A Critical Examination of Randi’s Encyclopedia entry on UFOs

[Rramjet]

Randi’s article on UFOs is confused in purpose and misrepresents the nature and presentation of the phenomenon. First, the media did not “misinterpret” businessman/pilot Kenneth Arnold’s 25th June 1947 UFO sighting at all. Arnold variously stated that the objects he saw were “shaped like saucers”, saucer-like”, “shaped like a pie plate”, “like a big flat disk” and so on (quotes from late June 1947 newspaper reports). The media then simply coined the phrase “flying saucer” as a distillation of Arnold’s various descriptions – hardly the “misinterpretation” Randi claims. Arnold did however claim he had been misquoted in relation to the term “flying saucer” or “flying disk”, because he never used the terms himself (reference link disallowed).

Randi’s UFO entry continues “Since that time, endless reports of UFOs have come in…” - as if reports of UFOs began with Arnold’s sighting. This is disingenuous. UFO reports have been made since mankind was able to represent them – some more than 29000 years old (reference link disallowed) but reports certainly have proliferated since the earlier “Foo-fighters” of WWII.

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

Randi goes on “In most cases, sizes and distances have been given … It is an illusion most people have that they can tell the size and/or the distance of an object…” but remember that 61.6% of the “unknown” rated sightings were classified by the USAF as good or excellent. Randi is again spouting opinion from the top of his head with no substantiation in fact. Further, the estimated size or distance from the observer is often completely irrelevant, reported UFO encounters are by definition within the limits of human perception – otherwise they would not be reported at all! Randi is simply throwing in a red herring to discredit by association. A trick often used by those who have no evidence to support their own position.

Next we have Randi stating “The viewing of an unknown object or image in the sky has almost automatically brought in suggestions of extraterrestrial origins.” This is completely disingenuous. In fact very few UFO reports actually ascribe “extraterrestrial origins”. The reports themselves simply describe objects with unusual attributes. “Extraterrestrial” is a post hoc interpretation made for various reasons by various people and often it is people like Randi himself who ascribes such origins, using such ascriptions as a straw-man argument.

Almost to his credit (almost) Randi does then state that in essence UFOs are exactly as their name implies UNIDENTIFIED flying objects – however there is a whiff of the disingenuous even here because often the UFO phenomenon presents as if it does have an extraterrestrial origin, thus lending support to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (nevertheless noting that mere presentation is not proof of extraterrestrial origin).

Next Randi launches into a diatribe about alien abductions with “The current favorite UFO claim…”. Two points need to be made immediately. First, there is no compelling evidence that alien abductions are related to UFOs and second most certainly it is NOT a “favourite claim” made by UFO researchers at all. Randi really has no idea of what he is writing. The two fields are separate research topics (although not mutually exclusive). Randi scurrilously links the two in an effort to denigrate UFO reports and UFO reporters and researchers by association with what has become in the general public’s eye a completely unbelievable claim. Randi reinforces the ridiculous air surrounding alien abductions by a light hearted description of patent falsehoods. However it is an utter falsehood to claim that “abductees” report to the media or “delight to dwell” on certain aspects of the experience. In fact the whole experience most often proves so traumatic to the victim that most do not report the experience at all – even to close friends. It must be stressed here that to most “alien abductees” the experience is SEVERELY traumatic (reference link disallowed). For some it simply ruins their lives, for many it makes their lives very difficult to carry on normally. Like many victims of severe trauma they can become withdrawn and isolated, losing their jobs and relationships. To visit ridicule on these people on top of their trauma constitutes cruel and unusual treatment – in other words torture. Something undeniably traumatic is happening to these people, for which we have no current explanation, and it is other people like Randi who prevent these people gaining the obvious help they need in explaining and coming to terms with their experiences. We need research, not ridicule. For visiting ridicule Randi should be utterly ashamed of himself – but of course contrition or human empathy seems decidedly lacking from his dogma.

Penultimately, and again completely off the topic of UFOs, Randi ridicules two researchers who have put forward the hypothesis that “alien abductions” are in fact exactly that – alien abductions - and the purpose is to produce children. Of course Randi seems not to have the wit to propose his own counter-hypotheses for the phenomenon, choosing instead to believe that the abduction phenomenon might find explanation in an exposition about the Tooth Fairy. Randi’s descent into the ridiculous is becoming farcical.

Finally, in a throw-away concluding line, Randi states “many persons who believe they are abductees also believe they have lived former lives and can recall them.” This is a complete and utter falsehood (reference link disallowed ) and if I believed Randi actually knew better I would call him a LIAR at this point. However, I cannot because it is possible (even probable) Randi is completely ignorant of the facts. Whichever, either a LIAR or IGNORANT of the facts, Randi is evidently someone who we should not take notice of on (at least) the topic of UFOs and the abduction phenomenon.

 

[Rodney]

Excellent review, Rramjet. One troubling thing about Randi is how often he manages to misstate simple facts. For example, his Encyclopedia entry on Edgar Cayce informs the reader of the "more than thirty thousand readings he did that are on file at the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia." And yet, if he had taken the time to go to the A.R.E. website, he would find: "Members of Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.), the nonprofit founded by Cayce in 1931, have access to the entire set of 14,306 readings in a database residing in the member-only section of our Web site." See http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgar_cayce/edgarcayce.aspx?id=206

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Randi’s article on UFOs is confused in purpose and misrepresents the nature and presentation of the phenomenon. First, the media did not “misinterpret” businessman/pilot Kenneth Arnold’s 25th June 1947 UFO sighting at all. Arnold variously stated that the objects he saw were “shaped like saucers”, saucer-like”, “shaped like a pie plate”, “like a big flat disk” and so on (quotes from late June 1947 newspaper reports). The media then simply coined the phrase “flying saucer” as a distillation of Arnold’s various descriptions – hardly the “misinterpretation” Randi claims. Arnold did however claim he had been misquoted in relation to the term “flying saucer” or “flying disk”, because he never used the terms himself (reference link disallowed).

Arnold saw pelicans. This has been known for close to a decade.
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.s...c9b1a?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=easton#7f6677791eac9b1a

Deal with it.

Randi’s UFO entry continues “Since that time, endless reports of UFOs have come in…” - as if reports of UFOs began with Arnold’s sighting. This is disingenuous. UFO reports have been made since mankind was able to represent them – some more than 29000 years old (reference link disallowed) but reports certainly have proliferated since the earlier “Foo-fighters” of WWII.

People see things in the sky. So?

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

And yet. And yet. No one has come up with an incontrovertible case with multiple photos from different directions in daylight.

Randi goes on “In most cases, sizes and distances have been given … It is an illusion most people have that they can tell the size and/or the distance of an object…” but remember that 61.6% of the “unknown” rated sightings were classified by the USAF as good or excellent. Randi is again spouting opinion from the top of his head with no substantiation in fact. Further, the estimated size or distance from the observer is often completely irrelevant, reported UFO encounters are by definition within the limits of human perception – otherwise they would not be reported at all! Randi is simply throwing in a red herring to discredit by association. A trick often used by those who have no evidence to support their own position.

There are hundreds of reports of completely and utterly debunked "UFO" reports where it can be shown that misunderstanding of distance is an important, but not sole, criteria in providing a mundane explanation.

Next we have Randi stating “The viewing of an unknown object or image in the sky has almost automatically brought in suggestions of extraterrestrial origins.” This is completely disingenuous. In fact very few UFO reports actually ascribe “extraterrestrial origins”. The reports themselves simply describe objects with unusual attributes. “Extraterrestrial” is a post hoc interpretation made for various reasons by various people and often it is people like Randi himself who ascribes such origins, using such ascriptions as a straw-man argument.

UFO has become a synonym for "alien space craft". This not Randi's fault.

Almost to his credit (almost) Randi does then state that in essence UFOs are exactly as their name implies UNIDENTIFIED flying objects – however there is a whiff of the disingenuous even here because often the UFO phenomenon presents as if it does have an extraterrestrial origin, thus lending support to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (nevertheless noting that mere presentation is not proof of extraterrestrial origin).

Err. Yes. At least as far as your conclusion goes.

Next Randi launches into a diatribe about alien abductions with “The current favorite UFO claim…”. Two points need to be made immediately. First, there is no compelling evidence that alien abductions are related to UFOs and second most certainly it is NOT a “favourite claim” made by UFO researchers at all. Randi really has no idea of what he is writing. The two fields are separate research topics (although not mutually exclusive). Randi scurrilously links the two in an effort to denigrate UFO reports and UFO reporters and researchers by association with what has become in the general public’s eye a completely unbelievable claim. Randi reinforces the ridiculous air surrounding alien abductions by a light hearted description of patent falsehoods. However it is an utter falsehood to claim that “abductees” report to the media or “delight to dwell” on certain aspects of the experience. In fact the whole experience most often proves so traumatic to the victim that most do not report the experience at all – even to close friends. It must be stressed here that to most “alien abductees” the experience is SEVERELY traumatic (reference link disallowed). For some it simply ruins their lives, for many it makes their lives very difficult to carry on normally. Like many victims of severe trauma they can become withdrawn and isolated, losing their jobs and relationships. To visit ridicule on these people on top of their trauma constitutes cruel and unusual treatment – in other words torture. Something undeniably traumatic is happening to these people, for which we have no current explanation, and it is other people like Randi who prevent these people gaining the obvious help they need in explaining and coming to terms with their experiences. We need research, not ridicule. For visiting ridicule Randi should be utterly ashamed of himself – but of course contrition or human empathy seems decidedly lacking from his dogma.

Randi tends to lump all woo together. It's an occupational hazard.

If the poor people who get brainwashed into believing they were abducted, whet instead to a Regression Therapy Therapist they would all believe they were mistreated as children. They are wrong in both cases. Just even a tiny bit of supporting evidence would be nice.

Penultimately, and again completely off the topic of UFOs, Randi ridicules two researchers who have put forward the hypothesis that “alien abductions” are in fact exactly that – alien abductions - and the purpose is to produce children. Of course Randi seems not to have the wit to propose his own counter-hypotheses for the phenomenon, choosing instead to believe that the abduction phenomenon might find explanation in an exposition about the Tooth Fairy. Randi’s descent into the ridiculous is becoming farcical.

