A Critical Examination of Randi’s Encyclopedia entry on UFOs

[HghrSymmetry]

.

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.

Perhaps what they do see isn't mistaken for intergalactic craft.

 

[Rramjet]

"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…

Okay – here’s the deal with those experiments. First the witnesses interviewed were provided false information in order to determine if they could be biased by that false information. This does not happen in the case of UFO reporting. Most often the witness reports what they see and that is the end of the matter. They DO NOT have an interviewer deliberately trying to trip them up by inserting misleading statements such as “Are you sure it was not actually elliptical?” when the observer reports that it was “spherical”. This type of statement certainly would give the observer pause to think and to become perhaps a little uncertain. HOWEVER, if the interviewer stated “Are you sure it was not a square?” if the observer stated it was “triangular” then there is actually very little problem – the observer sticks with triangle. If the experimenter in the Loftus research had stated “Are you sure it was not a GO sign – I am sure that the witnesses would have had no trouble in stating that it was actually a stop sign. You see the difference then between Loftus research and UFO reporting? THIS is why I asked before for an explanation of exactly HOW Loftus research is related to UFO reporting. In practice it CANNOT be.

Not convinced. Let us then tackle the “car crash” scenario. Again we have the misleading information DELIBERATELY inserted into a description with the direct object of biasing the witness. Again, this DOES NOT happen in UFO reporting. A report is made under no external duress and the observer is then questioned for details without leading questions (Note leading questions are blamed for alien abduction phenomena and a court of law will disallow witness statements if it can be shown the questions were “leading”). Moreover, I am sure the witnesses in either experimental condition could have told you it was two CARS that collided, not two planets, clouds, meteors, aircraft, etc… simply Loftus’ research IS NOT directly applicable to UFO observations and it is therefore obviously fallacious to introduce such research into the UFO debate.

Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, … 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?

This is being disingenuous. I could mount exactly the same argument against those who deny these “phenomena” (for lack of a better neutral word) – that they are “credulous followers of a certain faith” in believing the evidence AGAINST such phenomena – the argument gets us precisely NOWHERE.

I find ALL the above topics incredible. I find the existence of rational humans on earth incredible. I find the universe highly improbable… the whole darn thing is absolutely incredible, so to single out UFOs etc as somehow PECULIARLY incredible seems pointless to me. I want EXPLANATION – not perceptual excuses as to why I could not have seen what I did. That is merely insulting. If I saw a square in the sky perform a right angle turn, you can be 100% certain I did not see a jet plane, a meteor, the moon, or any other natural phenomena. A square in the sky performing a right angle turn simply does NOT have a prosaic explanation – no matter HOW much you care to distort my perceptual ability.

UFO debunkers have distorted human perceptual ability to the point where NO observational evidence is safe at all and the very foundation of science itself is therefore under threat. This CANNOT be the correct way to proceed.

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.

So you think like a person who believes science is DEAD. There are no more discoveries to be made at all. Physics has nowhere to advance from here! We KNOW IT ALL. Everything in physics that can be known already is… C’mon Glenn, you’ll have to provide a better argument than “I know the physics involved…” We ALL know the physics involved…they KNEW the physics involved before Einstein (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell…) and they KNEW the physics involved before quantum relativity…

 

[technoextreme]

UFO debunkers have distorted human perceptual ability to the point where NO observational evidence is safe at all and the very foundation of science itself is therefore under threat. This CANNOT be the correct way to proceed.

Yes it is the correct way to procede because as much as you are whining about how wrong we are about perception it is the truth. No amount of whining. No amount of handwaving. Because as much as you are trotting out the ninety degree turn as having no prosaic explanation stranger things like seeing someone's head shrink actually does. Human perception is a cacophony of kludges.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ignorance of what a hypothetical example for the sake of argument does not exactly help understanding a point being made. I did not "make up" data, but presented a distribution for the sake of the argument I made.

I'll try again:

Whatever the various percentages are: Does that mean that the x% 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 x% also has a distribution of planes, satellites, Venus, etc. That still leaves us with a x% of x% of unknowns, but it still means that there isn't enough information.

That is why physical evidence is so important.



Again, we see an inability to read what was written. Again, this does not speak well for the ability to observe and interpret correctly.

Nor does it speak well for the ability to understand a rebuttal of a criticism, if said rebuttal is claimed to be non-existent.

Not does it speak well for the ability to understand that nobody has denied the existence of UFOs-as-unindentified-flying-objects. I fail to see what the hubbub's about - unless it is also believed that UFOs are really alien space ships.



That an idea has been discounted does not mean it can't be used as an example of an idea that is worthless.

Of course, if something other than that has surfaced, I would love to hear about the real ramifications concerning how we conceive reality.




Oddly enough, my account contained a heck of a lot more information than many UFO accounts that are deemed as alien spaceships.

E.g., the fact that direction, location and description would have made it easy to determine the cause:

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw the toolbox that NASA's astronaut Heidemarie Stefannyshyn-Piper lost from the International Space Station, ISS.

