UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Garrison]

Or in the case of memories that seem to alter this often I think Terry Pratchetts "inspiration particle" is more relevant than anything like science. How photons act in the real world, and how they act after forty odd years of a remembering are entirely different. Memories are often more like dreams, and the version we tell others to make the story interesting become what we though happened, regardless of pesky facts. We see it all the time, people who think certain foods tasted better before, who remembered TV shows having better effects (or in the case of Doctor Who people imagining the sets wobbled, despite a lack of wobbling on the screen), people who are sure something amazing happened on holiday as a kid, because their family would tell them, rather than because it happened.

When any useful data changes too much, you have to assume the memory is not a good basis for investigation as you no longer have a datum to measure others from.

This first page of this article on Cracked of all places highlights some of the perils of relying on memory, and just how easy it is to manipulate it:

5 Common Crime Fighting Tactics (Statistics Say Don't Work)

 

[Aepervius]

Well, that's out. There is no conceivable way that you could estimate the size of a "sphere of light".

It's a "rookie" believer mistake.

It is quite simple actually.

Absolutely *ALL* his story hinge on ONE single fact : if he did really correctely estimate the distance between the light and him. Supress that, and his story completely and utterly fall in shamble. We already proposed some more believable scenario (a few luciole/firefly which are much nearer than him than he thought of). Whether one can estimate a sphere of light size (which i agree is very difficult, nigh impossible especially 25km away (or miles whatever)) does not even register as the biggest problem with his sotry.

 

[ufology]

It is quite simple actually.

Absolutely *ALL* his story hinge on ONE single fact : if he did really correctely estimate the distance between the light and him. Supress that, and his story completely and utterly fall in shamble. We already proposed some more believable scenario (a few luciole/firefly which are much nearer than him than he thought of). Whether one can estimate a sphere of light size (which i agree is very difficult, nigh impossible especially 25km away (or miles whatever)) does not even register as the biggest problem with his sotry.

Aepervius,

Please go back and address the points I made on how the distances were arrived at. If it doesn't make sense to you then please explain why. Simply proclaiming it can't be done isn't good enough. If you can't explain how my reasoning is faulty, then you have no reason to change my story to suit yourself.

 

[R.A.F.]

Please go back and address the points I made on how the distances were arrived at. If it doesn't make sense to you then please explain why. Simply proclaiming it can't be done isn't good enough. If you can't explain how my reasoning is faulty, then you have no reason to change my story to suit yourself.

No...you can't shift the burden of proof away from yourself simply because it would be convenient for you.

Prove yourself correct...we have no need to prove you wrong....try and remember that.

 

[ufology]

No...you can't shift the burden of proof away from yourself simply because it would be convenient for you.

Prove yourself correct...we have no need to prove you wrong....try and remember that.

R.A.F.

You're confused. Burden of proof has nothing to do with the issue of some third party changing a story or intentionally leaving out parts of it to suit their own needs. Either reserve judgment or find logical reasons within the account that reveals some error.

 

[Garrison]

Aepervius,

Please go back and address the points I made on how the distances were arrived at. If it doesn't make sense to you then please explain why. Simply proclaiming it can't be done isn't good enough. If you can't explain how my reasoning is faulty, then you have no reason to change my story to suit yourself.

That is the problem, you are basing your current estimates on retroactive reasoning based on the new information from Google Earth, not on any evidence collected at the time. Added to that is the problem that you are seeking to fit every detail into a narrative where 'alien spacecraft' is the only conclusion.

 

[R.A.F.]

R.A.F.

You're confused. Burden of proof has nothing to do with the issue of some third party changing a story or intentionally leaving out parts of it to suit their own needs. Either reserve judgment or find logical reasons within the account that reveals some error.

No...you are making an extraordinary claim and the onus IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOURSELF CORRECT.

When you post, "show me where I am wrong", you are attempting to shift the burden away from you...we will not allow that, so you might as well stop trying.

 

[Tomtomkent]

R.A.F.

You're confused. Burden of proof has nothing to do with the issue of some third party changing a story or intentionally leaving out parts of it to suit their own needs. Either reserve judgment or find logical reasons within the account that reveals some error.

Reasons like distances changing, the size of the object changing, a lack of sonicboom, and the a lack of any viable way, other than offering an opinion, that you could possibly judge the size and distance of a ball of light with out a point of reference? You mean reasons like those? As i dont think RAF or Ape have to repeat those.

 

[Daylightstar]

R.A.F.

You're confused. Burden of proof has nothing to do with the issue of some third party changing a story or intentionally leaving out parts of it to suit their own needs. ...

No, you are. Burden of proof has everything to do with you wanting to convince other people of your story.

