UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

And if it were demonstrated to the person who observed it then is that not proof enough for the witness?

Equivocation on the word "demonstrated." No one is doing any demonstrating to the person who observed it. "Demonstrated to," for you merely means "perceived." "Demonstrated," in my original formulation, means "lays out a coherent, systematic, logical case."

 

[ufology]

I am surprised that with your declared long-standing interest in the phenomena of UFO sightings that you have not brought more to the table in the way of interesting sightings and extra detail gleaned from all those books you link on your website.

Sideroxylon,

Like I keep saying, I didn't come here to present a case in support of UFOs. I just end up in the conversation as a matter of course. Why I came here was to network with skeptics who have investigated or like to investigate cases in order to dig up serious flaws in reports or credibility issues with those who make higher profile claims that are linked to ufology in some way ( like the alien autopsy video, the Raelians, contactees etc. ). Unfortunately the method here is more often to wait for someone to enter the discussion and then pounce on them or incite some argument. Perhaps I should ask if there are in the skeptics view, any sighting reports they consider to be better than others? In the absence of tangible verifiable testable evidence, is there anything that is worth considering?

 

[ufology]

Equivocation on the word "demonstrated." No one is doing any demonstrating to the person who observed it. "Demonstrated to," for you merely means "perceived." "Demonstrated," in my original formulation, means "lays out a coherent, systematic, logical case."

Paul,

How is performing a aerial maneuver not the same as demonstrating flight and performance capability?

 

[Daylightstar]

... to network with skeptics who have investigated or like to investigate cases in order to dig up serious flaws in reports or credibility issues ...

Exactly that's what happened with what can be referred to as your very own case.

...with those who make higher profile claims ...

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}Oh wait, you mean, except your case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sideroxylon,

Like I keep saying, I didn't come here to present a case in support of UFOs.

Except for your attempts at redefining UFO to mean something it isn't and your various other fallacious arguments.

I just end up in the conversation as a matter of course. Why I came here was to network with skeptics who have investigated or like to investigate cases in order to dig up serious flaws in reports or credibility issues with those who make higher profile claims that are linked to ufology in some way ( like the alien autopsy video, the Raelians, contactees etc. ).

Great! Let's discuss the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. That one has been pretty high profile lately and has some obvious flaws and credibility issues.

Unfortunately the method here is more often to wait for someone to enter the discussion and then pounce on them or incite some argument.

No, the method is to wait for someone to falsify the J Randall Murphy Null Hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Unfortunately, all we get are credulous arguments from ignorance on the part of the people who think Unidentified means Identified as Alien.

Perhaps I should ask if there are in the skeptics view, any sighting reports they consider to be better than others? In the absence of tangible verifiable testable evidence, is there anything that is worth considering?

Do you know of any that have falsified the J Randall Murphy Null Hypothesis?

 

[Paul2]

Paul,

How is performing a aerial maneuver not the same as demonstrating flight and performance capability?

Performing an aerial maneuver already assumes things that the demonstration, in the context that I mentioned it above, would demonstrate. it assumes:

• what is perceived is a single object
• the maneuver is accurately perceived and described
• the object is under control of an intelligence

etc.

Those things have to be demonstrated by themselves before we can say that what we perceive demonstrates flight and performance capabilities.

Perception, especially by a single person, is more like raw data (with the possible exception of some obvious, noncontroversial, limit cases) without a conclusion, and must then be verified and interpreted in order to demonstrate some conclusion.

Perhaps the better way to say it is, "What I saw sure looked exactly like flight and performance capabilities." That allows the next step, which is some kind of verification.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sideroxylon,

Like I keep saying, I didn't come here to present a case in support of UFOs. I just end up in the conversation as a matter of course. Why I came here was to network with skeptics who have investigated or like to investigate cases in order to dig up serious flaws in reports or credibility issues with those who make higher profile claims that are linked to ufology in some way ( like the alien autopsy video, the Raelians, contactees etc. ).

