Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Burden of proof, again.

Squeegee Beckenheim,

We cannot claim something is a hoax based on absence of evidence. The best we can do is reserve judgement. Therefore if anyone is going to claim a hoax then the burden of proof is on them to prove it's a hoax, and for that we need evidence. In this case, although the object itself can probably be explained by terrestrial technology, what evidence is there of a hoax? These are two different questions. The person who claimed the object came from an alien ship has only minimal education. Perhaps he really believes his story. So my question for the skeptics here was if any anyone had any evidence in support of a hoax or could perhaps consider looking into it. And the rest is history.

 

[carlitos]

The only one saying "hoax" is the false dichotomy-impaired ufologist. There are a million other explanations, including the usual one. A bunch of different people saw different, unrelated stuff, and it got combined into being a "flying saucer."

 

[Pixel42]

We cannot claim something is a hoax based on absence of evidence.

Who has claimed this case is a hoax?

 

[Krikkiter]

Squeegee Beckenheim,

We cannot claim something is a hoax based on absence of evidence. The best we can do is reserve judgement. Therefore if anyone is going to claim a hoax then the burden of proof is on them to prove it's a hoax, and for that we need evidence. In this case, although the object itself can probably be explained by terrestrial technology, what evidence is there of a hoax? These are two different questions. The person who claimed the object came from an alien ship has only minimal education. Perhaps he really believes his story. So my question for the skeptics here was if any anyone had any evidence in support of a hoax or could perhaps consider looking into it. And the rest is history.

As I understand it, no-one is claiming hoax apart from you.

ETA: I really have to keep up with things.

 

[23_Tauri]

Mr Oofy, in response to your reply to Stray Cat above, I do wonder how helpful it is to cherry pick bits out of the statements in this way. I only ask because I could carry out a similar exercise to support the lenticular cloud theory: e.g.

"Wimmer, Ware and myself viewed this thing for at least five minutes, discussing what we thought it might be. Wimmer's first impression was that it was a small cloud. After studying it for several minutes though, I deduced that it was not a cloud because it had too definite sharp edges and its appearance stayed constant. It looked to me like I was flying right directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane.

....

Although the object appeared to be absolutely stationary, we did not seem to be closing the gap between us and this object, even though we were flying at 225 miles per hour"

(extract from Thoren's statement - previously linked to by Astrophotographer)

This could describe a lenticular cloud: sharp edges, didn't move as they travelled towards it (being very large and much further away than they had calculated). If Thoren had never seen a lenticular cloud before then yes he would deduce that it was not a cloud, because they don't like other clouds!

Take a look here, especially at the second (and third) photos down:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Cloud_Images_Lenticular_01.html

This is why it's helpful to do some calculations, rather than rely on witnesses descriptions of things.

Oofy, can you explain, taking Stray Cat's map as a reference, how your wing aircraft could disappear into the distance without showing any lateral movement, when viewed from both the ranch and the Lockheed airplane? You don't appear to have addressed this point yet.

 

[wollery]

Although the object in question can be explained by human activity, there is still no evidence of an outright hoax. So it's not merely the object that is of interest here, but how the story came into being and if an intentional hoax can be proven.

Who cares if it's an intentional hoax the result of a delusional fantasy? The point is that it has already been established that there's no supporting evidence and the metal can be found very easily on Earth.

You're asking us to debunk something that's already been debunked, even though that debunking was all but unnecessary.

Why?

 

[GeeMack]

Not to mention any observation allegedly made by Kelly Johnson on the ground is nonsense. He couldn't have seen any detail in a 200 foot wide thing from a distance of over 25 miles. It is not humanly possible. Accepting that he could see any such thing at all is giving him the extreme benefit of the doubt. This is another case of ufology fabricating a scenario in his mind then dishonestly assembling the information in a way that makes it fit his imagination. A lot like that silly giant talking rabbit story he tells or the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax he's been trying to perpetrate here for months.

GeeMack you doze, the flying wing description came from the airborne observers. You haven't even looked into the case yourself have you?

Again you demonstrate your powers of observation are substantially sub-par. I didn't say anything at all there about a flying wing. My comment was regarding what was supposedly observed from the ground by Kelly Johnson, but couldn't have been given the alleged distance and size, and the human ability to see with or without 8X binoculars. And again your attempt to get away with a typical "ufologist" blatantly dishonest argument didn't go unnoticed.

You haven't told us yet how you know the thing observed wasn't an alien craft. What are the flight characteristics of an alien craft, and how do you know they don't match exactly those of a flying wing or a dissipating lenticular cloud?

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, I've asked you this question before, many times now, but you've never answered me:

Have you ever traveled in a commercial airliner during the daytime, and looked out the window with an unobstructed view of the sky and ground while in flight?