Given we are the product of a few billion years of evolution on this planet, the chances that a human being could be bred with an a non Terran being are close to zero. The Tooth Fairy is at least believed to have been born here.

Finally, in a throw-away concluding line, Randi states “many persons who believe they are abductees also believe they have lived former lives and can recall them.” This is a complete and utter falsehood (reference link disallowed ) and if I believed Randi actually knew better I would call him a LIAR at this point. However, I cannot because it is possible (even probable) Randi is completely ignorant of the facts. Whichever, either a LIAR or IGNORANT of the facts, Randi is evidently someone who we should not take notice of on (at least) the topic of UFOs and the abduction phenomenon.

Sorry all I can say at this point is, "HA. HA".

Oh, and here are some flying pigs for you.

[marque]
[marque]

 

[Ernie M]

Rramjet
Can you please clarify what you mean when you state "(reference link disallowed)." If you are trying to include a link to an external Webpage and aren't able to make an active link because you don't have enough posts, you can always indicate the site by using a format similar to:

www dot randi dot org / site

And, you can ask another JREF Forum member if they might be willing to make an active link like:

http://www.randi.org/site/

Rodney
Just a suggestion, if you notice what may be inaccurate information, such as the number of Edgar Cayce's readings in the Encylcopedia, you could always send an e-mail to James Randi or call the JREF so they can verify this and make appropriate updates.

 

[Rramjet]

Thank you Rodney.

Gord in Toronto…Arnold saw “pelicans”? Hmmm… I must inform you that actually you did not see my post. You really saw some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that I randomly placed on a JREF webpage. You must have interpreted them to mean something they actually do not, no doubt a psychological response to some mindset or other you have. I am sorry you have this problem… but I suppose you must deal with it as best you can though.

“People see things in the sky.”
Yes Gord, that is the whole point - and they tend to record them as accurately as they can - and along with the birds and meteors and other celestial and planetary bodies there are recorded… UFOs… literally UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. That is, we CANNOT identify them using our current state of knowledge. Perhaps if we were allowed to conduct a little research…? But no, how silly of me, we must maintain our heads firmly in the sand lest perhaps we find something that does not fit our conception of reality – something that may contradict our faith perhaps?

“…incontrovertible …photos…”
Hmmm, there are PLENTY of photos – including official USAF RADAR imaging – but I suspect no photos will satisfy you (considering the advent PhotoShop and all…). Moreover, it is a common trick of the dogmatists to require standards of evidence practically impossible to meet and yet not required of the rest of science.

“There are hundreds of reports of completely and utterly debunked…”
Of course there are. There are also hundreds not able to be “debunked”, as you put it, so where does that leave your objection Gord?

“UFO has become a synonym for "alien space craft". This not Randi’s fault.”
I agree, it may not be Randi’s fault, but he is at least a co-conspirator in maintaining the link. Any critical thinker, given the UFO reports as a starting point, would immediately realise the error of this “alien” attribution. Perhaps neither you nor Randi are critical thinkers?

“Randi tends to lump all woo together.”
This is hardly a sound defence of Randi’s methodology. I suspect even Randi himself would shy away from publicly using this as a defence of his sceptical methodology and would probably not appreciate others using it on his behalf… (although muddying the waters with irrelevancies does seem to be somewhat a specialty of his…)

“Given we are the product of a few billion years of evolution on this planet, the chances that a human being could be bred with an a non Terran being are close to zero. The Tooth Fairy is at least believed to have been born here.”
Ah… now Gord we have your Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything - But how do you know that we were not actually bred by the aliens originally and are thus designed to be eminently compatible? Until we are allowed to investigate and falsify such theories about so called alien intervention, this theory has just as much weight as your own. …and as for the Tooth Fairy… what is it exactly you are implying here? That you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

“HA HA”?
Well, there is a cogent argument if I ever saw one. I wish all people could argue as intelligently as that Gord. There would be no annoying debate at all to distract us from our respective faiths…

…and flying pigs? Are you implying you have IDENTIFIED UFOs as flying pigs? Perhaps you should write a paper and publish it in a peer reviewed journal, the world will be relieved to find out they have been viewing a new genus in the family Suidae (looks related to the Sus genus?).

Yes Ernie M "(reference link disallowed)" does indicate an external link not allowed because I have not posted enough times. I will remember your suggestions for representing links in future posts. Thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

How can the media not have misinterpreted Arnold, when they misquoted him wrt the term he used?

What records do we have of UFOs that are 29000 years old? Cave paintings? We know extremely little of their world, and we certainly can't take the painting to accurately depict reality. Otherwise, cavemen had really big schlongs!

Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. There is a clear distinction between earlier reports and Arnold's and subsequent reports, inasmuch as the latter were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.

It is very accurate to say that most of the UFO sightings were mundane and relatively mundane events. Balloons, astronomical, aircraft and misc. make up the majority of sightings.

Additionally, it wasn't 21.5% which were classified as unknown, but about 6 percent.

The unknowns are classified as such precisely because there isn't enough information. An example:

Sept. 3, 1947; Oswego, Oregon. 12:15 p.m. PDT. Witness: housewife Mrs. Raymond Dupui. Watched for unknown length of time as 12-15 round, silver objects flew an unstated pattern.

What to make of that? She doesn't know for how long she watched, she is not sure of the number of objects, and she didn't know in which pattern they were flying. We don't know in which direction she was looking, we don't know what the weather was like, we don't know how far away the objects were. We know virtually nothing. To me, that spells one hell of a bad witness.

It is absolutely correct that people are not very good at telling the size and/or distance of an object, especially if they have no frame of reference.

How big is the sphere in each of these three examples?

It depends on what we compare it to. In the first example, the sphere seems pretty small, where the second sphere could be huge and far away - or very small and very close. It is impossible to determine the size of the third sphere.

The size and distance is by definition crucial to determining what people saw.

Klass' UFOlogical Principles

People have been so conditioned by popular culture that they will think of alien spaceships when they see some object in the sky they don't understand the nature of. The post WWII UFO craze received a lot of media attention and the eager public lapped it up. And why not? It was one hell of a story: Aliens visit us! WOW!

First, UFOs make up a considerable part of a lot of the alien abduction stories. The most famous one, Betty and Barney Hill, sparked the abduction craze, just as Arnold's report sparked the UFO craze.

In fact, the CUFOS Definition of an Abductee clearly states that:

The beings must take the person to:
* An enclosed place.
* Not terrestrial in appearance.
* Assumed or known to be an alien spacecraft by the witness.

Those abductees who go to the press definitely delight to dwell on certain aspects of the experience. They get attention, and that's a really nice thing to have. That some don't realize how much impact media attention can have on their lives is no fault of Randi's.

We do have explanations of alien abduction: Dreaming, fantasy, false memory syndrome, etc. Since nobody has ever managed to bring back any physical evidence of their abduction, there is no reason to think that there aren't perfectly natural explanations.

Randi's comment:

The opinion of Mack and Jacobs on the Tooth Fairy was not revealed.

is absolutely spot-on: If they don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, why not? There are also reports on the Toot Fairy, in very much the same manner as alien abduction stories are told: At night, strange creatures, etc. The thing that distinguishes the Tooth Fairy is that she actually leaves evidence: A coin for each tooth. We see no such evidence when it comes to alien abductions.

There is nothing in Randi's entry that is false or inaccurate.

 

[Rramjet]

How can the media not have misinterpreted Arnold, when they misquoted him wrt the term he used?

CFLarsen, it constantly amazes me that people who purport to “pay attention” so misunderstand the meaning of words and sentences.

To clarify: Misrepresent means to represent wrongly or give a false account of. In this context the term “flying saucer” or “flying disc” are not misrepresentations of Arnold’s descriptions, clearly they are descriptors which sum Arnold’s various descriptive quotes neatly and cleverly. Arnold however claimed he was “misquoted” apparently because he felt some reports had him stating the terms himself as quotes – this is incorrect. All the reports (as far as I can tell) actually quoted Arnold correctly – It was the headlines that contained the disputed terms.

What records do we have ... Cave paintings? We ... certainly can't take the painting to accurately depict reality. Otherwise, cavemen had really big schlongs!

We do not need the cave paintings, hieroglyphs, etc to provide a precise, accurate rendering of reality to understand what they are depicting. To descend to your level of crudeness (I find both yours and Randi’s obsession with genitalia curious…) it is not the size of the “schlong” that matters, it is the fact that it IS a “schlong” that we understand.

Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. ... Arnold's and subsequent reports, ... were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.

Two points about the beginning of the popularisation of UFO reporting. First the term “flying saucer” was coined by a farmer named Martin half a century before 1947, but was not popularised until Arnold’s 1947 sighting (1978, A. J. Hyneck. The Hynek UFO Report, p.12). The second is that there was a considerable 1897-98 UFO “flap” in the US, there were the foo-fighters of WWII over Europe and there was the Scandinavian “ghost rockets of 1946, all popularised in the press of the times, before Arnold’s 1947 sighting and subsequent events.

Both the nuclear age and the cold war began in 1945, a full two years before Arnold’s sighting. Not quite so “nicely tied” as you make out.

Additionally, it wasn't 21.5% which were classified as unknown, but about 6 percent.

Blue Book Special Report No. 14 , commissioned by the USAF to be an entirely independent study of some of the best (those that came primarily through military channels) Blue Book UFO reports, did indeed find 21.5% unknowns. It remains the largest such study even to this date. You are confusing subsequent analyses of Blue Book reports by private enterprises when citing the 6% figure. In fact A J Hynek conducted an analysis of 10,675 Blue Book cases (of the original 13,134 that had sufficient information) and concluded that 5.8% “remain unidentified” (1978, p. 264) – that's some 640 cases.

The unknowns are classified as such precisely because there isn't enough information. An example:

The unknowns were classified precisely because there WAS sufficient information – remember in Special Report No. 14 AND Hyneks CUFOS study, the “insufficient information” reports were separated out as a category unto themselves. Indeed Hynek asks “And how many cases which are classified ‘insufficient information’ might actually have been placed in the ‘Unidentified’ category had further investigation been made?” (1978, p. 264).

Moreover - Anyone can find a UFO report with insufficient information to be properly classified – but that kind of report is NOT what we are talking about here, often the UFO reports classified as “Unidentified” run to pages of very precise information. You are simply being mischievous (I try to be polite) by presenting the UFO report you did – especially with no reference to state whether it came from a reputable source or not.

