UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

You can't use something that, as far as evidence shows, doesn't exist as an explanation for anything.

Apparently you can as long as you consider it a "reasonable" explanation.

I for one think it is perfectly reasonable to believe the only possible explanation is this: A Gamma Level Psychic was using his powers in Washington that day, and the crowds became aware of his astral projections. I know loads of other people who claim psychic powers are real, therefore we can assume they must be even with out proof!

And you can't tell me otherwise, as I will just demand you offer an explanation that satisfies me more!

 

[Resume]

What other reasonable explanations are there?

The least reasonable explanation would be the one of a claim for which there is no corroborating evidence. As in none ever.

That would be the least reasonable one.

 

[Stray Cat]

You are missing the point. Jumping from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without stopping anywhere in between is the same thing as not bothering to study, investigate or consider other possibilities prior to making the call that an alien craft was responsible.

So by that logic all unsolved crimes could have been committed by aliens?
"Well sarge, we've ruled out all our usual suspects"

You have not provided any examples where any ufologist has simply jumped to an alien coclusion without first studying the case and considering mundane explanations ... this is the "stopping in between" that we are talking about.

A sometimes token and usually non existent "stopping in between" which constitutes lining up a row of strawmen and systematically knocking them down isn't really helping in regard to reaching the conclusion of "aliens dun it"
As has been pointed out to you countless times; It is impossible to rule everything out leaving 'aliens' as the coclusion because it would involve being able to rule out things you (and I) can't even think of.

Here is my response as a ufologist to the example you gave:

The Washington UFO flap of 1952 was heavily investigated. Those ufologists who believe that alien craft were involved stopped at several "points between" before arriving at their conclusion. For example were the glowing balls of light that the USAF pilot watched as they encircled his jet simply birds? ... Radar reflections? ... Balloons? ... Airplanes? ... Flares? ... Celestial phenomena? ... Hallucinations? Do any of these explanations fit the descriptions of these objects or phenomena? The answer is no.

How do you know the answer is no? What does an hallucination look like?
The rest of your list is made up of those strawmen I just told you about.

So what were they? Several possibilities have been considered and eliminated.

And many many many many many more haven't even been considered.

Could they have been alien craft? Yes.

They could also have been unicorns or witches riding broomsticks, I didn't see you rule out those two options yet.

Do we have proof? No.

But somehow that doesn't stop you UFOlogists from concluding "it woz aliens"... which was kind of my point in the first place. Most sensible folk would conclude they had seen something odd that they couldn't identify, only UFOlogists spin it into a yarn about alien in flying saucers.

Does that mean they weren't alien craft? No.

Do you know an argument from ignorance is yet?

What other reasonable explanations are there?
Perhaps you can tell us?

Well aliens in flying saucers is not a reasonable explanation for starters.
If we already had evidence of aliens in flying saucers it would be more reasonable, but to posit something that there is no evidence of the existence of as a solution to a mystery is the exact opposite of reasonable.

As for what my reasonable explanation would be; well "I don't know" is OK with me, but if pressed "A series of unrelated events and circumstances with mundane causes being conflated as a single UFO event" would wrap it up until someone actually provided evidence for anything else.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps you can tell us?

Does it falsify the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

If it doesn't falsify the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis, can you list all of the mundane explanations which have been considered?

 

[Astrophotographer]

The Washington UFO flap of 1952 was heavily investigated. Those ufologists who believe that alien craft were involved stopped at several "points between" before arriving at their conclusion. For example were the glowing balls of light that the USAF pilot watched as they encircled his jet simply birds? ... Radar reflections? ... Balloons? ... Airplanes? ... Flares? ... Celestial phenomena? ... Hallucinations? Do any of these explanations fit the descriptions of these objects or phenomena? The answer is no. So what were they? Several possibilities have been considered and eliminated. Could they have been alien craft? Yes. Do we have proof? No. Does that mean they weren't alien craft? No. What other reasonable explanations are there?

However, it was only UFOlogists who claim that they could not have been misinterpretations and radar AP (anomalous propagation) echoes. Scientists from the CAA, Condon, and the Robertson panel (which included an expert on radar - Dr. Luis Alverez, who was in on the ground floor in radar development during the war) all agreed that this was the most likely cause of the incidents. It is only the science of UFOlogy that pretends those explanations don't fit. Can you present an opinion/analysis by a non-UFO proponent (scientist or otherwise) who states that the analysis done by those three groups was wrong and the cause of the Washington DC incident had more to do with some exotic craft/objects than just anomalous conditions?