 

[ufology]

That is the problem, you are basing your current estimates on retroactive reasoning based on the new information from Google Earth, not on any evidence collected at the time. Added to that is the problem that you are seeking to fit every detail into a narrative where 'alien spacecraft' is the only conclusion.

Garrison,

You're missing the point there. I estimated the distances years ago with a local map of the area and a set of dividers. Getting a digital readout now from the same locations doesn't do anything but make the figures a bit more precise. How I was able to guage the distances in the first place has been the issue of contention, and that hasn't changed either. The firefly issue keeps coming up and I've explained over and over why that would not be possible. But it keeps getting ignored so that people here can invoke it as an explanation. That is not responsible skepticism. Changing someone's story to suit yourself is just plain wrong.

 

[Daylightstar]

... RAF or Ape ...

Ape?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No...you are making an extraordinary claim and the onus IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOURSELF CORRECT.

When you post, "show me where I am wrong", you are attempting to shift the burden away from you...we will not allow that, so you might as well stop trying.

Besides which, why should not cast aside aspects of the story that keep being revised? That they had to be revised makes them unreliable, ergo we can not rely on them, and candiscount them as unproven.

So far we can only say we have a claim, to have seen an object, that was a source of light. We can no longer assume that the objective opinions of size, height or distance are meaningful due to inconsistent telling. We have no idea which telling or refinement are accurate, so we assume none are until objective proof is provided.

 

[Daylightstar]

Garrison,

You're missing the point there...

No no, you're lacking substance.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Garrison,

You're missing the point there. I estimated the distances years ago with a local map of the area and a set of dividers. Getting a digital readout now from the same locations doesn't do anything but make the figures a bit more precise. How I was able to guage the distances in the first place has been the issue of contention, and that hasn't changed either. The firefly issue keeps coming up and I've explained over and over why that would not be possible. But it keeps getting ignored so that people here can invoke it as an explanation. That is not responsible skepticism. Changing someone's story to suit yourself is just plain wrong.

Oh and what physical evidence was left in the air for you to accurately plot the flightpath from?

The degrees of change in your own figures make it unreliable, so we discount your estimates and look for plausible alternatives.

 

[Daylightstar]

Besides which, why should not cast aside aspects of the story that keep being revised? That they had to be revised makes them unreliable, ergo we can not rely on them, and candiscount them as unproven.

So far we can only say we have a claim, to have seen an object, that was a source of light. We can no longer assume that the objective opinions of size, height or distance are meaningful due to inconsistent telling. We have no idea which telling or refinement are accurate, so we assume none are until objective proof is provided.

Can we even be certain that he actually did see something like a moving light as and when he claims?
Apart from taking at least that, on good faith.

As far as I can see, all we have evidence for is that ufology is trying to draw attention to something, not necessarily that what he claims.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ape?

Apevirus

 

[R.A.F.]

So far we can only say we have a claim, to have seen an object, that was a source of light. We can no longer assume that the objective opinions of size, height or distance are meaningful due to inconsistent telling. We have no idea which telling or refinement are accurate, so we assume none are until objective proof is provided.

Actually, this is pretty typical of UFO reports...a person's "word", and little else.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Can we even be certain that he actually did see something like a moving light as and when he claims?
Apart from taking at least that, on good faith.

As far as I can see, all we have evidence for is that ufology is trying to draw attention to something, not necessarily that what he claims.

No. So it is a claim. We do not assume it is either correct or incorrect. It was not properly documented at the time, and has no supporting evidence. The source retrofits the data to fit errors, so we do not know what has been retrofitted before, nor do we have any reason to assume increasing or decreasing accuracey. So we discount any unreliable elements.

 

[Daylightstar]

Apevirus

I thought it was innocently funny

 

[ufology]

Besides which, why should not cast aside aspects of the story that keep being revised? That they had to be revised makes them unreliable, ergo we can not rely on them, and candiscount them as unproven.

So far we can only say we have a claim, to have seen an object, that was a source of light. We can no longer assume that the objective opinions of size, height or distance are meaningful due to inconsistent telling. We have no idea which telling or refinement are accurate, so we assume none are until objective proof is provided.

Tomtomkent,

Changing someone's story to suit yourself is just plain wrong. Why do you think they have court reporters? Think about it. Whether or not you can prove a case doesn't give either side the right to change witness testimony. If a lawyer did that in court they would be thrown out for manufacturing false evidence. On the other hand if you can find some logical inconsistency in the essential information, then fine, that is something to consider. That is why they have cross-examinations. In the end neither side may prove their case, but both sides need to follow the rules or the whole process is pointless. You might as well just manufacture your own evidence ( like fireflies ) and proclaim the case closed.