It is absolutely correct that people are not very good at telling the size and/or distance of an object, especially if they have no frame of reference.
...The size and distance is by definition crucial to determining what people saw.

Your depiction of the silver sphere does not need a size or a distance for me to know it is not an astronomical object, nor a meteorite, airplane or any other “mundane” thing. It could be (and looks for all the world like) either a photo of a steel ball that has been “Photoshopped” into position in the three pictures OR a ball entirely manufactured in Photoshop. I did not need either size or distance information to recognise it for what it is and what it is not. Size and distance are therefore not particularly crucial determinants (although such information is good to have when reliably available!)

Klass' UFOlogical Principles...

The fallacies in Klass’ so called “UFO principles” should be patently obvious to any critical thinker or student of logic and should not need pointing out to any sceptic worth the label. If you however you do not understand critical thinking or logic I will happily oblige to point out the fallacies for you – just ask – but I am sure you can work them out for yourself…

“Abduction craze”? “UFO craze”? “Hell of a story”? etc… Do you read back and cringe at your own use of language sometimes - or are you so permanently biased against critical thinking and the powers of logic and evidence that you must use denigrating language rather than real argument and properly constituted evidence to make your points?

We do have explanations of alien abduction: Dreaming, fantasy, false memory syndrome, etc.

Perhaps, but none of them have been tested in a scientific setting. Would you agree that these hypotheses should be tested before making pronouncements as to their veracity or applicability to the subject – or do you just take a leap of faith and not worry about science, evidence or critical thinking?

Randi's comment:... is absolutely spot-on: ... The thing that distinguishes the Tooth Fairy is that she actually leaves evidence: A coin for each tooth. We see no such evidence when it comes to alien abductions.

Have you ever personally seen a Tooth fairy or know of anyone who has reported seeing one or any reliable source containing a serious report of the Tooth Fairy? No? I did not think so. Perhaps you should think about things for a little bit before committing your fallacious thinking to print.

There is nothing in Randi's entry that is false or inaccurate.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thank you Rodney.

Gord in Toronto…Arnold saw “pelicans”? Hmmm… I must inform you that actually you did not see my post. You really saw some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that I randomly placed on a JREF webpage. You must have interpreted them to mean something they actually do not, no doubt a psychological response to some mindset or other you have. I am sorry you have this problem… but I suppose you must deal with it as best you can though.

So you did not read the post at the url I posted did you?

Go here:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.skeptic/msg/1b43f91e0f909398?hl=en&&q=%22Voyager+Newsletter%22
and read the entire thread.

Arnold's description of what he saw matches exactly the profile American White Pelicans in flight. The main thing Arnold was wrong on was their distance. He thought they flew behind a mountain because the "disappeared" behind it. In actual fact they "disappeared" because they flew into the mountain's shadow and ceased to be lit from the sunlight relecting from the snow below.

Mock me as you will. I have evidence and truth on my side.

“People see things in the sky.”
Yes Gord, that is the whole point - and they tend to record them as accurately as they can - and along with the birds and meteors and other celestial and planetary bodies there are recorded… UFOs… literally UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. That is, we CANNOT identify them using our current state of knowledge. Perhaps if we were allowed to conduct a little research…? But no, how silly of me, we must maintain our heads firmly in the sand lest perhaps we find something that does not fit our conception of reality – something that may contradict our faith perhaps?

Most, probably all, of the Objects that Cannot be Identified are unidentifiable because the evidence provided is insufficient to draw a conclusion. In the cases where there is enough evidence, the explanations are mundane.

I don't know about "we" conducting research but no one has stopped MUFON from doing such for close to 40 years.

“…incontrovertible …photos…”
Hmmm, there are PLENTY of photos – including official USAF RADAR imaging – but I suspect no photos will satisfy you (considering the advent PhotoShop and all…). Moreover, it is a common trick of the dogmatists to require standards of evidence practically impossible to meet and yet not required of the rest of science.

There are no photos in sufficient number, of sufficient quality, with accurate locations and time, taken in daylight that have been produced that prove anything abnormal. If you think you have such a case, let's see it.

“There are hundreds of reports of completely and utterly debunked…”
Of course there are. There are also hundreds not able to be “debunked”, as you put it, so where does that leave your objection Gord?

Because the others have insufficient independent evidence. If I say I saw a "light in the sky" last night that I cannot explain, that gets added to the list of UFOs. Without time, direction, colour, apparent speed, apparent height, the height of the clouds, the clouds cover of the sky, the upper air temperatures (for the possibility of an inversion), etc how is anyone to figure out I saw, say, Skylab?

“UFO has become a synonym for "alien space craft". This not Randi’s fault.”
I agree, it may not be Randi’s fault, but he is at least a co-conspirator in maintaining the link. Any critical thinker, given the UFO reports as a starting point, would immediately realise the error of this “alien” attribution. Perhaps neither you nor Randi are critical thinkers?

It's still not Randi's fault or mine. As to whether Randi is a critical thinker, I'll leave that for others to decide.

“Randi tends to lump all woo together.”
This is hardly a sound defence of Randi’s methodology. I suspect even Randi himself would shy away from publicly using this as a defence of his sceptical methodology and would probably not appreciate others using it on his behalf… (although muddying the waters with irrelevancies does seem to be somewhat a specialty of his…)

Randi has a long long history of being correct. And you have?

“Given we are the product of a few billion years of evolution on this planet, the chances that a human being could be bred with an a non Terran being are close to zero. The Tooth Fairy is at least believed to have been born here.”
Ah… now Gord we have your Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything - But how do you know that we were not actually bred by the aliens originally and are thus designed to be eminently compatible? Until we are allowed to investigate and falsify such theories about so called alien intervention, this theory has just as much weight as your own. …and as for the Tooth Fairy… what is it exactly you are implying here? That you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Go and read some basic biology. And then apply Occam's Razor. I believe the Tooth Fairy arrived in a Flying Saucer and lives under Mount Shasta. Can you debunk that?

“HA HA”?
Well, there is a cogent argument if I ever saw one. I wish all people could argue as intelligently as that Gord. There would be no annoying debate at all to distract us from our respective faiths…

HA. Ha.

…and flying pigs? Are you implying you have IDENTIFIED UFOs as flying pigs? Perhaps you should write a paper and publish it in a peer reviewed journal, the world will be relieved to find out they have been viewing a new genus in the family Suidae (looks related to the Sus genus?).

You don't like flying pigs? How about a free trip to [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tralfamadore[/FONT] then?

 

[CFLarsen]

Arnold was definitely misrepresented. His own words were:

"flat like a pie pan and so shiny they reflected the sun in a mirror"

"like speedboats on rough water"

"they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water"

Arnold speaks in analogies: He clearly doesn't understand what he is seeing, so he tries to explain it by referring to something that he and other people will understand.

The press, however, took his "like a saucer" and presented it as if he said they were saucers.

We can't know exactly how cave men thought: We can't take paintings and interpret them with our eyes. E.g., we know very little about their mythology or their symbolism.

Hieroglyphs are not 29000 years old. They started as depictions of what they were explaining, but soon developed into a highly stylized and symbolized writing system.

I have never had an obsession with genitalia, nor have I noticed one such with Randi. I mentioned it once - and once does not an obsession make.

It makes all the difference in the world if the size matters: They may have depicted a sphere in the sky, but there is a huge difference if they depicted a sphere the size of a bright planet, or the size of the moon.

UFOs - as in the "unidentified flying object" sense - have been reported in all of mankind's history. It is however with Arnold's account that the UFO-as-alien-spaceships mythology begins to take off in earnest.

Two years time is not a long time, considering that mass media was nowhere as quick as we have become accustomed to today.

It is telling that both 5.8% and 21% are described as unknowns. Of course, unknown does not equate alien spaceships.

There is an important point about the unidentified cases: If all but 6% of observations are later identified, it speaks clearly of how poor people's perception is. We can not rely on what people say.

The depiction of the silver sphere in the three photos was not made using Photoshop, but a 3D graphics program. That it can be interpreted as a photo of a steel ball is further evidence that people's perception is not the correct one.

The three photos make it crystal clear that size and distance are absolutely crucial determinants. Either the sphere is huge or small.

It should be noted that the UFO principles from Klass has been dismissed, but without any explanation. That is a true sign of believer behavior.

It should also be noted that both myself and Randi was accused of having an "obsession with genitalia" - an obvious attempt of using denigrating language to discredit persons - and not arguments.

Dreaming, fantasy, and false memory syndrome have absolutely been tested in a scientific setting. E.g. False Memory Syndrome has been studied by people like Elizabeth Loftus.

Many people have reported seeing the Tooth Fairy, and certainly a lot more have found evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy: Namely, by the coin left in place of the tooth.

That is far above anything else than any alien abductee or UFO-as-in-alien-spaceship has ever been able to.

 

[Rramjet]

So you did not read the post at the url I posted did you?

Oh dear Gord – don’t you understand irony? I did visit the site(s) you pointed me toward and found it (them – actually the same site) so full of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and misquotes I thought it not worth following up. I see now that was my mistake. You clearly have not researched what Arnold ACTUALLY said about his experience in interviews at the time AND in his books otherwise you would have known what a spurious load of old crock both these articles are.

I’ll provide an example. The very first paragraph in the second sci.skeptic article should have had your alarm bells ringing immediately (that is of course had you bothered to research the basic facts). James Easton states of Arnold “…he never actually described 'saucer' shaped objects at all…” But Gord, What part of Arnold’s descriptive “shaped like saucers” does not depict a “saucer shaped” object?

Here is a clear case of “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up” dogmatism if I ever saw it. After such an false and inauspicious beginning are you really suggesting we take the rest of the article on faith (Easton provides no references, page numbers etc for his supposed quotes). C’mon Gord, if you want to play in the sandbox you’ll have to do better than that.

Not to be phased, Easton has a SECOND attempt at “debunking Arnold’s claims in a separate article (but the same website – the first link you provided) …then curiously, while the article carries Easton’s name at its head, further down the article we find that this piece was NOT actually written by Easton but by someone quoting Easton… notwithstanding, the article continues by speculating at length what Arnold saw was pelicans.