 

[Garrison]

You are missing the point. Jumping from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without stopping anywhere in between is the same thing as not bothering to study, investigate or consider other possibilities prior to making the call that an alien craft was responsible.

You mean exactly what you've done with your frequently revised 40 year old recollection?

 

[Garrison]

The Washington UFO flap of 1952 was heavily investigated. Those ufologists who believe that alien craft were involved stopped at several "points between" before arriving at their conclusion. For example were the glowing balls of light that the USAF pilot watched as they encircled his jet simply birds? ... Radar reflections? ... Balloons? ... Airplanes? ... Flares? ... Celestial phenomena? ... Hallucinations? Do any of these explanations fit the descriptions of these objects or phenomena? The answer is no. So what were they? Several possibilities have been considered and eliminated. Could they have been alien craft? Yes. Do we have proof? No. Does that mean they weren't alien craft? No. What other reasonable explanations are there?

Perhaps you can tell us?

That someone decided there was more money in writing a book that said it was aliens than one that said it was a radar glitch combined with misidentification and faulty recollections?

 

[GeeMack]

You are missing the point. Jumping from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without stopping anywhere in between is the same thing as not bothering to study, investigate or consider other possibilities prior to making the call that an alien craft was responsible. You have not provided any examples where any ufologist has simply jumped to an alien coclusion without first studying the case and considering mundane explanations ... this is the "stopping in between" that we are talking about.

Making the call that an alien craft was responsible without any objective evidence that alien craft even exist is a faith based conclusion. It's nonsense, equal to a religious belief, and as has been demonstrated hundreds of times in this thread alone, it's often supported by sheer dishonesty. "Ufology" is pseudoscience. It can only be referred to as "studying" in the loosest sense, much like if one sees an attractive woman walking by, gives her a passing glance, and claims to have studied her. But then "ufologists" do have a demonstrated propensity to dishonestly redefine terms when it suits their agenda. That agenda, as is well evidenced here in this thread, is to support a preconceived notion that some UFOs are alien craft.

Here is my response as a ufologist to the example you gave:

The Washington UFO flap of 1952 was heavily investigated. Those ufologists who believe that alien craft were involved stopped at several "points between" before arriving at their conclusion. For example were the glowing balls of light that the USAF pilot watched as they encircled his jet simply birds? ... Radar reflections? ... Balloons? ... Airplanes? ... Flares? ... Celestial phenomena? ... Hallucinations? Do any of these explanations fit the descriptions of these objects or phenomena? The answer is no. So what were they? Several possibilities have been considered and eliminated. Could they have been alien craft? Yes. Do we have proof? No. Does that mean they weren't alien craft? No. What other reasonable explanations are there?

And without being able to reach any reasonable explanations, the "ufologist" tends to leap to an unreasonable conclusion that all mundane explanations have been eliminated and therefore it can be considered an alien craft. See? There you have it. Leaping to conclusions. Dishonest? Certainly. Not to mention wholly unscientific.

 

[ufology]

I suspect what UFOlogy is describing are CLAIMED UFO sightings over Washington, and one of the "points between" they forgot to stop at was material evidence of there having been an object for people to have seen.

Or "Validation of the claim", if you will.

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between. Ufologists make a habit of ( or at least are supposed to make a habit of ) studying cases and looking for explanations that match known objects or phenomena before moving on to the posibility of alien craft. Suggesting that they don't is a misrepresentation of how most UFO investigations and studies are actually carried out.

The exceptions are instances where we might have some UFO personality trying to exploit an opportunity for media attention by telling the producers what they want to hear for the sake of building up the story. I've also seen cases where interviews with more serious ufologists have been cut and spliced in a manner that suggests preconceived evaluations, but in reality aren't anything of the sort.

To further illustrate, let's consider the definition of a UFO from CUFOS, the ufology group started by astronomer J. Allen Hynek:

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an objector light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Not only is there no declaration above that a UFO is a craft from another planet, it indicates that a significant effort should be made to look for a "conventional explanation" ... so again the idea that ufologists simply make offhanded judgements without considering "points between" is not an accurate perception.

