UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

How predictable, if you can't deny, dismmiss or move the goalposts, you switch the subject matter and substitute something else that suits your argument. Please address the case in question, not the Campeche case.

Ufo, this approach of yours is dead wrong. It's not switching subject matter to bring in knowledge gained in one circumstance to help our conclusions in another scenario. Happens in real science all the time.

If the same conditions that lead to you a certain conclusion can be shown to have led to an incorrect conclusion in another case, then you must be warned against coming to a similar incorrect conclusion based on those similar conditions.

If you stop and think about it, knowledge gained in one area *has* to fit with conclusions in another area; if it doesn't one of the two has to be wrong, and that's something we always need to know, if that's the case.

 

[John Albert]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity. They cause us to reach out and look for explanations and in doing so discover all kinds of interesting things about airplanes and space and history and science.

The problem is, you seem to have gotten the majority of that information totally wrong.

That's the problem with getting your information from a bunch of UFO bull****ters instead of people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Resume]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity. They cause us to reach out and look for explanations

Like hallucination, hypnagogia, hypnopompia, hoaxing . . . and fireflies.

 

[Garrison]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity. They cause us to reach out and look for explanations and in doing so discover all kinds of interesting things about airplanes and space and history and science.

Nice theory the evidence from the specific example of you and your story Ufology is that it encourages flights of fancy coupled with a resistance to explanations based on scientific reality. You only embrace the 'interesting things' that you think you can twist to back your preordained conclusion that UFO = alien craft.

Even if you don't believe in UFOs at all, they still inspire us to look beyond our present constraints and imagine what it's like to live in a universe with other life ... and that can nurture creativity and motivate us to get involved in projects like SETI or astrobiology

Alas no, ufologists like yourself simply encourage a willingness to embrace all manner of supernatural ideas and ignore science and reason when it gets in the way of your fantasy.

or write books or make films or learn to build websites or even just participate in forum discussions ... yes indeed ufology is cool and it's open to believers and skeptics alike

Anyone who has read your other contributions will realise how hollow this claim is; your only use for skeptics is to help polish up your own UFO tale and boost the income from your website.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity. They cause us to reach out and look for explanations

Sadly another thing they do is prevent you from providing any verification of them. Preferring instead to fire your own imagination.

I've not seen one iota of you reaching out and looking for explanations though... Mind you, why would an apparently unverifiable story need an explanation?

 

[ufology]

Ufo, this approach of yours is dead wrong. It's not switching subject matter to bring in knowledge gained in one circumstance to help our conclusions in another scenario. Happens in real science all the time.

If the same conditions that lead to you a certain conclusion can be shown to have led to an incorrect conclusion in another case, then you must be warned against coming to a similar incorrect conclusion based on those similar conditions.

If you stop and think about it, knowledge gained in one area *has* to fit with conclusions in another area; if it doesn't one of the two has to be wrong, and that's something we always need to know, if that's the case.

Paul,

Before you make the assertions that I am "dead wrong" please take the time to consider the relevant information:

F-94 ≠ Merlin C26/A
RADAR ≠ FLIR
Live RADAR/Visual intercept ≠ after the fact video analysis.
Campeche ≠ Washington D.C.

Campeche involves a non-equivalent technology and different events in different locations. There was no radar/visual intercept or even a radar/visual intercept attempt. Even if the aircraft with the FLIR had made a serious effort to pursue the objects seen in the video, there would have been a different outcome because they may have been able to visually identifiy the real sources. Plus an F-94 is a jet interceptor. Even today it could easily outperform a Merlin C26/A in both speed and maneuverability.

On the topic of your belief that knowledge gained in one circumstance can help our conclusions in another scenario. Sure it can. But let's be careful how we apply that knowledge by making sure that we are dealing with equivalent circumstances. It's not sufficient to say that because the object in one UFO report turned out to be a balloon that all objects in all other UFO reports are balloons simply because all the objects were seen in the sky. But perhaps they could be balloons, so let's examine the cases closer. Can we rule out balloons in some cases? Yes. Why? Balloons don't outrun jets. Maybe birds? No ... same reason. Maybe a planet? Perhaps ... let's look at that possibility. Are there any cases of planets being mistaken for a closer object? Yes. Howso? Venus. Was Venus visible and in the position the object was seen at the that time? Yes. Was there any radar contact? No. OK perhaps it was a misidentification of Venus.

There is nothing unreasonable or "dead wrong" with the above example of my approach. I suspect that we are actually thinking along the same lines but from slightly different angles.