 

[ufology]

Ufology, I've asked you this question before, many times now, but you've never answered me:

Have you ever traveled in a commercial airliner during the daytime, and looked out the window with an unobstructed view of the sky and ground while in flight?

Yes.

 

[ufology]

Who has claimed this case is a hoax?

Pixel,

I think you are missing the point. Given the content of the eSkeptic article, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bob White artifact object probably isn't a genuine alien artifact, and that implies that there may be some deception related to the story behind it, which is precisely why I asked anyone here if they knew of any evidence that the story was a hoax. But clearly some people here would sooner give me a hard time than look any further into the story.

 

[carlitos]

Why does it have to be a hoax? That is a false dilemma. That idiot with the "star child" skull genuinely believes it is alien. Maybe Bob White is confused, delusional or has just spent too much time listening to ufologists.

And damn it, you quoted another question and failed to answer it in your reply. Please stop that. There are only two ways to answer a question that begins with "WHO," and that is to say a name or "no one."

 

[Garrison]

Stray,



You mean they didn't say anything like these quotes from the report ... which I admit are "mental constructs" because I have the mental capacity to read ... something you seemed to have forgotten to do.

1. "After studying it for several minutes, I deduced that it was not a cloud because it had too definite sharp edges and its appearance stayed constant. It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane." ( Airborne observers )
2. "It had a definite shape which to me appeared to be like a crescent. Others on board describe it as a huge flying wing."( Airborne observers )

Let's look at these other descriptions:

• My first thought is that it was a large airplane, possibly a C-124, but after looking more closely, it seemed to be a large object without wings with a maximum thickness in the middle tapering toward either side." ( Airborne observers )
  
  Examining the above statement we again can see how although he says "no wings", he does use the word airplane and describes it as, "maximum thickness in the middle tapering toward either side" , exactly like what you would expect when viewing a YB-49 from head on or from directly behind. This is further strengthed by this statement:
  
  
• "The object appered as a thin black line, giving a first impression of a B-36 type airplane heading straight towrd us and sillhoutted against a bright background." ( Airborne observers )
  
  
  A YB-49 would look exactly like the above but without the bulky feuselage if viewed from the side.

Now let's look at how the aircraft "disappearerd" ... to quote:

• "In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared in a long shallow climb on the heading noted." ( Ground observer )
• "Flew directly toward it for about five minutes and from our relative position did not appear to change." ( Airborne observers )
• "After about five minutes I suddenly realized it was moving away from us heading straight west." ( Airborne observers )

From the above description we can clearly see that the airborne observers had noticed the flying wing, made a turn to pursue it and ended up behind it as it sped away ... matching the ground oserver's story. The relative angles can be reconciled by a combination of margin of error, timing, and maneuvering. The Airborne observers say that, "While flying off the coast in the vicinty of Santa Monica." which is around 45Km south of Point Morgu, that they made a turn to pursue the object but after 5 minutes they had not gained on it even though they were going 225 MPH, which would put them about 30Km, closer to Point Morgu, and if the object was heading west, they would also have been making a constant slow west turn toward it until they were both heading west.

So distances of hundreds of miles aren't necessary to explain this incident. Again, given that the airborne observer says, "It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane." and the YB-49 fits this description, and the distances when plotted on the map are about the right ( around 40 -50 Km ), and that other large aircraft were thought to be what the object was, the most logical explanation remains a YB-49.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

Straycat did some actual work to see if the eyewitness reports hang together, and it appears they don't match up. Again if you want to actually to try and match that rather than just shoehorn the witnesses statements to fit the explanation you've chosen that would be good.

 

[ufology]

Oofy, can you explain, taking Stray Cat's map as a reference, how your wing aircraft could disappear into the distance without showing any lateral movement, when viewed from both the ranch and the Lockheed airplane? You don't appear to have addressed this point yet.

Tauri,

The explanation I gave answers that question. The ground observer watched as the object in his UFO report moved off almost directly away from him "in a long shallow climb" while at about the same time the airborne observers pursuing what looked like a flying wing had ended up directly behind it. As objects recede into the distance they get smaller and smaller and smaller until they disappear.

 

[Garrison]

Pixel,

I think you are missing the point. Given the content of the eSkeptic article, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bob White artifact object probably isn't a genuine alien artifact, and that implies that there may be some deception related to the story behind it, which is precisely why I asked anyone here if they knew of any evidence that the story was a hoax. But clearly some people here would sooner give me a hard time than look any further into the story.

And you still don't understand the concept of burden of proof. It lies with those who claim the artefact is alien to provide evidence to support that contention. The rest of us have no need to 'look further'.

 

[carlitos]

Unless they are aliens and have the "shrink" button on the dashboard of their flying craft. Makes as much sense as the anti gravity cloaking device ufology invented.

