Europe we needed to know all the Soviet Bloc aircraft & fin flashes (and to a lesser degree, the allied equivalent) plus the Soviet combat vehicles and naval boats, but it was specialized observation knowledge and was learned mostly by reading and some briefings, much like local and area procedures.
Probably the most accurate model for that and for mission capability, would be the apprentice system. The new guy learns from the old head. The newer the pilot was, the more he was protected and kept out of trouble, that, by following his leader, an older more experienced pilot.

So to the point. Observational capabilities depend on the experience of the man making them. The newer the guy is, the less believable, the older he is, the more believable. Experience is everything. But everyone makes mistakes, no matter how experienced. There is no magic shield that ensures total accuracy. The rest of your comments also depend highly on the experience level, Military pilots are for the most part, just like anyone else, except for the highly specialized training and the mindset.
Some of the best witnesses possible? Some are, some aren't. Not concoct fabrications? You're probably right, I've never seen it but who knows.

PD

 

[ufology]

... so by comparisom, your own claims are worthless aren't they, you don't have any credentials at all.

Marduk,

I woudn't say any well reasoned account is worthless. I also tend to suspect people who sport academic credentials unless they have some kind of proven track record in their field. So credientials alone aren't everything. A seemingly sincere and honest well-reasoned everyday person is credible enough to me to provide a meaningful account. Nevertheless I realize that my account falls low on any objective scale. I was just asked about it, so I started answering questions, and this is where it's led. If I hadn't answered the questions I'd have been accused of being evasive. If I do answer questions I get the usual criticism, mockery and ridicule. By now I've come to realize that it was probably a mistake coming here to try to do any networking with skeptics. But since I'm here now, I'll just have to be content to be a target and maybe a buffer for the odd person with a genuine interest in UFOs or who has had a UFO experience who comes to the JREF for friendly discussion.

Also in regard to this case that you quoted: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/F86-01a.htm

" ... Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole ..."

The above happened during daylight. So the night time illuminated balloon misperception explanation doesn't have any bearing.

However your point about including a mention of the balloon experiment is worthy of note. I'll add it to my to-do list. Perhaps even a basic article on misperceptions would be a good idea. If you have any more constructive ideas please let me know ... just try to frame them in a manner that doesn't involve some kind of critical innuendo. Having a good idea is good enough without the added baggage.

 

[GeeMack]

Tomtomkent,

When there is a lack of precision in my wording and I fix it, I've improved the account, not degraded it.

You've changed it. And when you change a story in an effort to sidestep glaring inconsistencies or contradictions, or to try to make excuses when caught in lies or gross errors, it's dishonest. I'm sure you agree.

You've also taken no issue with the skeptics here having the object go from being some kind of alien craft about 3Km away to being a bug a few feet away. That is a huge difference, not to mention I also saw the object in the morning light as well. Since you have no problem with some third party coming along who didn't even see the object chinging it to suit their own skeptical agenda, your bias is duly noted.

Your misunderstanding of who has the burden of proof here is noted... again. Your misunderstanding that people are simply offering a multitude of plausible explanations for your tale, while your bias only allows you to see the singular unsupported one that bolsters your faith, is also noted.

How do you know what you allegedly saw wasn't gods messing with your head? That has been asked many times now. Does something about answering that scare you, rattle your faith in aliens, cause you to think a little more objectively? Why is it you fear addressing that?

 

[Garrison]

They also have to be able to identify a wider range of aircraft, including foreign military aircraft.

An ability to tell the difference between different types of known aircraft does not make their accounts of lights in the sky any more credible than anybody else's, UFO's(and I mean that in the normal sense not your redefinition) are not in their realm of expertise, their stories offer no more insight than any other class of witnesses.

 

[Garrison]

Marduk,

I woudn't say any well reasoned account is worthless. I also tend to suspect people who sport academic credentials unless they have some kind of proven track record in their field. So credientials alone aren't everything. A seemingly sincere and honest well-reasoned everyday person is credible enough to me to provide a meaningful account. Nevertheless I realize that my account falls low on any objective scale.

You say this and yet insist that there can be no other explanation except 'alien spacecraft'. A story isn;t evidence, its a place to start looking for the real evidence. You've simply taken your 40 year old memory, edited in response to criticisms raised here and then decided it's 'infallible.' Unless you are will to start dealing in real evidence I cannot understand why you persist with this thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Your misunderstanding of who has the burden of proof here is noted... again. Your misunderstanding that people are simply offering a multitude of plausible explanations for your tale, while your bias only allows you to see the singular unsupported one that bolsters your faith, is also noted.