Presumably this explanation came to mind because Arnold himself considered the bird hypothesis BUT RULED IT OUT. However, Arnold’s descriptions of the objects were precise enough to conclude that he saw them from a distance of some 23-25 miles, that they were some 140-280 feet in size and travelling at between 1200-1700 mph. Pelicans? (Perhaps along with your new genus of pigs we can add “Super Pelican?)

On Arnold himself we have “Arnold had the makings of a reliable witness. He was a respected businessman and experienced pilot ... and seemed to be neither exaggerating what he had seen, nor adding sensational details to his report. He also gave the impression of being a careful observer ... These details impressed the newspapermen who interviewed him and lent credibility to his report.” (en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Kenneth _ Arnold)

Further, there were independent corroborations of Arnold’s sighting (en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Kenneth _ Arnold).

It is easy to SPECULATE on what others saw and to try and fit their descriptions into your preconceived notions - but the simple facts in the case seem to rule out birds of any description, let alone pelicans. Simply to state Arnold was mistaken in his observations and it MUST have been something else that he saw is pure speculation. Then to hold this speculation out as somehow proven fact is intellectually dishonest.

Of course, in the field of UFO research, any individual case can be picked to bits by simply stating the observer was mistaken. This is an old trick, which is why I originally provided my “hieroglyph” example for you (the point of which you missed altogether). No, it is the WEIGHT of evidence that must be accounted for. If Arnold’s was the ONLY UFO sighting case, then the debunkers might be onto something, unfortunately for them (and you Gord) it is NOT the only case.

Mock me as you will. I have evidence and truth on my side

But Gord, it is you who is mocking me, not the other way ‘round. (remember your “Deal with it”, your “HA HA”, and your flying pigs…etc) This is an old politician’s trick, accuse the other fellow of what you yourself are doing. You need to lift your game if you want to play with the big boys in the real world Gord.

Most, probably all, of the Objects that Cannot be Identified are unidentifiable because the evidence provided is insufficient to draw a conclusion.

You don’t seem to comprehend written English very well Gord. In the examples I posted (Special Project No. 14 and Hynek’s CUFOS study), the “Insufficient information” cases were discarded BEFORE attempting to classify the rest. The “Unknown” classified cases did contain a wealth of descriptive (and other) information. How many times must I repeat this information?

I don't know about "we" conducting research but no one has stopped MUFON from doing such for close to 40 years.

Don’t be obtuse Gord. I am talking about seriously funded, peer reviewed, scientific research. You know full well that the efforts of the “debunkers” have muddied the waters to such an extent that serious UFO research cannot attract proper funding.

There are no photos in sufficient number, of sufficient quality, with accurate locations and time, taken in daylight that have been produced that prove anything abnormal. If you think you have such a case, let's see it.

You want photos? Try www . ufoevidence . org / photographs / photohome . asp. (you will have to remove the spaces before attempting to access the link)

If I say I saw a "light in the sky" last night that I cannot explain, that gets added to the list of UFOs. Without time, direction, colour, apparent speed, apparent height, the height of the clouds, the clouds cover of the sky, the upper air temperatures (for the possibility of an inversion), etc how is anyone to figure out I saw, say, Skylab?

Geez Gord. “I saw a light in the sky” IS a case where there is insufficient evidence to form a conclusion. If you added all the other descriptors and STILL could not understand what you saw then it would be classified as Unidentified. Please stop being so obtuse Gord. It is becoming boring.

It's still not Randi's fault or mine.

Ughhh… (frustration). I stated that Randi was a “co-conspirator” in maintaining the “alien” attribution to UFO sightings. That makes him at least partially at fault. An unbiased investigator, using the tools of critical thinking, formal logic and the scientific method, taking the UFO reports as initial conditions, would NOT attribute “aliens” without proper investigation. They MIGHT put it forward as an untested hypothesis, but they would also put forward hallucination, and mistaken identity etc.

Randi has a long long history of being correct. And you have?

What has this got to do with the argument? Another trick of those bereft of critical thinking and logic skills is to change the subject and attack the person rather than the argument. Poor form Gord. Poor form.

Go and read some basic biology. And then apply Occam's Razor. I believe the Tooth Fairy arrived in a Flying Saucer and lives under Mount Shasta. Can you debunk that?

What IS it with you and the Tooth fairy? I can also guarantee that my qualifications in genetics are impeccable and would probably surprise you. As to Occam’s razor … it is merely an aphorism, not a hard and fast rule of scientific methodology.

And (to paraphrase Gord) finally I present my concluding statements…

“HA. Ha” and “You don't like flying pigs? How about a free trip to Tralfamadore then?”

Oh, such very persuasive, critically thought out and logically cohesive arguments Gord. You must have studied long and hard to reach such lofty levels of discourse.

This post started as a critique of Randi’s UFO entry in his encyclopedia. It was not my intention to defend Kenneth Arnold’s claim, merely to point out where Randi was incorrect in what he wrote about it. I merely have an interest in the FACTS. I pointed out that Randi was mistaken in his representation of the FACTS in his UFO article. If you can show me that Randi was NOT mistaken, then you will have refuted my position and I would have to retract my arguments. You seem however to be bent on distracting the argument away from its fundamental premise that Randi is either a liar or ignorant of the facts concerning UFOs and alien abductions. I have stated my case and have yet to see any cogent argument in rebuttal.

 

[calebprime]

Rramjet
Can you please clarify what you mean when you state "(reference link disallowed)." If you are trying to include a link to an external Webpage and aren't able to make an active link because you don't have enough posts, you can always indicate the site by using a format similar to:

www dot randi dot org / site

And, you can ask another JREF Forum member if they might be willing to make an active link like:

http://www.randi.org/site/

Rodney
Just a suggestion, if you notice what may be inaccurate information, such as the number of Edgar Cayce's readings in the Encylcopedia, you could always send an e-mail to James Randi or call the JREF so they can verify this and make appropriate updates.

repeated for emphasis

... I have stated my case and have yet to see any cogent argument in rebuttal.

Did you see CFLarson's rather thorough post?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

Mr Ramjet. You do think an awful lot of yourself; don't you?

You are not the Roger Ramjet I once knew:

Roger Ramjet, he's our man
Hero of our nation
For his adventures just be sure
And stay tuned to this station

As Arnold said:

Another characteristic of these craft that made a tremendous impression on me was how they fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their surfaces. At the time I did not get the impression that these flashes were emitted by them, but rather that it was the sun's reflection from the extremely highly polished surface of their wings.

See 'wings"? The description matches pelicans in flight. It does not match saucers. Arnold did not call them saucers. He said:

They looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear.

You should really read the wiki site you reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold#Corroboration

Years later, Arnold claimed he told Bill Bequette that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." Arnold felt that he had been misquoted since the description referred to the objects' motion rather than their shape. Thus Bequette has often been credited with first using "flying saucer" and supposedly misquoting Arnold, but the term does not appear in Bequette's early articles. Instead, his first article of June 25 says only, "He said he sighted nine saucer-like aircraft flying in formation..."
The next day in a much more detailed article, Bequette wrote, "He clung to his story of shiny, flat objects racing over the Cascade mountains with a peculiar weaving motion ‘like the tail of a Chinese kite.' ...He also described the objects as 'saucer-like' and their motion 'like fish flipping in the sun.' ...[Arnold] described the objects as 'flat like a pie-pan and somewhat bat-shaped'." It wasn't until June 28 that Bequette first used the term "flying disc" (but not "flying saucer").

The so called independent confirmation of what Arnold saw is all post facto (As Randi has shown, you can get such "confirmation" of just about any nonsense that you report). What part of the observation from the only actually known present witness in the area at the time do you not understand?

However, a pilot of a DC-4 some 10 to 15 miles north of Arnold en route to Seattle reported seeing nothing unusual. (This was the same DC-4 seen by Arnold and which he used for size comparison.)

As far as http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp
is concerned. I went through a few dozen of the "Best Photographs" and there is nothing there that is convincing. More details and independent observations of the same event are required to draw any conclusions at all. You know like we have with the "Phoenix Lights".

You have addressed nothing in my posts at all in any sensible manner. If you don't want to deal with me, then at least read what Mr Lawsen has to say.

 

[Hindmost]

Rramjet, I will be happy to discuss this issue with you. However, all we have is your disagreement with Randi and "disallowed" links such as:

Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

Please post the links as previously stated and I will discuss each issue. Otherwise this will just get unnecessarily contentious without solid evidence.

For you to disagree with Randi so strongly, I am guessing that you must believe that the planet has been visited in the past. Although I am open to the possibility, I don't believe it has occured due to the evidence.

SETI has peered into the universe for quite sometime. Not a single EM wave that has any intelligence attached to it has been discovered. EM waves are a distinct sign of technology.

Examination of stars within 50 light years has found a few planets, but the distances to these close stars are still immense. The energy required to get between the stars is just incredible. The nearest star...proxima centuari is about 7000 times further away than Pluto. The energy requirements would fill planet earth.

Need to solve these issues with evidence first.

glenn

 

[Rramjet]

Reply to CFLarson

Okay CFLarson – it is obvious we will never agree on this matter. You obviously have a closed mind and the facts will never penetrate it. I will simply point you to some of the original sources.

1. Arnold tells the story in his own words to the AF (12th July 1947)
www . project 1947 . com/fig/ka . htm
2. Arnold’s interview with Ed Murrow (broadcast 7th April 1950)
www . project1947 . com/fig/kamurrow . htm
3. Arnold’s assessment by Frank Brown S/A CIC 4TH AF, the officer in charge regarding the 12th July 1947 interview.
www . project1947 . com/fig/kabrown . htm
4. Arnold’s first radio interview (25th June 1947) – see Appendix 1 - and a complete analysis of the whole story.
Brumac . 8k . com/KARNOLD/KARNOLD . html

Anyone interested should study these documents and make up their own minds, as they are transcripts etc from ORIGINAL source material, something even Wikipedia cannot claim to present (LOL).

“We can't take paintings and interpret them with our eyes”
You had no problems identifying the “schlong” though…

“I have never had an obsession with genitalia” (and later) “It should also be noted that both myself and Randi was accused of having an "obsession with genitalia" - an obvious attempt of using denigrating language to discredit persons - and not arguments.”
How does it feel to be on the receiving end of Randi’s own methodology?