Ahhh, right. You want us to do your job?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon,

Like I keep saying, I didn't come here to present a case in support of UFOs. I just end up in the conversation as a matter of course. Why I came here was to network with skeptics who have investigated or like to investigate cases in order to dig up serious flaws in reports or credibility issues with those who make higher profile claims that are linked to ufology in some way ( like the alien autopsy video, the Raelians, contactees etc. ). Unfortunately the method here is more often to wait for someone to enter the discussion and then pounce on them or incite some argument. Perhaps I should ask if there are in the skeptics view, any sighting reports they consider to be better than others? In the absence of tangible verifiable testable evidence, is there anything that is worth considering?

Wouldn't the best way to do the networking and investigations be you offering up some interesting cases that you have examined? Being the main man heading an international UFO society, I imagine you must have detailed knowledge on many cases. Surely this is where your enthusiasm lies? I enjoy the reports. I had an old paperback edited by Allen Hynek full of project blue book stories that I read cover to cover many times. Also, my uncle was one of the Wellington air traffic controllers on duty the night of the Kaikoura lights sightings.

There are a few people here who could definitely contribute more along the lines you are asking. What did you think of that poster astrophtographer(?) and his very detailed website? You perhaps need to make a bridging effort here though.

Rather than blaming us for the crashing of heads that has been going on, why don't you stop with the approach that flying saucers are a given. Why we can't accept that as the case has been explained to death. You should understand us by now. If you dropped that approach I reckon, your networking and investigations could go a lot more smoothly.

 

[ufology]

ufology, take the example of any WWII action account - personal action account. I have lots of books on my shelf within which first hand accounts are related. For example: Tank Rider: Into the Reich with the Red Army. If this book was all we had, would we take it for granted that the account(s) given were necessarily true? I don't think so.

What we actually do is add up all the other accounts as well - official government documents that confirm that "X" battle took place at "Y" location (government documents are awesome in regards to official history because their intent is to record facts and figures for purely practical reasons); other personal accounts of the same incident preferably from the opposing side; battlefield artifacts confirming events etc etc.

A claim or recount is absolutely nothing on its own. You must admit to this.

Tank Rider: Into the Reich with the Red Army is an amazingly personal and vivid story but if that's all there was no-one would give it the time of day.

Krikkiter,

Thanks for the useful commentary. You make an excellent point and you do it with clarity and reason. I will try to respond in the same vein. First of all, one of the best documented UFO cases goes back to the 1952 Washington DC sightings. It's pretty well documented by both public ( news ) and the Air Force. There are also a number of other sightings that have come from official government records around the world. There are also good quality reports that come from professional civilian pilots. Then there are the reports from police and other civilians all the way down to the chance observer. So there are a lot of witnesses at every level of society. Given this fact, it isn't reasonable to dismiss all UFO reports as mundane when the descriptions provided by many witnesses are anything but mundane. But like you point out, that doesn't mean every individual case is absolutely true and perfectly accurate, only that it is reasonable to believe that somewhere within the vast body of reports, there are true and accurate enough accounts from which to deduce that the probability that we are dealing with extraordinary objects is so high as to be a virtual certainty. In fact, as mentioned previously, a statistical study was done by the USAF that reached this same conclusion. But how do we apply the general to the specific? This is the crux of the problem.


The only way to provide absolute proof for individual cases is to secure material testable evidence. Such evidence is not within the grasp of the public at large. So for those who can only form a judgement as to what is reasonable to believe based on that kind of evidence alone, the phenomenon simply doesn't exist. Such reasoning is perfectly valid within the narrow scope of human experience that it applies to. However there is a wider reality that encompasses human perception and memory.

Now I anticipate all the usual flames from the peanut gallery here, but none of what I'm saying here necessarily applies to me personally. What we're talking about are general and self-evident principles that makeup our everyday experience. When you read a story about a certain tank battle, you are reading a record of the everyday experiences of people who were in tank battles. In UFO books, particularly those written by investigators, you are reading about the everyday experiences of UFO investigators. In your books about tank battles a lot of information is probably relayed second or third-party through an author and references rather than directly from the participant. The same holds true for most works in ufology.