 

[Garrison]

Tauri,

The explanation I gave answers that question. The ground observer watched as the object in his UFO report moved off almost directly away from him "in a long shallow climb" while at about the same time the airborne observers pursuing what looked like a flying wing had ended up directly behind it. As objects recede into the distance they get smaller and smaller and smaller until they disappear.

Yes but based on those same statements Straycat showed the object would be too distant to make out any details, the eyewitness statements are thus not internally consistent.

 

[John Albert]

I think you are missing the point. Given the content of the eSkeptic article, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bob White artifact object probably isn't a genuine alien artifact, and that implies that there may be some deception related to the story behind it, which is precisely why I asked anyone here if they knew of any evidence that the story was a hoax. But clearly some people here would sooner give me a hard time than look any further into the story.

You are missing the point.

Nobody alleged it was a hoax, because making allegations like that is entirely unnecessary.

You see, it's not up to us, the questioning skeptics, to prove the thing is not alien in origin. It's up to the guy making the claim to provide evidence supporting his claim that his piece of metal is a "genuine alien artifact." In the absence of that evidence, there's no reason at all to take him at his word that the claim is true.

You know why?

Because his own word alone does not constitute evidence.

His claim is just a claim, nothing more. Claims do not represent evidence to support themselves. That claim would need to be supported with objective, verifiable evidence for us to even take it seriously in the first place.

Therefore, the skeptics do not need to provide counter-claims refuting it, in order to dismiss it. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's what is meant by the "burden of proof."

Burden of proof is of course one of those fundamentals of critical thinking that we've been trying to teach to you ever since you started posting here, that you've thus far stubbornly refused to accept.

We don't need to prove he's lying; he needs to provide evidence to support his claims. And being that it's an extraordinary claim, the evidence would need to be something extraordinary indeed!

This is the same basic kind of M.O. we commonly see from the bigfooters. If this plays out anything like the way they do it in that community, then at some point he'll start giving interviews claiming he had the thing "analyzed" by "experts" who found the results were "inconclusive." Then of course, with the "mundane possibilities" safely dismissed by some nominal "expert," the entire UFOlogy community can go buck wild with their unsupported assumptions and circle-jerk each other into a frenzy over the "flying saucer artifact."

 

[ufology]

Straycat did some actual work to see if the eyewitness reports hang together, and it appears they don't match up. Again if you want to actually to try and match that rather than just shoehorn the witnesses statements to fit the explanation you've chosen that would be good.

Garrison,

Stray cat already missed the direct quotes of the witnesses who said it looked like a flying wing, failed to take into account how the flight time affected the distance of the airborne observers, resulting in failing to see how the airborne observers had turned and ended up directly behind what looked like a flying wing headed west, fails to acknowledge that the possibility of a cloud was considered, but rejected by all the witnesses ( experienced airmen ), fails to take into account that the Northrop ( makers of the YB-49 ) were nearby, and admits himself there is enough margin of error to allow for significant differences in all the calculations. Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud, the YB-49 is still the better explanation. However go ahead and support your buddy anyway ... add a little confirmation bias to the long list of other biases demonstrated by the pseudoskeptics here.

 

[ehcks]

Tomtomkent,

So if I say "It looks to me like a quote by Tomtomkent above", I'd be wrong because I didn't say, "It is a quote from Tomtomkent above"? Try to put two and two together here. It looked like a flying wing. It acted like a flying wing. Flying wings existed at that time and were about the size as the flying wing in question was estimated to have been. So it probably was a flying wing ... maybe not a YB-49 ... but something similar.

Something important I hope wasn't missed:

You have evidence that the text above your own was a quote from Tomtomkent. That being a button that sends you to his post, which is the same as what you quoted. I can believe you when you say "It looks to me like a quote by Tomtomkent above" because you have evidence that it really was a quote by Tomtomkent.

What you don't have is evidence for anything from that previous post he was talking about.

 

[ufology]

Something important I hope wasn't missed:

You have evidence that the text above your own was a quote from Tomtomkent. That being a button that sends you to his post, which is the same as what you quoted. I can believe you when you say "It looks to me like a quote by Tomtomkent above" because you have evidence that it really was a quote by Tomtomkent.

What you don't have is evidence for anything from that previous post he was talking about.

ehcks,

You're being obtuse. By your standards the visual ouput of my monitor doesn't provide evidence of anything. Emails can be spoofed, IDs can be spoofed, users can participate with other people's permission, the scanned reports from the sighting are also on my screen and they could be fabricated too. The question is how reasonable to believe what we see? Corroborative witness accounts describe a witness seeing what looked like a flying wing ... and since large flying wings existed back then and were made at a nearby plant, how unreasonable is it to think that a flying wing is what was seen? I submit that it's just as reasonable as believeing Tomtom was actually the person who made the post in question.