“Hieroglyphs are not 29000 years old”
I never stated they were. Perhaps you utilise the Straw man argument so often that it has become second nature to you?

“If all but 6% of observations are later identified, it speaks clearly of how poor people's perception is. We can not rely on what people say.”
You are utterly confused about what a UFO report is. It consists of people’s descriptions about what they saw. That 94% of those descriptions in Blue Book were accurate enough to enable investigators to ascribe mundane explanations (balloons, airplanes, etc) speaks of the indelible ACCURACY of how people describe what they see.

“The depiction of the silver sphere in the three photos was not made using Photoshop, but a 3D graphics program. That it can be interpreted as a photo of a steel ball is further evidence that people's perception is not the correct one.”
But I correctly labeled it as a steel ball having likely been created in a graphics program… and I am certainly no expert, not even having such a program on my computer and never having used one I still came to the conclusion that it was likely done this way… people are in fact very good at observing and describing what they see. There are of course some well known perceptual biases, but as long as we understand and account for these, we can generally be confident that whatever has our attention, we can describe in quite accurate detail. It is a giant red herring that the dogmatic debunkers put out that humans are on the verge of hallucinating every time we look at something. It is just plain wrong and leads to a misperception about what we as humans are actually quite good at. It is frustrating that people who claim to uphold the principles of scientific methodology and critical thinking use such fallacies to indoctrinate ever more people into believing a falsehood.

“It should be noted that the UFO principles from Klass has been dismissed, but without any explanation”
Oh dear, are you really that ignorant of logic, critical thinking and scientific methodology that you cannot see where Klass’ fallacies lie? Okay, just for you I can see I will have to begin a new thread to tackle that issue. I will have it ready in a day or so…

Elizabeth Loftus? She originally worked with false memories in abused children. I think it would be wise for you to actually read the articles she has published on what false memories actually are and how they are created. (faculty dot Washington dot edu/eloftus/) It is QUITE obvious you have not done so, otherwise you would not mention it in this context. This is SO annoying - People who think that they can know about something without studying the facts! You and Randi seem to be peas in a pod in this respect. Wikipedia is NOT a good source for accurate information when in this type of argument. You MUST go to the original. Get your facts straight before committing pen to paper (or text to websites) – if you do not, sooner or later you WILL be found out and undone. I HAVE actually read many of Loftus’ articles. YOU need to do the same and THEN come back and tell me how they relate to UFO sightings.

Regarding the Tooth fairy I asked you some very specific questions. That you did not answer them tells me that you have conceded my point. Yet even while doing so you cannot help yourself but to try and pile more nonsense about it onto the page. This is also a favourite trick of you types (dogmatists) – just keep on piling on the nonsense - in the face of all the evidence that you are spouting utter BS just keep applying it – even if it has NOTHING to do with the subject under discussion. Forget rational argument. Forget the facts. Forget logic and critical thinking. Forget scientific methodology. Just pile on the BS and keep piling it on until everyone is buried under a mountain of it. Yes, THAT is the way toward an enlightened society. Huh! You should be ashamed.

I originally came to this forum expecting some open minded, intelligent, critical thinking in response to my assertions. I can see now that I was severely mistaken. The people here do not seem to care for logic, critical thinking or scientific methodology. Rather they seem to be involved in a faith based cult of some sort where the rules of evidence do not apply. It is disappointing to say the least.


Hindmost… I will post all the links you ask for ASAP but for now I have to fly - but FYI - I have NO opinion on whether we are, or have been, visited by “aliens” - NONE whatsoever. I DO think SETI is an absolute waste of time and money. And (unlike you) I DO NOT think that physics is a DEAD subject with no new discoveries to come. I have not the time to explain all that now. Later…

 

[CFLarsen]

I am very aware of the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience. Not merely websites, but also books, articles, interviews, etc.

The point of the schlong was to show that we cannot take their images for the meaning we give them. Did they actually have that long schlongs, were they wearing phalli - or maybe the depictions are of aliens with long schlongs? Why even assume they are humans from Earth?

"He did it first" is an inane and immature approach.

Why bring up hieroglyphs in the same breath as cave paintings? Those types of illustrations are millennia apart, with huge leaps in technology and development.

A UFO report is of what people thought they saw. Not what they really saw. As evidenced, people just aren't very good at identifying what they see.

The ball depicted in the three images is not a steel ball. In fact, the texture is mother of pearl. The lighting makes it look like it is steel. Yet another example of just how bad people are at describing what they see - even if they have all the time in the world.

There are many examples of photo hoaxes of UFOs. To the uninformed layman, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference. People have to see a lot of these photos in order to realize which depict a real phenomenon and which do not.

Very early on, those dabbling with the new technology of photography realized that they could produce images of things that just couldn't be. E.g., this photo of a giant grasshopper fooled many people.

Even today, with Jurassic Park-type computer graphics, lots of people are fooled by the simplest hoaxes. Snowball the Giant Cat is a recent example. That photo was sent to millions of people, and a large portion of those believed it was really that big.

We don't see what is there. We see what we want to be there.

I will eagerly await a new thread on just what is wrong with Klass' principles. I know them back and forth, and know all the arguments against them. A walk in the park is always nice.

I have indeed read a lot of Loftus' work. Merely saying that I haven't, without explaining why I haven't, does not cut it. Nor does a blanket dismissal of the Tooth Fairy example.

So far, five skeptics - plus a believer - has responded in this thread. To extrapolate that into encompassing all of the thousands of people here is just more evidence that we are being presented with dogma - and not evidence.

People who come to this forum should not expect to convince skeptics by arrogant declarations of dogma. Here, only evidence, rationality and sound arguments count.

 

[Rramjet]

I am very aware of the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience. Not merely websites, but also books, articles, interviews, etc.

I'll take your word for it but have you critically examined them?

And on the subject of direct questions - why do you not ever answer any of mine to you? Is it because you simply cannot without exposing the fallacies in your arguments?

The point of the schlong was to show that we cannot take their images for the meaning we give them. Did they actually have that long schlongs, were they wearing phalli - or maybe the depictions are of aliens with long schlongs? Why even assume they are humans from Earth?

I'll give you this one with the caveat that if it looks like a duck...

"He did it first" is an inane and immature approach.

The question was "How does it feel to be subjected to Rand's methodology?" Your answer should have been "Randi does not use that methodology" but of course you know he DOES - so you cannot use THAT answer

Why bring up hieroglyphs in the same breath as cave paintings? Those types of illustrations are millennia apart, with huge leaps in technology and development.

Cave paintings, stone carvings, heiroglyphs, oil on canvas... all methods of recording the perceived world before the advent of writing, voice recorders, cameras, and videos... Just to show that UFO reporting did not BEGIN with Arnold's sighting.

A UFO report is of what people thought they saw. Not what they really saw. As evidenced, people just aren't very good at identifying what they see.

Look up a textbook on perception. People actually ARE good at describing what they see.

The ball depicted in the three images is not a steel ball. In fact, the texture is mother of pearl. The lighting makes it look like it is steel. Yet another example of just how bad people are at describing what they see - even if they have all the time in the world.

Next you will tell me it is not a ball at all but merely a patterned two dimensional representation of a disc that exists only as digital information presented in HTML. How do you know you are not simply a brain in a vat being fed "experiences" by a mad scientist? Where do you draw the line?

There are many examples of photo hoaxes of UFOs. To the uninformed layman, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference. People have to see a lot of these photos in order to realize which depict a real phenomenon and which do not.

Of course - since the advent of Photoshop - photos are no longer proof of anything. One can argue the veracity of certain photos taken before the digital age - but even here we run into Adamski et al. No, best not to bring in photos at all as proof. Again it is the weight of evidence that sways opinion, not individual cases.

We don't see what is there. We see what we want to be there.

Are you referring to your reading of my posts?

I will eagerly await a new thread on just what is wrong with Klass' principles. I know them back and forth, and know all the arguments against them. A walk in the park is always nice.

Ask and you shall receive Actually I have begun that thread and assessment but quickly became disheartened by the nonsense of Klass' pronouncements. I may take it up again when I regain my equilibrium.

I have indeed read a lot of Loftus' work. Merely saying that I haven't, without explaining why I haven't, does not cut it.

Actually my challenge to you (since YOU raised the topic) was to explain how Loftus' work relates to UFO reports. You have not provided this information.

So far, five skeptics - plus a believer - has responded in this thread. To extrapolate that into encompassing all of the thousands of people here is just more evidence that we are being presented with dogma - and not evidence.

You have me wrong. I am NOT a "believer". I merely like pointing out fallacious argument where I see it. I actually think that JREF performs an essential service, or WOULD do so if it were not somewhat of a laughing stock because of the fallacies in the arguments of (especially) Randi.

People who come to this forum should not expect to convince skeptics by arrogant declarations of dogma. Here, only evidence, rationality and sound arguments count.

Can you provide an example where I have posted "arrogant declarations of dogma"?

We are of course WAY off topic. Can you provide refutations of anything in my original post EXCEPT Kenneth Arnold?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Roger Ramjet, he's our man
Hero of our nation
For his adventures just be sure
And stay tuned to this station!

Except he has not learned to use the quote function.

Or to express it in terms he can understand -- Are you so stupidly obtuse and ill-educated that you cannot use this simple tool that makes following a thread so much easier? Unlike those of us here who have super large brains?

 

[Rramjet]

Except he has not learned to use the quote function....Are you so stupidly obtuse and ill-educated that you cannot use this simple tool that makes following a thread so much easier? Unlike those of us here who have super large brains?

Hiya Gord Nice to see the reversion to type. Attack the man, not the argument... Are you sure you're not related to Randi?

...and besides... I CHOOSE not to use the quote function on occasion (I am not a slave to dogma) for MY convenience and I do not see how this disadvantages others who purport to have large brains...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hiya Gord Nice to see the reversion to type. Attack the man, not the argument... Are you sure you're not related to Randi?

...and besides... I CHOOSE not to use the quote function on occasion (I am not a slave to dogma) for MY convenience and I do not see how this disadvantages others who purport to have large brains...

Well. Gee whiz. I chose not to take people who post nonsense about UFOs and "abductees" to skeptical forums.

You really take yourself very seriously? Don't you?

HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[CFLarsen]

I have critically examined the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience.

