UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

riiight, so because of a lack of determining evidence they could not be identified, so you have decided that they can be identified as something that has no evidence for its existence, and that doesn't seem like a completely dumbass thing to claim to you ?


btw, fireflies are not manmade objects or phenomena, are they ?

Determining that something seems to be alien is not a positive identification. It is however more accurate with respect to the study because the information relating to them precludes them from becoming known ( as human inventions ) even if more information were available. This is indicated in the study by the number of reports with insufficient information. Reports with insufficient information were accounted for separately from UFOs and IFOs.

 

[ufology]

You mean this one?

And there's a fine example of artful mockery from 2011 ... In fact this might be called one of the "Best of 2011". Perhaps the skeptics should have an award for the best example of artful mockery used in their "critical thinking" each year! How about showing off some more for old times sake?

 

[Marduk]

Determining that something seems to be alien is not a positive identification. It is however more accurate with respect to the study because the information relating to them precludes them from becoming known ( as human inventions ) even if more information were available. This is indicated in the study by the number of reports with insufficient information. Reports with insufficient information were accounted for separately from UFOs and IFOs.

riiiight, so youre now saying that you can identify sightings with insufficient information

is it just you that can perform this feat or can anyone with half a mind do it ?

 

[AdMan]

Determining that something seems to be alien is not a positive identification.

So why do you keep referring to UFOs as "UFOs ( alien craft )"?

You don't know what it is. As per your post, it remains unidentified. It does not suddenly become "alien".

 

[ehcks]

So why do you keep referring to UFOs as "UFOs ( alien craft )"?

You don't know what it is. It remains unidentified. It does not suddenly become "alien".

Nor does it become a craft. You can't stretch the definition for "unidentified" to ever mean "craft."

 

[GeeMack]

Determining that something seems to be alien is not a positive identification. It is however more accurate with respect to the study because the information relating to them precludes them from becoming known ( as human inventions ) even if more information were available.

No, it absolutely does not. Unidentified only means the thing is not currently identified as being some particular thing. Your attempt to dishonestly redefine terms to support the fantasy that "UFOs = aliens" is noted.

This is indicated in the study by the number of reports with insufficient information. Reports with insufficient information were accounted for separately from UFOs and IFOs.

Insufficient information available does not in any way mean it is impossible to identify the thing as something in particular, something common or mundane, if more information was available. It is a dishonest redefinition of terms to suggest it does. Notice how you never ever get away with that? Notice how everyone here recognizes the dishonesty in that mode of argument? Notice how it always fails, every single time? Given the 100% failure rate in using that strategy so far, do you have any reason to think it will ever work?

 

[Stray Cat]

Not to interrupt everybody's fun here but I have finished and posted the latest issue of SUNlite.
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_1.pdf
The reason I post it here because it addresses one of the premier cases in UFOlogy, the RB-47 case (a favorite of the OP, who has left the building). Enjoy reading the issue.

Thanks for that. Another well thought out and informative edition.

When I first read Brad Sparks article, the bit that jumped out at me was his insistence that this was "scientific proof of UFOs"

errrrr.... yeah cool Brad, but like we already know that sometimes people see stuff they can't identify... Why would we need you to provide scientific proof of it.

 

[Stray Cat]

So again you willfully ignore Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, a massive statistical study the Battelle Memorial Institute did for the USAF of 3,200 UFO cases between 1952 and 1954. Of these, 22% remained and were classified as unidentified ( “true UFOs” ). Another 69% were deemed identified (IFOs). There was insufficient information to make a determination in the remaining 9%.

And you willfully ignore the conclusion as written by the researchers involved in compiling Special Report No.14.

I'll remind you for the umpteenth time:

"highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge."

 

[Stray Cat]

Determining that something seems to be alien is not a positive identification.

Indeed and agreed.
It's a "pull it out your ass guess based upon a blind belief in aliens"

It is however more accurate with respect to the study because the information relating to them precludes them from becoming known ( as human inventions ) even if more information were available.

This is indicated in the study by the number of reports with insufficient information. Reports with insufficient information were accounted for separately from UFOs and IFOs.

Yes, that was a very silly thing for them to do. A silly thing that has been capitalized on by UFOlogists ever since.
It is afterall impossible to have enough information to be able to positively not identify something.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So let me get this straight. The accounts for which there was not enough data were classified seperately from the ufos?