 

[23_Tauri]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity. They cause us to reach out and look for explanations and in doing so discover all kinds of interesting things about airplanes and space and history and science. Even if you don't believe in UFOs at all,

I do believe in UFOs. No, let me re-phrase that. I don't have to believe in UFOs because people see them all the time. I know UFOs, that is Unidentied Flying Objects, are a fact. What I don't believe, because I'm not in your church, is that UFOs = Omgaliens!

they still inspire us to look beyond our present constraints and imagine what it's like to live in a universe with other life ... and that can nurture creativity and motivate us to get involved in projects like SETI or astrobiology or write books or make films or learn to build websites or even just participate in forum discussions ... yes indeed ufology is cool and it's open to believers and skeptics alike

But you know what, I can be inspired to think these things without having to make the unfounded leap of faith to believing that alien spaceships are visiting Earth. Over the past three nights here in the UK there's been a live programme on the television, Stargazing Live, hosted by Prof Brian Cox and a host of other eminent scientists from the fields of astronomy, physics etc. It has inspired millions of people across the country to get interested in astronomy, including thinking about the possibility of life in other parts of the universe. But what the programme didn't do is indulge ufologist's pseudoscientific fantasies about alien spaceships whizzing around our skies. These learned people have based discussion about life in other parts of the universe on science, not science fiction.

Funny how real scientists can do that, isn't it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

Before you make the assertions that I am "dead wrong" please take the time to consider the relevant information:

F-94 ≠ Merlin C26/A
RADAR ≠ FLIR
Live RADAR/Visual intercept ≠ after the fact video analysis.
Campeche ≠ Washington D.C.

Campeche involves a non-equivalent technology and different events. There was no radar/visual intercept or even a radar/visual intercept attempt.

The UFOs ( witches ) used radar evading cloaking devices. At least, they would have if we hadn't found out it was oil well fires. Isn't that how it works, uf?

Even if the aircraft with the FLIR had made a serious effort to pursue the objects seen in the video, there would have been a different outcome because they may have been able to visually identifiy the real sources. Plus an F-94 is a jet interceptor. Even today it could easily outperform a Merlin C26/A in both speed and maneuverability.

They weren't an intercept or attack aircraft so of course they weren't going to attempt an intercept. What a foolish thought. Besides, the UFOs ( witches ) were surrounding and following them. At least until we found out it was oil well fires.

On the topic of your belief that knowledge gained in one circumstance can help our conclusions in another scenario. Sure it can. But let's be careful how we apply that knowledge by making sure that we are dealing with equivalent circumstances. It's not sufficient to say that because the object in one UFO report turned out to be a balloon that all objects in all other UFO reports are balloons simply because all the objects were seen in the sky.

Have any turned out to be Alien Space Ships?

But perhaps they could be balloons, so let's examine the cases closer. Can we rule out balloons in some cases? Yes. Why? Balloons don't outrun jets.

Actually, yes they do. If it's a high altitude balloon and the pilot has mistaken how far and how large the object is. Ask Charles Mantell.

Maybe birds? No ... same reason. Maybe a planet? Perhaps ... let's look at that possibility. Are there any cases of planets being mistaken for a closer object? Yes. Howso? Venus. Was Venus visible and in the position the object was seen at the that time? Yes. Was there any radar contact? No. OK perhaps it was a misidentification of Venus.

You're making the same deliberate mistake Rramjet always did. He eliminated the Rramjet Seven and called it a day, settling on the only remaining possibility - witches, er, I mean hoax, um, misperception, no, misidentification, uh, hallucination, wait, I have it - Alien Space Ships. Right, that's the only remaining possibility.

There is nothing unreasonable or "dead wrong" with the above example of my approach. I suspect that we are actually thinking along the same lines but from slightly different angles.

Yes, for all the reasons I and everyone else have given you. And no, you aren't thinking along the same lines at all.

How did you eliminate UFOs ( witches ) as a mundane explanation for any sightings? We know that witches exist.

 

[ufology]

But you know what, I can be inspired to think these things without having to make the unfounded leap of faith to believing that alien spaceships are visiting Earth. Over the past three nights here in the UK there's been a live programme on the television, Stargazing Live, hosted by Prof Brian Cox and a host of other eminent scientists from the fields of astronomy, physics etc. It has inspired millions of people across the country to get interested in astronomy, including thinking about the possibility of life in other parts of the universe. But what the programme didn't do is indulge ufologist's pseudoscientific fantasies about alien spaceships whizzing around our skies.