We also have depictions by cavemen that look - to some - as aliens. Do we take that at face value?

If Randi is criticized for ridiculing, it is an inane and immature approach to do the same.

I didn't say that UFO reporting began with Arnold's sighting:

Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. There is a clear distinction between earlier reports and Arnold's and subsequent reports, inasmuch as the latter were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.

Oops - was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation of what I said?

Not only do I know a great deal about perception from my work as a skeptic, I also know a great deal about it from my professional career: User interface design and usability. People suck at describing what they see.

It is a good question if it is a ball, since it was created in a 3D application. It certainly isn't a physical ball.

The "how do we know reality is not a dream" is so old and tired an argument that it has lost its appeal to everyone, except teenagers who think they have discovered some deep philosophical truth.

Photos have since the beginning of photography been used for hoaxes - Photoshop is not the start of that. UFO photos have certainly been hoaxed long before Photoshop.

The promised thread on what was wrong with Klass' principles is not forthcoming, then. Again, we see it is easy to claim something, but a lot harder to prove it.

I have indeed explained how Loftus' work relates to UFO reports:

Dreaming, fantasy, and false memory syndrome have absolutely been tested in a scientific setting. E.g. False Memory Syndrome has been studied by people like Elizabeth Loftus.

Again, was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation?

There has been no serious critique of Randi's arguments, claimed to be fallacious. There has only been talk about them being fallacious. That is arrogance.

 

[jj]

***sigh*** So many UFO's. So much "evidence". Not a single, solitary bit of it even slightly testable or verifiable, and every bit of it dependent completely on the perception of human beings.

Anyone who thinks that's solid proof needs to study the literature on the accuracy of eyewitnesses.

 

[Rramjet]

I have critically examined the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience.

You continue to make unfounded assertions Mr Larson. Please explain to me, an avowed sceptic, WHY I should believe you? I would accept some passages of text from you demonstrating that critical analysis…

We also have depictions by cavemen that look - to some - as aliens. Do we take that at face value?

Of course we do not Mr Larson. We must explore all theoretical explanations for what the depictions represent. If some theories are more supported than others we tend to subscribe to those theories – with the caveat of course that we MAY be mistaken. For example we know that ancient tribes-people liked to create and wear unusual headgear, so we contend that to be the more likely theoretical explanation for the depiction rather than a theoretical alien visitor. Of course we cannot rule OUT that it is a depiction of an alien visitor, rather we must work with a balance of probabilities. This latter point is crucial in the field of UFO research. The weight of evidence (the balance of probabilities) suggests an unknown phenomenon is occurring – UFOs are out there Mr Larson, and I for one would like an explanation as to what they are. As a sceptic I CANNOT formerly subscribe to the “alien” theory of UFOs. That would be illogical, uncritical and unscientific. I do however have opinions, but in a scientific setting I will not and should not expound upon them.

If Randi is criticized for ridiculing, it is an inane and immature approach to do the same.

Congratulations Mr Larson. I gave you an object lesson and you seemed to have learned it. Well done!

I didn't say that UFO reporting began with Arnold's sighting:
Quote:
Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. There is a clear distinction between earlier reports and Arnold's and subsequent reports, inasmuch as the latter were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.
Oops - was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation of what I said?

I agree you did not say that UFO reporting began with Kenneth Arnold, NOR DID I SUGGEST that you DID! You are obviously misinterpreting Mr Larson I have neither misinterpreted nor misprepresented and it is scurrilous of you to suggest that I did If however you CAN point to any statement of mine in any of my posts that suggests you stated that UFO reporting began with Kenneth Arnold I will issue you a formal apology.

However, THAT is the most common misinterpretation whenever a debunker makes this type of statement (that Arnold was the “beginning” of some “UFO” accompanied by an adjective) so I just thought I should make the point clearly that UFO reporting most definitely DID NOT begin with Arnold’s sighting. I see the point has been received.

Not only do I know a great deal about perception from my work as a skeptic, I also know a great deal about it from my professional career: User interface design and usability. People suck at describing what they see.

You are being obtuse Mr Larson. Being a skeptic does not confer expertise, if that were the case then there would be no need for University courses or doctoral degrees. Can you provide me with any examples that are relatable to UFO research from your “user interface design and usability” experience where users misinterpret what they see? I would bet my million dollar reputation that you cannot.

The "how do we know reality is not a dream" is so old and tired an argument that it has lost its appeal to everyone, except teenagers who think they have discovered some deep philosophical truth.

Oh but Mr Larson, do you not see – the “brain in a vat” example IS a representation of a deep philosophical truth concerning perception and epistemology. Your reduction of this deep truth to mere “dream” status shows you have not yet grasped even this “teenage” concept.

Photos have since the beginning of photography been used for hoaxes - Photoshop is not the start of that. UFO photos have certainly been hoaxed long before Photoshop.

What did I say? It must have impressed you that you repeat it in paraphrase. Thank you for this compliment Mr Larson. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

The promised thread on what was wrong with Klass' principles is not forthcoming, then. Again, we see it is easy to claim something, but a lot harder to prove it.

Oh the thread is there Mr Larson. You just have not bothered to look for it.

I have indeed explained how Loftus' work relates to UFO reports:
Quote:
Dreaming, fantasy, and false memory syndrome have absolutely been tested in a scientific setting. E.g. False Memory Syndrome has been studied by people like Elizabeth Loftus.
Again, was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation?

No Mr Larson, you miss the point altogether. You need to explain exactly HOW Loftus’ research can be related to UFO research. Mere unfounded assertions do NOT cut it in the sceptical world. Put up or shut up. My money is on “you cannot put up and will not shut up”.

There has been no serious critique of Randi's arguments, claimed to be fallacious. There has only been talk about them being fallacious. That is arrogance.

Arrogance? I assert Randi makes a false claims and then provide the evidence to support my assertions. How is that arrogance? FOR EXAMPLE:

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality

There is my claim and there is my evidence. What more do you want Mr Larson?

You are “shouting” instead of arguing Mr Larson. Repeat the lie over and over. Ignore reasoned argument to the contrary. Refuse to participate in legitimate debate. Those with the loudest voice and greatest amount of resources win. Science and reason are completely discounted. You simply talk over the top of people and ignore completely what they say. You are a bully Mr Larson who refuses to engage in a reasoned argument. Is this failure to engage on your part driven by a fear that you have neither the necessary tools nor the evidence to refute your opponent’s legitimate arguments? I would contend that this is exactly the reason Mr Larson.

Have a nice day.

 

[Hindmost]

snip


Originally Posted by Rramjet
Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality

There is my claim and there is my evidence. What more do you want Mr Larson?

What your posted is not evidence..It is just a bunch of unsupported numbers. Good or excellent does not provide any information as it is a subjective qualification. Something credible would be alien DNA. Any type material not of this planet. Evidence of an antimatter or fusion propusion system--which would be easy to detect.

Some people think they have good pictures of bigfoot.

http://www.tv.com/video/5039/104/2717/crytozoology?o=tv

glenn

 

[Rramjet]

What your posted is not evidence..It is just a bunch of unsupported numbers. Good or excellent does not provide any information as it is a subjective qualification. Something credible would be alien DNA. Any type material not of this planet. Evidence of an antimatter or fusion propusion system--which would be easy to detect.

Some people think they have good pictures of bigfoot.

http://www.tv.com/video/5039/104/2717/crytozoology?o=tv

glenn

Hindmost (by the way I loved Larry Niven's Ringworld too - is there anything I do not know? Ha ha ) you seem to be discounting the bulk of scientific research here. What is science other than an expert evaluation of the observed evidence? The subjective qualifications you talk about ("good", "excellent" etc) were arrived at by examination and independent agreement by four independent experts in an effort to rule out rater bias. If all four did not agree, it was not given the rating.

Again you are also requiring stringent standards of evidence that are not required of other scientific disciplines. Holding to double standards is not particularly scientific.

I have already indicated that photos are not evidence of anything at all, why do you bring it up in this context?

You debunkers really cannot help yourselves can you? You would rather destroy logic, critical thinking and scientific methodology rather than admit that there may be more to the world than is perceived in your own little faith based belief systems AND you resort to strange tricks (like bringing in that bit about Bigfoot when it has absolutely no relevance to the current argument) instead of presenting sound arguments and solid evidence.

Disingenuous and hypocritical are aptly applicable terms that spring to mind. Intellectual Barbarians might be another (Hey! I like that! I might use that one more often )

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh. Look. Roger R has discovered how to use the quote function has now lowered himself to using the quote function for use mortals. See this is evidence even one of the smartest most condescending brains on the surface of this planet can learn something.

A lesson for all of us.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh. Look. Roger R has discovered how to use the quote function has now lowered himself to using the quote function for use mortals. See this is evidence even one of the smartest most condescending brains on the surface of this planet can learn something.

A lesson for all of us.

Gee Gord, thanks. I am all overcome with embarrassment at your compliments

By the way, have you thought of any decent arguments against my critique of Randi's UFO entry in his "Encyclopedia" yet. No? Aren't you up to it? Pity. I love a good argument. What about you?

 

[CFLarsen]

It is fascinating to see how different believers treat different things: When someone tells that they have seen a UFO (as alien spaceship), a believer will take that at face value. When a skeptic explains why UFOs (as alien spaceships) are not particularly credible and that Arnold's account is not convincing either, the believer will not accept that - at all.

Here is the thing about those unknown UFO observations: Let's say, for the ease and sake of conversation, that the distribution of explanations of UFO observations were as follows:

50%: Planes
20%: Satellites
15%: Venus
10%: Air balloons
4%: Hoaxes
1% Unknown

Does that mean that the 1% unknowns are something else? No: It simply means we haven't got enough information to determine what it was. It therefore makes sense to say that that 1% also has a distribution of planes, satellites, Venus, etc. That still leaves us with a 1% of 1% of unknowns, but it still means that there isn't enough information.

That is why physical evidence is so important.

When my argument is dismissed because UFO observations didn't start with Arnold, then my argument was either misinterpreted or misrepresented. By now, there have been so many "misinterpretations" that it is hard to believe that it isn't intentional. Thereby rendering them not misinterpretations, but misrepresentations. In other words, lies.

The brain in a vat idea has been discounted a long time ago - it's final death knell was sounded by the advent of the scientific method: We realized that we need objective, verifiable evidence, before we can say that something exists, also outside our brains.