So they couldn't be identified as unidentified?


The study is invalid due to confirmation bias then. Any report that did not support the fantasy was deemed not to have enough data.

It would appear that in bluebook and other studies "insufficeint data" was a reason to be classed unidentified. Common sense suggests mundane identification is most likely but impossible because of lack of data.


At no point does unidentified mean alien, or craft. At no point has there been evidence to indicate that alien vessels are a possibility.

 

[ufology]

Not to interrupt everybody's fun here but I have finished and posted the latest issue of SUNlite.
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_1.pdf
The reason I post it here because it addresses one of the premier cases in UFOlogy, the RB-47 case (a favorite of the OP, who has left the building). Enjoy reading the issue.

Astro,

I'd like to compliment you on your efforts with this issue of SUNlite. These are always some of the best examples of constructive skepticism. There are a couple of issues that I ran across while I was reviewing the latest issue on the RB-47 case:

On page 19 there is a description of an object that was observed:

"The visual sighting was approaching from head-on, 11 O’clock, not left to right, for a long enough time, apparently at our altitude, for me to discuss it with the crew, and warn them I might have to take evasive action. Its course changed nearly 90 degrees, flashed in front of us so quickly, that I had not time for evasive action…."
Then it goes on to say:

"His comment about alerting the crew may be an inaccurate recall as McClure stated he knew nothing until #3 opera-tor told him they were chasing flying saucers. The event may have only lasted a few seconds. If that is true, the UFOs behavior would have been consistent with a meteor."


The issue:

• How is an object that does a 90 degree direction change "consistent with a meteor?"

On page 35 there is also this comment:


"Contrary to what Sparks stated, the 4. UFO sighted never appeared to make any exotic maneuvers. There were statements it paced the aircraft but this is not stated in any of the reports from 1957. There are no indications the visually observed UFO flew loops, stopped on a dime, or zigzagged about. It was just a light that was seen, and when the RB-47 got near the UFO, it disappeared."

• The issue again: An "almost instantaneous right angle turn" seems pretty "exotic"

I don't have any other comments on the internal consistency of the SUNlite evaluation. But according to some other tellings of the story, the object also did a sudden stop causing the RB-47 to overshoot it. A sudden stop would also be a pretty exotic maneuver.

I certainly haven't investigated or studied this case as thoroughly as this issue of SUNlite. However if the 90 degree turn and the sudden stop are accurate, then we are dealing with something truly out of the ordinary.

The main weakness in the RB-47 story for me is that it relies heavily on irrellevant corroborative radar evidence, so if we eliminate the radar contacts we aren't left with anything but the visual maneuvers.

To clarify as to why I would eliminate the radar contacts. They don't appear to provide any information that indicates the object was something alien. For example, no radical increases in speed to velocities beyond our capabilities of the time. The so-called "winking out" also doesn't mean anything. That could be accomplished by simply turning all the running and marker lights off. Even the simultaneous dissappearance from all the radar systems could be a result of some kind of radar jamming technology. In fact the entire "training excercise" may have involved another aircraft with secret radar jamming equipment ... perhaps an early version of the AWAX.

So in the end we're just left to contend with the "almost instantaneous" right angle turn and the sudden stop apparently witnessed by the RB-47 pilot. Hypothetically this could be an illusion caused by more than one aircraft intentionally trying to confuse the RB-47 crew on its "training mission". Or perhaps it was a highly maneuverable aircraft that under the right conditions seemed to make an "almost right angle turn".

Certainly the case is very interesting from the perspective that something unusual was going on. But was it so incredible that it represents undeniable proof as some ufologists seem to contend? I have to agree with Astro that such a characterization would be an overstatement.

 

[Stray Cat]

So let me get this straight. The accounts for which there was not enough data were classified seperately from the ufos?

So they couldn't be identified as unidentified?

It certainly appears that way using the logic as often presented.

However, I think the main problem was that the reports before even being examined were sorted unto groups. One of those groups was "not enough information to research". That group was not undertaken with any further study, but then the ones who'd passed the initial 'sorting process' were also found to have had not enough information to identify... The silliest part was the group which would eventually become "enough information to be able to not identify"

Which by anyone's standards, the amount of information required to be able to not identify something would be somewhere around the zero mark.

 

[Stray Cat]

The issue:

• How is an object that does a 90 degree direction change "consistent with a meteor?"