Maybe you missed the part where I said ufology is open to both skeptics and believers alike. Nobody has to join the Raelians or some UFO church or believe UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors. And I'm sure that the show you were watching was also watched by people interested in UFOs. I watch a lot of science shows myself. Love the stuff. Perhaps your need to demonize ufology has blinded you to the added layer of interest it can bring or how it can inspire people who are otherwise uninterested in science to take a more serious look at it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe you missed the part where I said ufology is open to both skeptics and believers alike. Nobody has to join the Raelians or some UFO church or believe UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors.

Yes, you do join the religion of UFOlogy when you start fantasizing about UFOs ( witches ) being Alien Space Ships. Look at your prosletizing here.

And I'm sure that the show you were watching was also watched by people interested in UFOs. I watch a lot of science shows myself. Love the stuff. Perhaps your need to demonize ufology has blinded you to the added layer of interest it can bring or how it can inspire people who are otherwise uninterested in science to take a more serious look at it.

Perhaps your need to believe that the pseudoscience of UFOlogy is a real science has blinded you to the lack of evidence for Omgaliens and Alien Space Ships.

We don't need to believe in UFOs ( witches ). They are a proven fact.

 

[Stray Cat]

There was no radar/visual intercept or even a radar/visual intercept attempt.

There was no confirmed radar/visual intercept in Washington. Only some stories that have been distorted so it looks like that's what happened. The original transcripts of the various conversations and intelligence reports don't show a single radar/visual confirmation.
But there was radar/visual intercept attempt at Campeche.
You really need to read Dr Bruce Maccabees analysis of the various radar returns, which along with the visual (and FLIR) confirmation provided by the highly trained military jet pilot, lead to the misidentification of some oil wells as Metallic craft performing maneuvers, outrunning a jet and surrounding it whilst dodging in and out of the clouds (not bad for fixed ground based structures).

 

[GeeMack]

There is nothing unreasonable or "dead wrong" with the above example of my approach. I suspect that we are actually thinking along the same lines but from slightly different angles.

Nope. Your approach is dead wrong and wholly unreasonable. It's not like you haven't showed your hand in this thread. You start with the preconceived notion that some UFOs are alien craft. Then you apply all kinds of logical fallacies, distortions of reality, and worst of all, sheer, raw dishonesty in a desperate quest to maintain that faith in aliens. And all that in spite of a complete and total lack of objective evidence.

The correct, reasonable approach would be to set about the task of falsifying the null hypothesis, your, null hypothesis, the one you created when you made your claim.

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

And if you can't falsify that, your null hypothesis, the correct, reasonable thing to do is take a deep breath, muster up all the courage you can find to face reality, and admit that your belief in aliens is just that, faith. Like a religion. Even lots of religious people have the honesty to acknowledge that faith is all they've got.

But no, there's nothing correct or reasonable in continuing the way you have been with this farce.

 

[ufology]

There was no confirmed radar/visual intercept in Washington. Only some stories that have been distorted so it looks like that's what happened. The original transcripts of the various conversations and intelligence reports don't show a single radar/visual confirmation.
But there was radar/visual intercept attempt at Campeche.
You really need to read Dr Bruce Maccabees analysis of the various radar returns, which along with the visual (and FLIR) confirmation provided by the highly trained military jet pilot, lead to the misidentification of some oil wells as Metallic craft performing maneuvers, outrunning a jet and surrounding it whilst dodging in and out of the clouds (not bad for fixed ground based structures).

You don't have any of the transcripts do you? And you've never even looked at any of the intelligence reports either. Like the July 29, 1952 memorandum from Gilbert R. Levy, Chief Counter Intelligence Division / Director of Special Investigations who wrote:

"One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects and at first appeared to be gaining on it, but the object and the F-94 were observed on the radar scope and appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed. However, when it attempted to overtake the object, the object disappeared both from the pursuant aircraft and the radar scope. The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the incredible speed of the object."

Go look it up in the NARA archives.

And BTW I've never maintained the oil flares in the Campeche incident were UFOs. Perhaps you would be kind enough to send me a link to the report of the military jet intercept during the Campeche incident in which it has been confirmed that there was a radar/visual intercept of oil well flares. Sound pretty unlikely to me so let's see how it happened.

 

[GeeMack]

Perhaps your need to demonize ufology has blinded you to the added layer of interest it can bring or how it can inspire people who are otherwise uninterested in science to take a more serious look at it.

Have I mentioned the feigned persecution bit is old? Oh, yes, I have. Quite possibly in response to some of your very first postings here. You remember, where you accused the skeptics of persecuting the faithful "ufologists" and dishonestly blamed them for your failure? Still not working, is it?

 

[23_Tauri]

Maybe you missed the part where I said ufology is open to both skeptics and believers alike.