At the end of the day, it is clear that the criticisms of Randi and Klass are unfounded. We are still left with some people's unverifiable accounts of UFOs (as alien spaceships).

That leaves us with just one question: What is considered the best evidence of UFOs as alien spaceships?

 

[CFLarsen]

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw an object to the south west. The object was certainly no satellite or plane (I checked), but was blinking in some form of unsteady rhythm while it moved at an impossible speed across the sky. Other people have independently seen it, too.

Was that a credible UFO account?

 

[Hindmost]

Hindmost (by the way I loved Larry Niven's Ringworld too - is there anything I do not know? Ha ha ) you seem to be discounting the bulk of scientific research here. What is science other than an expert evaluation of the observed evidence? The subjective qualifications you talk about ("good", "excellent" etc) were arrived at by examination and independent agreement by four independent experts in an effort to rule out rater bias. If all four did not agree, it was not given the rating.

Again you are also requiring stringent standards of evidence that are not required of other scientific disciplines. Holding to double standards is not particularly scientific.

I have already indicated that photos are not evidence of anything at all, why do you bring it up in this context?

You debunkers really cannot help yourselves can you? You would rather destroy logic, critical thinking and scientific methodology rather than admit that there may be more to the world than is perceived in your own little faith based belief systems AND you resort to strange tricks (like bringing in that bit about Bigfoot when it has absolutely no relevance to the current argument) instead of presenting sound arguments and solid evidence.

Disingenuous and hypocritical are aptly applicable terms that spring to mind. Intellectual Barbarians might be another (Hey! I like that! I might use that one more often )

I asked for evidence and you give me an ad hom attack. You are too kind.

First, what were the experts evaluating??? You have given no evidence or link or anything of what was evaluated. Your claim, your evidence. Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable and it doesn't matter who the eyewitness is.

Solid evidence I would consider:

Alien DNA
Evidence of fusion or antimatter propulsion
Any repeatable EM emissions from another solar system or from UFOs.


You have offered none of this. As for bigfoot...it is directly on point. The same credulous people believe in bigfoot or chupacabras or any type of unsubstantiated claims with very weak evidence also lack the skills to evaluate UFOs. Please give us your evidence.

glenn

 

[Almo]

Randi’s UFO entry continues “Since that time, endless reports of UFOs have come in…” - as if reports of UFOs began with Arnold’s sighting. This is disingenuous.

"Since" means that sightings have continued in the time span between now and then. It does not necessarily mean that they started then. Your comment is a disingenuous nitpick, and it's even incorrect.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gee Gord, thanks. I am all overcome with embarrassment at your compliments

By the way, have you thought of any decent arguments against my critique of Randi's UFO entry in his "Encyclopedia" yet. No? Aren't you up to it? Pity. I love a good argument. What about you?

How about post #2 in this thread? You could try and address the issue that Arnold really saw pelicans not flying saucers.

On your "Klass is an evil, uneducated liar" thread I see the big guns have joined in. I think I'll just settle back and see you get your ass whipped.

 

[arthwollipot]

I went to http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.aspto check on the quality of their photos. Their front page is adorned with a large photo of a fuzzy blob.

Now, I can't imagine someone putting this photo on the front page of the website unless they consider it to be a pretty good specimen. But it's still a fuzzy blob.

Inside, I found more photos of fuzzy blobs, and quite a few obvious photoshops. This, for example. This one is clearly three helicopters flying in formation, out of focus. Here's an in-camera reflection of a streetlight. Here, a weather reconnaisance baloon. CGI.

Nothing more to see here, folks. All the usual suspects. And I got all of these from the most recent (since 2000) gallery.

Here's a question. Why aren't any UFOs reported by astronomers? They spend an awful lot of time looking up. Yet they never seem to report UFOs.

 

[Klimax]

I went to http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.aspto check on the quality of their photos. Their front page is adorned with a large photo of a fuzzy blob.

Now, I can't imagine someone putting this photo on the front page of the website unless they consider it to be a pretty good specimen. But it's still a fuzzy blob.

Inside, I found more photos of fuzzy blobs, and quite a few obvious photoshops. This, for example. This one is clearly three helicopters flying in formation, out of focus. Here's an in-camera reflection of a streetlight. Here, a weather reconnaisance baloon. CGI.

Nothing more to see here, folks. All the usual suspects. And I got all of these from the most recent (since 2000) gallery.

Here's a question. Why aren't any UFOs reported by astronomers? They spend an awful lot of time looking up. Yet they never seem to report UFOs.

Last link (CGI) is same as the previous one (weather r. baloon).

ETA:
Great.This is their evidence.Poor people.On the otherhand thos helicopters out of focus are similar to classical pictures of alien ships(flying saucer with glass-like cockpit) So if only perception,then they are UFO,but then they become IFO...

 

[arthwollipot]

Last link (CGI) is same as the previous one (weather r. baloon).

Whoops, sorry. It was supposed to be this.

 

[Klimax]

Whoops, sorry. It was supposed to be this.

Interesting. It looks strange,but sadly photo is not of high quality... (somewhat more widespread then I thought.)

Any good sites on "How to debunk UFOs"? I'd like to be more prepared...
(And google search not helpfull so far)

 

[MattC]

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

My friend,

It seems as though you are being slightly misled by the figures you present, specifically it seems to me that you are taking this "61.6%" figure to mean far more than it does. Certainly 61.6% is not a small percentage, but as it is a percentage it must be evaluated in light both of the number of cases represented by the percentage and the method through which it has been derived.

I took the liberty of working out the amount of cases relative to each percentage you stated, and came to the following conclusions (assuming they actually surveyed 3200 cases, reports on how many cases they surveyed in this study vary):

(3200 * .14) = 448 cases of balloons
(3200 * .255) = 816 cases of astronomical explanations
(3200 * .201) = 643.2 cases of aircraft
(3200 * .08) = 256 cases of miscellaneous
(3200 * .015) = 48 cases of psychological origins
(3200 * .093) = 297.6 cases of not enough information
(3200 * .215) = 688 cases of unknown origin
furthermore, (688 * .616) = 423.808 "good" or "excellent"

These don't all add up perfectly so I'm fairly sure that 3200 cases was a ballpark estimate, but it's close enough to where the estimate seems a solid one for purposes of theorizing.

Out of 3200 cases, then, (3200-688) = 2512 cases that had ready explanations for them. (2512/3200) * 100 = 78.5% of total cases that were readily explainable. Mr. Randi does not seem to be far off, therefore, in stating that “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” The numbers above suggest that these mundane explanations were correct in 78.5% of the cases reported in the data of this Blue Book study as you presented it, certainly not a small number and easily within the scope of the term "most".

~ Matt

(ps: arth, is that a Batman symbol on the bottom of that thing?)

 

[Rramjet]

Let's say, for the ease and sake of conversation, that the distribution of explanations of UFO observations were as follows:

No let’s NOT “say”. If you want to use data, use REAL data please. Anyone can MAKE UP data. Here for example is some REAL DATA taken from Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, the largest UFO study ever done for the US Air Force. (http colon //www .ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1247.htm)

TABLE I

Category # %
Balloon 450 14.0%
Astronomical 817 25.5%
Aircraft 642 20.1%
Miscellaneous 257 8.0%
Psychological 48 1.5%
Insufficient Information 298 9.3%
UNKNOWNS 689 21.5%

Totals 3,201 100%

TABLE II

Quality evaluation of 3,201 UFO sightings, Blue Book Special Report #14
Quality # % of Total # of UNKNOWNS UNKNOWNS as % of Group
Excellent 308 9.6% 108 35.1%
Good 1,070 33.4% 282 26.4%
Doubtful 1,298 40.5% 203 15.6%
Poor 525 16.4% 96 18.3%

Total 3,201 100% 689 21.5%

To insert some balance into the argument, here is a table of IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) from Blue Book itself:

Type of IFO Number Percentage
Astronomical* 3421 26.0%
Aircraft 2237 17.0%
Balloons 1223 9.3%
Radar Phenomena** 152 1.2%
Psychological*** 63 0.5%
Hoax 116 0.9%
Meteorological**** 44 0.3%
Birds 85 0.6%
Insufficient information 2409 18.3%
Other 2807 21.4%

Totals 12557 100%

* of which meteors made up 56%, or 9.5% of the total number of Blue book cases
** such as anomalous propagation, weather returns, malfunctions
*** also includes unreliable reports
**** clouds, light phenomena, sundogs, etc.
(Hynek, A., J. (1978) [I/]The Hynek UFO Report[/I]. Sphere Books Limited, New York. p. 259)

Apologies, I will have to learn how to make Tables in HTML obviously! but nevertheless, interesting, no? The point is however that it is disingenuous of you Mr Larson to “make up” data to suit your own purposes. Highly unscientific (some would say fraudulent). Use real data please or none at all.

When my argument is dismissed because UFO observations didn't start with Arnold, then my argument was either misinterpreted or misrepresented…

If you can find ANYWHERE in my comments Mr Larson where I stated that your argument was “dismissed because UFO observations didn’t start with Arnold” I will issue you an unreserved public apology for calling you an obtuse dogmatist with an education level obviously not up to the task of comprehending written English to a standard required to post cogently to this thread. YOU misrepresent ME Mr Larson and should apologise for doing so – although I won’t hold my breath…

The brain in a vat idea has been discounted a long time ago ...

Obviously you have NEVER had any philosophical training at all Mr Larson otherwise you would NOT dismiss the “brain in the vat” conundrum as “discounted”. The paradox is used in all modern philosophy courses to illustrate a very REAL point and it has real ramifications concerning how we conceive reality. You really should try and get yourself an education Mr Larson before writing of things about which you seem to know precisely NOTHING.

At the end of the day, it is clear that the criticisms of Randi and Klass are unfounded.

Just because you SAY so Mr Larson does not MAKE it so. I challenge you directly to refute my points about Randi’s article by speaking directly to my points and NOT dragging in erroneous and irrelevant assertions with no supporting evidence.

We are still left with some people's unverifiable accounts of UFOs (as alien spaceships).