 

[GeeMack]

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between. Ufologists make a habit of ( or at least are supposed to make a habit of ) studying cases and looking for explanations that match known objects or phenomena before moving on to the posibility of alien craft. Suggesting that they don't is a misrepresentation of how most UFO investigations and studies are actually carried out.

"Ufologists" don't investigate or study, not by any reasonable definition of the terms when considering objectively investigating or objectively studying. They start with the preconceived notion that aliens exist and pursue an agenda of proving it to themselves. We haven't even seen any evidence that the "ufologists" who cross the threshold of the JREF forums even understand what objectivity means.

The exceptions are instances where we might have some UFO personality trying to exploit an opportunity for media attention and essentially telling the producers what they want to hear for the sake of building up the story. I've also seen cases where interviews with more serious ufologists have been cut and spliced in a manner that suggests preconceived evaluations, but in reality aren't anything of the sort.

We've also seen the concerted effort involved in claiming to engage in "ufology" while in actuality attempting to perpetrate the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax. The ever changing tale, making it up as it goes along, the lies, the backpedaling, the attempts to redefine perfectly simple terms to magic the aliens-exist fantasy into legitimacy.

To further illustrate, let's consider the definition of a UFO from CUFOS, the ufology group started by astronomer J. Allen Hynek:

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an objector light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Not only is there no declaration above that a UFO is a craft from another planet, it indicates that a significant effort should be made to look for a "conventional explanation" ... so again the idea that ufologists simply make offhanded judgements without considering "points between" is not an accurate perception.

And even if no conventional explanation is readily available, jumping to the conclusion of aliens is irrational. It is exactly equal to jumping to the conclusion that gods are behind it. It is the antithesis of skepticism and critical thinking. It is religious faith and/or self deception on the part of the pseudoscientists who call themselves "ufologists".

 

[Resume]

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between. Ufologists make a habit of ( or at least are supposed to make a habit of ) studying cases and looking for explanations that match known objects or phenomena before moving on to the posibility of alien craft.

To ever "move on" to the possibility of alien craft is unsupportable due to lack of any objective evidence.


ETA As GeeMack iterated above.

 

[Stray Cat]

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between.

No, that's just what you think you are doing.

What you can not escape from is the fact that anyone who reaches a conclusion of "aliens in flying saucers did it" is jumping to a conclusion.

 

[23_Tauri]

Other??? Reasonable???

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954c4152e2ee75d.gif[/qimg]

Are you implying I'm unreasonable??!!

 

[23_Tauri]

However, it was only UFOlogists who claim that they could not have been misinterpretations and radar AP (anomalous propagation) echoes. Scientists from the CAA, Condon, and the Robertson panel (which included an expert on radar - Dr. Luis Alverez, who was in on the ground floor in radar development during the war) all agreed that this was the most likely cause of the incidents. It is only the science of UFOlogy that pretends those explanations don't fit. Can you present an opinion/analysis by a non-UFO proponent (scientist or otherwise) who states that the analysis done by those three groups was wrong and the cause of the Washington DC incident had more to do with some exotic craft/objects than just anomalous conditions?

To further illustrate, let's consider the definition of a UFO from CUFOS, the ufology group started by astronomer J. Allen Hynek:

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an objector light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

On the basis of the above we can conclude that what was seen over Washington was NOT a UFO, as defined by Hynek. Right, ufology?

 

[tsig]

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between. Ufologists make a habit of ( or at least are supposed to make a habit of ) studying cases and looking for explanations that match known objects or phenomena before moving on to the posibility of alien craft. Suggesting that they don't is a misrepresentation of how most UFO investigations and studies are actually carried out.

The exceptions are instances where we might have some UFO personality trying to exploit an opportunity for media attention by telling the producers what they want to hear for the sake of building up the story. I've also seen cases where interviews with more serious ufologists have been cut and spliced in a manner that suggests preconceived evaluations, but in reality aren't anything of the sort.

To further illustrate, let's consider the definition of a UFO from CUFOS, the ufology group started by astronomer J. Allen Hynek:

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an objector light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Not only is there no declaration above that a UFO is a craft from another planet, it indicates that a significant effort should be made to look for a "conventional explanation" ... so again the idea that ufologists simply make offhanded judgements without considering "points between" is not an accurate perception.

Well there's this poster on JREF that had a sighting and immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was alien.