Nope, didn't miss it. I appreciate that you want as many people as possible to come and join your Church of the Alien Space Ships, but it requires faith, and skeptics don't tend to accept that things as fact based on faith. So although I thank you for your kind offer, I won't be coming to church today.

Nobody has to join the Raelians or some UFO church or believe UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors.

Can you name a ufologist who has never come to the conclusion that a particular UFO sighting is likely to be the result of an alien craft?

And I'm sure that the show you were watching was also watched by people interested in UFOs.

Please will you stop doing that! Conflating UFOs with ASSes. It's not big and it's not clever!

I watch a lot of science shows myself. Love the stuff.

Cool. Learn anything about how science works?

Perhaps your need to demonize ufology has blinded you to the added layer of interest it can bring or how it can inspire people who are otherwise uninterested in science to take a more serious look at it.

Ufology is pseudoscience. It brings nothing to the table so long as it refuses to acknowledge the null hypothesis "all UFOs are of mundane origin" and then attempts to falsify it with physical evidence.

The evidence (yes, that pesky evidence thing again) indicates that inspiring people to look at real science is the last thing the pseudoscience of ufology is doing. If it is, I'll eat my pointy hat. Live on television.

ps: thank you for responding to my posts. I do appreciate it, as I was itching for a bit of

 

[GeeMack]

You don't have any of the transcripts do you? And you've never even looked at any of the intelligence reports either. Like the July 29, 1952 memorandum from Gilbert R. Levy, Chief Counter Intelligence Division / Director of Special Investigations who wrote:

"One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects and at first appeared to be gaining on it, but the object and the F-94 were observed on the radar scope and appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed. However, when it attempted to overtake the object, the object disappeared both from the pursuant aircraft and the radar scope. The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the incredible speed of the object."

So, yes or no, did that event result in an objective determination that the UFO was an alien craft? Because if it wasn't, then that case is closed since it's irrelevant to your claim.

 

[Krikkiter]

You don't have any of the transcripts do you? And you've never even looked at any of the intelligence reports either. Like the July 29, 1952 memorandum from Gilbert R. Levy, Chief Counter Intelligence Division / Director of Special Investigations who wrote:

"One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects and at first appeared to be gaining on it, but the object and the F-94 were observed on the radar scope and appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed. However, when it attempted to overtake the object, the object disappeared both from the pursuant aircraft and the radar scope. The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the incredible speed of the object.

And it's only a big leap of faith that would make anyone conclude: OMGAliens!

Where in the memorandum does Gilbert R. Levy say that the (as yet) unidentified object was an alien craft rather than an Unidentified Flying Object? In fact, please show in the memorandum where he states that the object was even a UFO.

 

[ufology]

ps: thank you for responding to my posts. I do appreciate it, as I was itching for a bit of

Oh those little icons are funny. Very good. But maybe you'd find a better debate in the homeopathy thread or something like that. We've dragged this one over the same ground so many times it must be getting tiresome if all you are after is some debating time.

 

[23_Tauri]

You don't have any of the transcripts do you? And you've never even looked at any of the intelligence reports either. Like the July 29, 1952 memorandum from Gilbert R. Levy, Chief Counter Intelligence Division / Director of Special Investigations who wrote:

"One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects and at first appeared to be gaining on it, but the object and the F-94 were observed on the radar scope and appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed. However, when it attempted to overtake the object, the object disappeared both from the pursuant aircraft and the radar scope. The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the incredible speed of the object."

Go look it up in the NARA archives.

Sounds extraordinarily similar to the balls-up ufologists made at Campeche. And I'm not even an expert on these things.

And BTW I've never maintained the oil flares in the Campeche incident were UFOs. Perhaps you would be kind enough to send me a link to the report of the military jet intercept during the Campeche incident in which it has been confirmed that there was a radar/visual intercept of oil well flares. Sound pretty unlikely to me so let's see how it happened.

It doesn't matter what you think. The fact is, time and again ufologists have concluded that a combination of events (whether pilot sightings, radar returns, prototype weather balloons falling from the sky, whatever they may be) and put them all together and come up with "Omgaliens!"

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh those little icons are funny. Very good. But maybe you'd find a better debate in the homeopathy thread or something like that. We've dragged this one over the same ground so many times it must be getting tiresome if all you are after is some debating time.

You'll find the duelling smilies in the smilies list here on JREF, I haven't imported it. And what is it with you thinking girls should be discussing homeopathic remedies, not spaceships? Why can't we play with the boys' toys too?

ps: call me tragic, but I don't find this thread tiresome at all.