There are a couple of points I would like to express in relation to this assertion

The first is that the term “UFO” has become, in the mind of the general public (and many commentators), synonymous with “extraterrestrial” or “alien” spacecraft. This is entirely unfortunate because of course the acronym actually means nothing of the sort. The acronym “UFO” simply means “Unidentified Flying Object”, with the emphasis being on the “Unidentified”, because even the terms “Flying” and “Object” may not be applicable. This is why for example the British Ministry of Defence, in its various reports on the subject, has utilised the term “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” (UAP – see http colon //www . mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefencereg ion.htm) as a more strictly scientific reference.

The second point to make is that the existence of UFOs (or UAP if you prefer) is undeniable. Of immediate interest by way of supporting reference here is the Introduction to the Executive Summary of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region report (2000: which can be accessed at the abovementioned site), compiled by British Defence Intelligence Analysis Staff, states unequivocally: “That UAP exist is indisputable” (p.4). This is not the only official report to so positively declare the indisputable existence of UFOs. Another relatively recent example was the French COMETA Report which outlines the results of a study conducted by the Institute of Higher Studies for National Defence whose members include a long list of high ranking defence officers and civil and defence scientists including astronomers and weapons specialists (http colon //www . ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf). Of interest is the quote in the section titled “Concrete problems are raised that call for a response in terms of action”:

“Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains, and the number of sightings, which are completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality of data from them, is growing throughout the world. On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provence sighting in 1981, have been the subject of in-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the ground and parked there. Civilian and military pilots have provided gripping testimonies, often corroborated by radar recordings, as was the case recently in France. In view of the lack of irrefutable proof regarding the origin of these phenomena, the need for understanding persists.” (p.7)​

One could continue with a long list of official sources that assert or imply the existence of UFOs. For example there is Blue Book Special Report No. 14. (1955) of which Alan J. Hynek speaks: “If one limits oneself to the Excellent versus Poor sightings (213 and 435 sightings respectively) one finds that the “Unknowns” make up 33 percent of the Excellent reports and only 17 percent of the Poor reports.” (Hynek, A., J. (1978) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books LTD. New York. P.277) There is also the Condon Report (1968. http colon //ncas . org/condon/text/s6chap10.htm), in which the statement “Just what should constitute the population of UFO reports? Should we include all UFO reports regardless of probable explanation, or just those reports for which no rational explanation can be given?” (p.1274). Each of the above statements by definition implies that UFOs exist. That is, whatever was contained within the “Unknown” category of UFO reports in Blue Book Special Report No. 14 is by definition a UFO; and if a UFO report has "no rational explanation" this also implies by definition that UFOs exist. The existence of UFOs should then be uncontroversial and incontrovertible to any rationally minded person, however it seems that there are people who to this day persist in denying the UFO phenomena altogether. There can be no rational debate on the topic if that is to be the starting point. It is my fervent wish that people in this forum at least can accept the fact of the existence of UFOs and move on to discuss hypothetical explanations and arguments concerning what the cause of the phenomena might be.

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw an object to the south west. The object was certainly no satellite or plane (I checked), but was blinking in some form of unsteady rhythm while it moved at an impossible speed across the sky. Other people have independently seen it, too.

Was that a credible UFO account?

Actually no, Mr Larson, it is NOT a credible UFO account. It does not have enough information to rule out more mundane objects. For example “impossible speed” is too subjective to be defined relative to the speed of a jet or meteor &c. The others of your statements also may be interpreted entirely subjectively. So no, it is not a credible UFO report. For some examples of what more credible UFO reports look like see for example (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html) which lists the Blue Book “Unknowns”.

 

[Rramjet]

I asked for evidence and you give me an ad hom attack. You are too kind.

I think you mean ad hominem surely… and only in the last sentence Glenn. I suppose I really should not have done that. I got carried away. In realise the error of my ways and therefore offer my apologies. I will try to stick purely to the evidence in future.

First, what were the experts evaluating???

They were evaluating claims such as those found at (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)

Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable and it doesn't matter who the eyewitness is.

This is a spurious argument Glenn. If your statement were to hold true then you would be unable to claim with any veracity ANY observation statement about the world that surrounds you. THIS is precisely the point of the “Brain in the Vat” conundrum by the way. You seem to be falling in line with the school of Relativism here (as opposed to the Realists). I doubt that you believe this statement to be true in every day life, why bring it in as one of your beliefs here?

Solid evidence I would consider:

Alien DNA
Evidence of fusion or antimatter propulsion
Any repeatable EM emissions from another solar system or from UFOs.
… You have offered none of this.

Nor do I have to Glenn (see the section on UFOs in my reply to Mr Larson above for example). Also I have promised in another thread to present some of the evidence many are beginning to call for. I have stated I will do this by beginning another thread. STAY TUNED.

As for bigfoot...it is directly on point. The same credulous people believe in bigfoot or chupacabras or any type of unsubstantiated claims with very weak evidence also lack the skills to evaluate UFOs.

No… Bigfoot has NOTHING to do with my critique of Randi’s entry on UFOs. THAT is why it is irrelevant to this thread and this argument. If you want to argue the merits of Bigfoot sightings that would deserve another thread. THIS thread is about Randi’s spurious and fallacious encyclopedia entry on UFOs.

"Since" means that sightings have continued in the time span between now and then. It does not necessarily mean that they started then. Your comment is a disingenuous nitpick, and it's even incorrect.

I have addressed this issue elsewhere but: The meaning of Randi’s statement on this issue is, while not directly stating the falsehood, to try and place the idea in the public’s mind that UFO reporting only really began with Arnold’s sighting. Disingenuous is the term I used (Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating) and I hold to that assertion.

How about post #2 in this thread? You could try and address the issue that Arnold really saw pelicans not flying saucers.

Okay Gord, I have addressed it indirectly already but a fuller treatment will have to wait a bit. I WILL get around to that – please remind me if you find too much time has gone by without my addressing this issue.

On your "Klass is an evil, uneducated liar" thread I see the big guns have joined in. I think I'll just settle back and see you get your ass whipped.

Not sure of the score at the moment Gord but perhaps you’d like to have a look and let me know what you think so far

I went to http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.aspto check on the quality of their photos…. Inside, I found more photos of fuzzy blobs, and quite a few obvious photoshops … Nothing more to see here, folks.

Yeah… but this is like the UFO reports. Debunkers will point to those that have a mundane explanation. That is NOT what they must explain. It is the reports (in this case photos) that are unexplained (more precisely “Unknown) that need explanation. For example (http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm) – and of course I could provide many other examples from the site (just look at the EARLIEST groups of photos). Two points, because of the digital age, photographs can no longer be relied upon as evidence of anything much BUT we must however consider the WEIGHT of evidence.

Here's a question. Why aren't any UFOs reported by astronomers?

Oh but they DO. Type in “astronomer UFO” as a search term in Google and witness your error.

Any good sites on "How to debunk UFOs"? I'd like to be more prepared...

Read Randi’s Encyclopedia entry… He is supposed to be the ultimate Guru …or do you mean that entry is NOT helpful to your debunking cause… but it should be…surely?

Mr. Randi does not seem to be far off, therefore, in stating that “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” The numbers above suggest that these mundane explanations were correct in 78.5% of the cases reported in the data of this Blue Book study as you presented it, certainly not a small number and easily within the scope of the term "most".

Actually you have convinced me Matt - and I therefore WILL make a retraction here. Randi’s statement is not “utterly false”, that is too strong a term. I return then to “disingenuous”. Randi, unless he is totally ignorant, would know of the actual data presented in official reports such as Blue Book and therefore to term his descriptions as he does by referring to categorisations not actually made in the original reports (eg; the inclusion of “science projects”) is DISINGENUOUS – again for the uninitiated - Disingenuous: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.

 

[technoextreme]

Look up a textbook on perception. People actually ARE good at describing what they see.

?

You do realize that is wrong though. Horribly wrong. Then again what would I expect from someone who thinks that textbooks from the 1950's gives cutting edge information.
http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1150823205.44/Article-Intl%20J.%20L.%20Psy.-Accuracy%20of%20eyewitness%20memory...Morgan.pdf

 

[Hindmost]

I think you mean ad hominem surely… and only in the last sentence Glenn. I suppose I really should not have done that. I got carried away. In realise the error of my ways and therefore offer my apologies. I will try to stick purely to the evidence in future.

I was abbreviating. Evidence is what I really care about and thanks for the appology.

They were evaluating claims such as those found at (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)

I will take a look.

This is a spurious argument Glenn. If your statement were to hold true then you would be unable to claim with any veracity ANY observation statement about the world that surrounds you. THIS is precisely the point of the “Brain in the Vat” conundrum by the way. You seem to be falling in line with the school of Relativism here (as opposed to the Realists). I doubt that you believe this statement to be true in every day life, why bring it in as one of your beliefs here?

First I have no idea what you mean by the school of relativism. I have read quite a few articles about memory and its fallibility. This is one of the reasons people are getting out of jail after DNA finds them not guilty while eyewitnesses find them guilty.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

"Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories."

Nor do I have to Glenn (see the section on UFOs in my reply to Mr Larson above for example). Also I have promised in another thread to present some of the evidence many are beginning to call for. I have stated I will do this by beginning another thread. STAY TUNED.

When you provide the evidence, please include a sound reason that no EM transmitions have come from space. And don't forget the energy issue...it would take the equivalent of the entire earth's energy to get to another star...and about 80000 years. Even with fusion, the problem is more than daunting. I have never received any good response to the energy issue and space travel--please don't ignore it.

No… Bigfoot has NOTHING to do with my critique of Randi’s entry on UFOs. THAT is why it is irrelevant to this thread and this argument. If you want to argue the merits of Bigfoot sightings that would deserve another thread. THIS thread is about Randi’s spurious and fallacious encyclopedia entry on UFOs.

Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, but the evidence that bigfoot exists is directly on point. If Penn and Teller can fool the bigfoot believers with a simple trick, it clearly shows how creduluous people can be and how evidence is ignored. Pick a topic: crop circles, chupacabras, alien abduction..etc. They all have their devoted followers. All lack evidence that would satisfy standard scientific analysis. The standards of evidence have to be greater than a few eyewitness reports. Which topic would you consider as incredible?

By the way, I am not in any way a UFO debunker. I would very much like to see a UFO over our skies. A friendly one. Unfortunately, I know the physics involved and I just don't see anything to change the equation.

glenn