 

[ufology]

No, that's just what you think you are doing.

What you can not escape from is the fact that anyone who reaches a conclusion of "aliens in flying saucers did it" is jumping to a conclusion.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about flying saucers or baked bread, if prior investigation and study has taken place and is used as a rationale for a position, no "jumping to conclusions without stopping anyplace in between" has taken place.

Perhaps I should also ask, do you also think UFO investigations that conclude that witnesses probably saw known objects or phenomena also count as examples of "jumping to conclusions"? Or are the only examples of "jumping to conclusions" the ones [conclusions] you disagree with?

 

[Resume]

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about flying saucers or baked bread, if prior investigation and study has taken place and is used as a rationale for a position, no "jumping to conclusions without stopping anyplace in between" has taken place.

Perhaps I should also ask, do you also think UFO investigations that conclude that witnesses probably saw known objects or phenomena also examples of "jumping to conclusions"? Or are the only examples of "jumping to conclusions" the ones [conclusions] you disagree with?

Are you aware of, or can you provide any objective evidence for claims that assert WTFAliens? Because if you aren't, if you can't, you are holding an empty sack.

 

[ufology]

Are you aware of, or can you provide any objective evidence for claims that assert WTFAliens? Because if you aren't, if you can't, you are holding an empty sack.

What does your comment have to do with the issue of ufologists "jumping to conclusions"?

To address your comment anyway: Your presumption that without proof UFOs are alien craft "the sack is empty" is an argument from ignorance ( look it up on Wikipedia ).

As for "objective evidence", what exactly do you mean? There are a number of ways to look at that issue:

• existing independently of the mind? ( like radar contacts )
• free of bias? ( like reports from people who had no preconceived opinion prior to seeing a UFO )
• existing independently of the mind? ( how do we prove anything really exists independently of the mind - do tell )
• observable? ( as in tens of thousands of people have seen them )

 

[AdMan]

Your presumption that without proof UFOs are alien craft "the sack is empty" is an argument from ignorance ( look it up on Wikipedia ).

Nope. You are wrong. Without proof, and therefore without disproving your null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin, your sack is truly empty, if what you want to show is that UFOs = aliens. You don't understand what argument from ignorance means. Read that Wikipedia article again.

 

[Akhenaten]

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between.

No you're not.

About all you're doing is demonstrating that at least one ufologist sees the process of investigation as going through a number of almost ritual steps in order to create an appearance of objectivity on the way to the inevitable conclusion of "OMG . . . aliens!"

Ufologists make a habit ritual of ( or at least are supposed to make a habit show of ) studying cases and looking for automatically rejecting explanations that match known objects or phenomena before moving on to the posibility of alien craft leaping to the conclusion of "OMG . . . aliens!".

FTFY

Suggesting that they don't is a misrepresentation of how most UFO investigations and studies are actually carried out.

You seem to have missed this post:

Can you provide any specific examples where a ufologist has assumed prior to reading and studying a report that it represents an alien craft?

Yep.

"What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that."

j.r.

I bring it up again because it seems that the entire investigation and study of this event has been simply to conclude that "There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that."

Misrepresentation?

Your "points between" consist entirely of an argument from incredulity.

The exceptions are instances where we might have some UFO personality trying to exploit an opportunity for media attention by telling the producers what they want to hear for the sake of building up the story. I've also seen cases where interviews with more serious ufologists have been cut and spliced in a manner that suggests preconceived evaluations, but in reality aren't anything of the sort.

Curse those No True Ufologists™. They're spoiling it for everyone.

To further illustrate, let's consider the definition of a UFO from CUFOS, the ufology group started by astronomer J. Allen Hynek:

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an objector light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."

Not only is there no declaration above that a UFO is a craft from another planet, it indicates that a significant effort should be made to look for a "conventional explanation" ...

It seems that by sticking to that definition, neither J. Allen Hynek nor anyone else would have anywhere near the problems here that you've experienced.

Go figure.

so again the idea that ufologists simply make offhanded judgements without considering "points between" is not an accurate perception.

The fact that some ufologists (ie. you) see the investigation of UFOs as nothing more than negotiating a series of points between "WTF was that?" and the inevitable conclusion of "OMG . . . aliens!" is not just an accurate perception - it's the only reasonable assessment that could be reached by observing the evidence of your own approach to the subject provided in this very thread.