On page 35 there is also this comment:


"Contrary to what Sparks stated, the 4. UFO sighted never appeared to make any exotic maneuvers. There were statements it paced the aircraft but this is not stated in any of the reports from 1957. There are no indications the visually observed UFO flew loops, stopped on a dime, or zigzagged about. It was just a light that was seen, and when the RB-47 got near the UFO, it disappeared."

• The issue again: An "almost instantaneous right angle turn" seems pretty "exotic"

There is no issue here.
The object's apparent "maneuver" can be explained by misperception from his viewing angle.
An object that appears to be approaching you from the 11 o'clock position will eventually cross your line of vision from left to right if it is further away than you perceived it to be. Depending upon the actual distances and speeds involved, this can look like a sudden change in direction.

 

[ufology]

So let me get this straight. The accounts for which there was not enough data were classified seperately from the ufos?

So they couldn't be identified as unidentified?

The study is invalid due to confirmation bias then. Any report that did not support the fantasy was deemed not to have enough data.

It would appear that in bluebook and other studies "insufficeint data" was a reason to be classed unidentified. Common sense suggests mundane identification is most likely but impossible because of lack of data.

At no point does unidentified mean alien, or craft. At no point has there been evidence to indicate that alien vessels are a possibility.

You are misinterpreting the study. For starters there was no confirmation bias. The reports were submitted by the USAF to the Batelle Memorial Institute for independent analysis.

Secondly, what was meant by "insufficient data" is that reports with insufficient data were ones that gave the analysts too little data to form any reasonably accurate conclusion either way, while "unknown" or "unidentified" meant that there was enough information ( e.g. size, speed, appearance, maneuverability and reliability of witnesses ) that a match with some known type of craft or phenomena should have been possible, yet such a match was not possible because no such object existed within our technical ability or knowledge base at the time.

 

[ufology]

There is no issue here.
The object's apparent "maneuver" can be explained by misperception from his viewing angle.
An object that appears to be approaching you from the 11 o'clock position will eventually cross your line of vision from left to right if it is further away than you perceived it to be. Depending upon the actual distances and speeds involved, this can look like a sudden change in direction.

Maybe ... but an experienced pilot would know this could happen [ what you describe ] and would not report that the object had made such a maneuver ... however the maneuver could stll have been an intentional illusion as I stated in the part you left out.

 

[Stray Cat]

You are misinterpreting the study. For starters there was no confirmation bias. The reports were submitted by the USAF to the Batelle Memorial Institute for independent analysis.

Secondly, what was meant by "insufficient data" is that reports with insufficient data were ones that gave the analysts too little data to form any reasonably accurate conclusion either way, while "unknown" or "unidentified" meant that there was enough information ( e.g. size, speed, appearance, maneuverability and reliability of witnesses ) that a match with some known type of craft or phenomena should have been possible, yet such a match was not possible because no such object existed within our technical ability or knowledge base at the time.

And yet the people who did the analysis still concluded 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."

 

[Stray Cat]

Maybe ... but an experienced pilot would know this and would not report that the object had made such a maneuver unless it had made a maneuver that looked more like an actual maneuver than a misperception.

Pilots are just as perceptually fallible as the rest of us.
It has been shown that this particular pilot was indeed fallible in both his memory and perception.
And BTW; it is highly unlikely that anyone with a misperception would even recognise it as such... that is the nature of perception.

 

[ufology]

And yet the people who did the analysis still concluded 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."

Yes sure ... ironic isn't it. That means we knew how to build flying disks that could do Mach 1 and perform instantaneous radical high speed changes in direction and velocity. Of course those reports were simply dismissed or ignored or destroyed. Everyone knows that the conclusions of the Condon Committee and the Robertson Panel were heavily skewed and based on flawed logic, willful ignorance and inexperience with respect to UFO investigations.

 

[Stray Cat]

Everyone knows that the conclusions of the Condon Committee and the Robertson Panel were heavily skewed and based on flawed logic, willful ignorance and inexperience with respect to UFO investigations.

Then stop using their data to make your points?

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes sure ... ironic isn't it. That means we knew how to build flying disks that could do Mach 1 and perform instantaneous radical high speed changes in direction and velocity.

No it doesn't. It means that the authors don't share your belief in aliens in flying saucers from outer space and realise that the reports they studied show no evidence of such things.