How do you know what you allegedly saw wasn't gods messing with your head? That has been asked many times now. Does something about answering that scare you, rattle your faith in aliens, cause you to think a little more objectively? Why is it you fear addressing that?

More importantly, and rather simply, I am able to distinguish between the person trying to provide the primary source, the story, and in the case of any poster with relevant knowledge or technical expertise, the secondary source of critique upon the primary source.

In short: I'm not commenting on what others say, I'm commenting on wether or not Ufology and his story constitute "evidence". They don't. They are no longer constituting "research" either (and I doubt that word could ever have been applied). He seems to think the "Point of light" came from my reading of sceptics discussing a firefly, but it came from his own description of the estimated sizes at the distances given.

If we look at the transmutation of the heights and sizes of the object/glow/light and the fact he had trouble telling the edges of the solid object, then something at the time described as the size of one (not two) beetles, at a height that is roughly two thirds that of the mountain, at several kilometers distance, it would be a point of light. (Slightly bigger than a stellar artifact). That has now changed.

If we assume honesty (we have no reason to do so and not obliged to) we can assume that the larger distances are more accurate, because a smaller object would lead to the assumption of greater distnaces. Now the size of the object AND distances involved have both been revised we have only conclusion that can be drawn:

Any estimate or calculation that Ufology has supplied must be discounted as implausible because of the constant need for revision. He obviously believes his own calculations were wrong, and we can not assess the current revisions to be any more accurate. We have no way of establishing likely estimates because we need at least one known factor, a size or possition to calculate the other.

We now have neither.

 

[Marduk]

" ... Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole ..."

The above happened during daylight. So the night time illuminated balloon misperception explanation doesn't have any bearing.
.

yet he originally thought it to be a balloon, later investigation turned up a known skyhook balloon in the area and the pilot later agreed it was a balloon
who are you to say otherwise, you weren't there, yet you think its ok to claim the witnesses involved are wrong because you think it strengthens your case
it doesn't as you don't have a case, at the other forum even Rramjet thinks youre talking baloney, at this forum, everyone does. All you've done by coming here is ensured that anyone in future has a reference for you altering the details for your sighting. So by coming here you have destroyed any chance of ever being taken seriously by anyone

I'd also like you to address your claims that you are the most Alien visited person in history having been both abducted, visited by M.I.B, crashing into M.I.B. sighted Alien craft and all the other spurious claims you made on your website

imo your mission to bring ufology into some kind of scientific framework has failed, primarily because there is nothing credible about your obvious dishonesty

still, apart from all that I don't doubt you're a scream at parties

 

[ufology]

You've changed it. And when you change a story in an effort to sidestep glaring inconsistencies or contradictions, or to try to make excuses when caught in lies or gross errors, it's dishonest. I'm sure you agree.

Your misunderstanding of who has the burden of proof here is noted... again. Your misunderstanding that people are simply offering a multitude of plausible explanations for your tale, while your bias only allows you to see the singular unsupported one that bolsters your faith, is also noted.

How do you know what you allegedly saw wasn't gods messing with your head? That has been asked many times now. Does something about answering that scare you, rattle your faith in aliens, cause you to think a little more objectively? Why is it you fear addressing that?

GeeMack,

I've not sidesteped anything. I directly addressed the issue and made it more precise to avoid the same confusion in the future. If I were intent on making up some hoax, I know enough about the topic to have done a much more thorough and sensational job, and I wouldn't have brought it here ( of all places ) to be attacked. It makes no sense to assume I'm being dishonest about such a simple account. At the same time, I understand that nobody has any objective reason to believe the story either. I also have no problem with that. I'm just trying to relay my experience as best as I can because I was asked about it.

As for your comment on burden of proof. That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of some third party taking my account and changing it substantially to suit their own agenda. It only has to do with my ability to provide sufficient evidence. I've already admitted that I don't have any scientific evidence and I don't expect anyone to simply take my word for it. So I'm not really making any claim. I'm just relaying my account of what happened. If you want to turn it into a scientific claim for the sake of argument, then I readily conceed to a lack of proof. However simply because there is no proof that my story is true is not proof that it isn't true. It is simply unproven.

Regarding the concept of my sighting being due to "gods messing with my head". What kind of rationale is that? It sounds like the same one the creationists use to explain the dinosaurs. If you want to go that route we can't prove with any certainty anything is real. Your trickster gods hypothesis can be applied to literally everything and as such has no real value. Although it seems that you and the creationists might disagree on that point.