So to conclude, while it is reasonable to presume that some level of error is possible, if not likely, especially when it comes to multiple recollections, the workings of human perception, memory and intelligence are such that most of the time we are reasonably accurate when it comes to simple observation and recall. Corroboration and cross referencing can help refine that information further and that is a perfectly legitimate way of reconstructing an event. In the end we may have enough information to believe that an even happened in which the primary factors are a virtual certainty, even if the finer details are less certain and there remains no tangible testable evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

First of all, one of the best documented UFO cases goes back to the 1952 Washington DC sightings. It's pretty well documented by both public ( news ) and the Air Force.

And nowhere in any of the Air Force documentation is the word "aliens" mentioned. In fact from memory, neither are the terms "flying saucer" or "space ship"

There are also a number of other sightings that have come from official government records around the world. There are also good quality reports that come from professional civilian pilots. Then there are the reports from police and other civilians all the way down to the chance observer. So there are a lot of witnesses at every level of society. Given this fact, it isn't reasonable to dismiss all UFO reports as mundane when the descriptions provided by many witnesses are anything but mundane.

Many unverified reports don't make your argument any better.
In fact they make it worse. All those sightings and not one piece of actual evidence. All those thousands of different alien space ships (they must have more designs, sizes and shapes of craft than humans have) landing, crashing and zooming off in front of thousands of cameras, space telescopes and the ISS.

But like you point out, that doesn't mean every individual case is absolutely true and perfectly accurate, only that it is reasonable to believe that somewhere within the vast body of reports, there are true and accurate enough accounts from which to deduce that the probability that we are dealing with extraordinary objects is so high as to be a virtual certainty.

Nope.
The minute amount of unresolved cases has to be balanced against those which all turned out to be mundane. That a small percentage hasn't been resolved only mean that they haven't been resolved, it doesn't mean you can label them "aliens"

In fact, as mentioned previously, a statistical study was done by the USAF that reached this same conclusion. But how do we apply the general to the specific? This is the crux of the problem.

No it didn't reach the same conclusion at all, stop lying.
The conclusion stated clearly in Special Report 14 is that it was:
"highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge"

The only way to provide absolute proof for individual cases is to secure material testable evidence. Such evidence is not within the grasp of the public at large. So for those who can only form a judgement as to what is reasonable to believe based on that kind of evidence alone, the phenomenon simply doesn't exist. Such reasoning is perfectly valid within the narrow scope of human experience that it applies to. However there is a wider reality that encompasses human perception and memory.

Twaddle.
We can't prove it's real so we'll redefine what 'reality' is.

 

[RoboTimbo]

bla ... bla ... bla ...

<snipped same fallacious arguments that the above poster refuses to learn from>

No, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. One would think with so many thousands of anecdotes that there would be some verifiable evidence that would falsify the J Randall Murphy Null Hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

That there is no such evidence out of the thousands of reports doesn't suggest anything to you, uf? Do you still subscribe to the same fallacies that you always have? Will you ever learn anything about critical thinking?

 

[23_Tauri]

First of all, one of the best documented UFO cases goes back to the 1952 Washington DC sightings. It's pretty well documented by both public ( news ) and the Air Force. There are also a number of other sightings that have come from official government records around the world. There are also good quality reports that come from professional civilian pilots. Then there are the reports from police and other civilians all the way down to the chance observer. So there are a lot of witnesses at every level of society. Given this fact, it isn't reasonable to dismiss all UFO reports as mundane when the descriptions provided by many witnesses are anything but mundane. But like you point out, that doesn't mean every individual case is absolutely true and perfectly accurate, only that it is reasonable to believe that somewhere within the vast body of reports, there are true and accurate enough accounts from which to deduce that the probability that we are dealing with extraordinary objects is so high as to be a virtual certainty.

This is such rubbish, ufolo, that I have to attempt to make you see why it is such utter rubbish, by use of an analogy.

We only have to go as far as wikipedia to discover that between 1480 to 1750 an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 people (mainly women) were executed for being witches. Now, that doesn't mean that every individual case was a witch, there might have been a few unlucky souls who were found guilty of witchcraft by mistake, but it's reasonable to believe that somewhere within that vast body of reports of witches, there are true and accurate enough accounts from which to deduce that the probability that our forefathers were dealing with real sorceresses was so high as to be a virtual certainty.

Now do you see why the plural of anecdote is not evidence?

 

[Stray Cat]

This is such rubbish, ufolo, that I have to attempt to make you see why it is such utter rubbish, by use of an analogy.

We only have to go as far as wikipedia to discover that between 1480 to 1750 an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 people (mainly women) were executed for being witches. Now, that doesn't mean that every individual case was a witch, there might have been a few unlucky souls who were found guilty of witchcraft by mistake, but it's reasonable to believe that somewhere within that vast body of reports of witches, there are true and accurate enough accounts from which to deduce that the probability that our forefathers were dealing with real sorceresses was so high as to be a virtual certainty.

Now do you see why the plural of anecdote is not evidence?

And a lot of those witch sightings included seeing the accused flying through the air on a broom stick and having two way conversations with animals... Mmmmm....

 

[23_Tauri]

And a lot of those witch sightings included seeing the accused flying through the air on a broom stick and having two way conversations with animals... Mmmmm....

Said the cat to the sheep.....

 

[Robrob]

And if it were demonstrated to the person who observed it then is that not proof enough for the witness?

Anecdotal evidence in direct contradiction to the entire scientific community?

Not so much.

 

[PetiteMalleolus]

PetiteMalleolus,

So what's your point? Virtually everything we say or type is "how we remember it". The only exceptions would be when we're reciting something from a script or transcribing or cutting or copying and pasting. Or are you saying that you use the phrase in a manner that suggests you're never really sure of anything ... as in "it's just how you remember it"? If so that's fine, but let me ask you, isn't there anything you're sure of? Or is everything you remember all just a fuzzy mush of uncertainty?

Ufology -- I thought that Paul (post #15302) and StrayCat (#15326) explained things very well in their replies to the post that you wrote to me, so I'll just try to add a personal thought here. I don't expect anyone to blindly accept the accuracy of this story, particularly given the (now-suppressed) extensive artistic liberties/humor-attempts (all having fallen miserably flat...) in some of my past posts, but it shouldn't matter, because there certainly are people who can do what I'll describe here. (And anyways, in case anyone really cares, there's no fiction here save for that the friend's name is changed).

My friend "K.D." has me do this thing where I give her a random 300-digit number to memorize and repeat-or-write back to me. We set a time limit at 30 minutes, because any longer than that makes it too easy for her. However long she takes to memorize it (be it 18 minutes, 16, 14, whatever), she'll repeat back to me the number forwards or backwards, although on occasion 2 digits may get reversed (she'll know that it's, say, "28"or "82", but won't be certain which one it is), and if I give her 5 more minutes ( = tons of time to double-check/triple-check everything), it's highly unlikely that she'll even have the 2-digit-reversal-thing happen -- I feel comfortable stating these things because I've tested her many times. She can also retain very long lists of numbers for long periods of time. Well, despite having what, I'd think, many would consider to be some outstanding memory skills, she'll never say, "I'm certain that I'm right". The number-memorizing things are, obviously, easy to design tests for to verify her accuracy, and, indeed, she may at times feel, say, "I'm 83% sure that I'm right, but, let's try to find out for sure", and after verification, "Yeah, I guess I was right" -- but when she's addressing past personal memories/events/experiences (there being, of course, no apparent ways to verify them), she always allows that she could be mistaken. She might say, regarding a certain memory, "I'm 87% sure that I'm right, but I can't be sure", and, regarding a different memory she might say, "I'm only 31% sure that I'm right", but she's well aware that in both cases her memories may be wrong, or even that the "31%" one might be right and the "87%" one may be wrong.

How certain am I that K.D.'s abilities are as described? I have no "certainty-number"; I've found that I've been easily able to consistently replicate the memorization tests, in the presence of others or not, and I'd guess that I'll be able to do it again (obviously this assumes that brain damage, death, etc... do not occur in anyone involved before/during the next test...) -- Again, though, these are verifiable situations. Of course, even in verifiable situations, all of my friends have seen the sharpest people that we know be certain of a memory and then discover they're mistaken. Even in this forum, many of the same skeptics who've been accused of being, perhaps, "above" others, exhibit the contrary in unhesitantly stating that they can't be certain that particular memories are accurate.

We have here a person who consistently demonstrates, under controlled conditions, high levels of memory ability, and yet she still recognizes the fallibility of human memory. I'm presently left with that indeed her view appears to be the enlightened one (but please, anyone, feel free to convince me otherwise -- I don't feel that I have any personal stake in it one way or the other).

 

[PetiteMalleolus]

Ah, hell... That "83% - 87%" section didn't read exactly the way it should, but hopefully close enough... I'd best get this editing stuff down soon, ay?...

I suppose, to make it simple, just, at:

"--but when she's addressing past personal memories/events/experiences...",

take out the "--but" and start new sentence with "When".


Hopefully it didn't affect anyone anyways...

 

[Sideroxylon]

Mr Ufology, someone reporting seeing something in the sky that is too big, moving too fast, radically accelerating or otherwise not fitting the form or behavior of non mundane objects is not grounds for invoking flying saucers. What I perceive is not necessarily reality. For example, If I think the object is further away than it really is then most judgements go out the window.

You have no justification for cashing in reports of unidentified flying objects (UFO) for the reality of a the exciting idea that earth is being visited by aliens and that they have seemingly taken a special interest in you.

 

[ufology]

Mr Ufology, someone reporting seeing something in the sky that is too big, moving too fast, radically accelerating or otherwise not fitting the form or behavior of non mundane objects is not grounds for invoking flying saucers. What I perceive is not necessarily reality. For example, If I think the object is further away than it really is then most judgements go out the window.

Sideroxylon,

Sure, except there are plenty of UFO reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

You have no justification for cashing in reports of unidentified flying objects (UFO) for the reality of a the exciting idea that earth is being visited by aliens and that they have seemingly taken a special interest in you.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will. Lastly, I never claimed that aliens have taken any special interest in me, so I don't know where you got that from. I'm not even sure I'd want them to take a special interest in me. Not all encounters go well for the witness ... that is if the Cash Landrum case has any merit.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sideroxylon,

Sure, except there are plenty of UFO reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

Uf,

I gather that the main thrust of this little rant is a claim that because there's no evidence that alien flying saucers don't exist then that counts as evidence that they do exist.

I'll bet you can't/won't see how ridiculous this line of 'reasoning' is, but all those people rolling in the aisles certainly can.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft.

Gesserit?

I've seen one myself and so have many other people.

You don't know that any more than you know that many people have seen bigfeets and the Loch Ness monster.

Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will.

Maybe, but such speculation has even kless to do with evvidence than your silly anecdotes do.

astly, I never claimed that aliens have taken any special interest in me, so I don't know where you got that from.

Your ever more fanciful descriptions of the flying demonstration that they put on for you and you alone in the wilds of Canadiastan when they could just as easily have been doing the Klaatu Barada Nikto thing on the White House lawn is a good place to start.

I'm not even sure I'd want them to take a special interest in me. Not all encounters go well for the witness ... that is if the Cash Landrum case has any merit.

Well it doesn't, so you're safe. (From aliens at least. You may still have MIB and talking rabbits after you)