HeavensAbove

What can be learned from this? That UFOs are in the eye of the believer - as alien space ships.

 

[Hindmost]

Okay – here’s the deal with those experiments. First the witnesses interviewed were provided false information in order to determine if they could be biased by that false information. This does not happen in the case of UFO reporting. Most often the witness reports what they see and that is the end of the matter. They DO NOT have an interviewer deliberately trying to trip them up by inserting misleading statements such as “Are you sure it was not actually elliptical?” when the observer reports that it was “spherical”. This type of statement certainly would give the observer pause to think and to become perhaps a little uncertain. HOWEVER, if the interviewer stated “Are you sure it was not a square?” if the observer stated it was “triangular” then there is actually very little problem – the observer sticks with triangle. If the experimenter in the Loftus research had stated “Are you sure it was not a GO sign – I am sure that the witnesses would have had no trouble in stating that it was actually a stop sign. You see the difference then between Loftus research and UFO reporting? THIS is why I asked before for an explanation of exactly HOW Loftus research is related to UFO reporting. In practice it CANNOT be.

Not convinced. Let us then tackle the “car crash” scenario. Again we have the misleading information DELIBERATELY inserted into a description with the direct object of biasing the witness. Again, this DOES NOT happen in UFO reporting. A report is made under no external duress and the observer is then questioned for details without leading questions (Note leading questions are blamed for alien abduction phenomena and a court of law will disallow witness statements if it can be shown the questions were “leading”). Moreover, I am sure the witnesses in either experimental condition could have told you it was two CARS that collided, not two planets, clouds, meteors, aircraft, etc… simply Loftus’ research IS NOT directly applicable to UFO observations and it is therefore obviously fallacious to introduce such research into the UFO debate.

This is being disingenuous. I could mount exactly the same argument against those who deny these “phenomena” (for lack of a better neutral word) – that they are “credulous followers of a certain faith” in believing the evidence AGAINST such phenomena – the argument gets us precisely NOWHERE.

I find ALL the above topics incredible. I find the existence of rational humans on earth incredible. I find the universe highly improbable… the whole darn thing is absolutely incredible, so to single out UFOs etc as somehow PECULIARLY incredible seems pointless to me. I want EXPLANATION – not perceptual excuses as to why I could not have seen what I did. That is merely insulting. If I saw a square in the sky perform a right angle turn, you can be 100% certain I did not see a jet plane, a meteor, the moon, or any other natural phenomena. A square in the sky performing a right angle turn simply does NOT have a prosaic explanation – no matter HOW much you care to distort my perceptual ability.

UFO debunkers have distorted human perceptual ability to the point where NO observational evidence is safe at all and the very foundation of science itself is therefore under threat. This CANNOT be the correct way to proceed.

First, don't alter the context of my post by clipping out a relavant statement.

Originally Posted by Hindmost
Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, … 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?

What I put in is shown below. Next occasion I will report it.

Originally Posted by Hindmost
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?

Standards of evidence are universal. Bigfoot and cropcircles and chupacabras lack evidence due to the complete lack of DNA, bones, plasma vortexes etc. I don't give evidence for UFOs a free pass. Until I see a reasonable energy signature, some EM wave evidence, reasonable photographic evidence, I will not agree that UFOs have visited here.

The study that I linked to clearly shows how pliable memory is. The fact that false evidence was used is just part of the testing protocol. How else could you test memory and observational falibility without providing differing inputs. Interviewers could easily lead a person claiming to have seen a UFO--especially if the information supports their position and they refuse to critcally analyzing it. (as with Penn and Teller's bigfoot hoax.)

For UFOs, a square in the sky making a right angle turn is easy to explain...especially since a right angle turn depends on the angle the of the viewer. A light reflected off a cloud could make a right angle turn and appear to the observer to be impossible. The only evidence for UFOs is poor photographs and very poor sightings.

So you think like a person who believes science is DEAD. There are no more discoveries to be made at all. Physics has nowhere to advance from here! We KNOW IT ALL. Everything in physics that can be known already is… C’mon Glenn, you’ll have to provide a better argument than “I know the physics involved…” We ALL know the physics involved…they KNEW the physics involved before Einstein (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell…) and they KNEW the physics involved before quantum relativity…

You will not get logical fallacies past many people on this forum...show me where I implied or stated science is dead. (strawman stuff)

Anyhow, to get from one star to the next, it takes energy. Force still equals mass times acceleration and energy still equals mass times the speed of light squared. Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance of providing enough energy to get from star to another. Antimatter is not common and to make enough of it to power an antimatter reactor would take an enourmous amount of energy input. And then storing it would be quite problematic. Using fusion power would be feasible, but the ship would be enormous...and very easy to spot. There is not much possibility of finding an energy source better than antimatter.

The energy signature of an antimatter or fusion reactor would be easy to detect. Evidence...they have to get here first. Again, where are the EM waves within 50 L-Y to indicate any type of advanced civilization. Kind of an alien version of "I love Lucy."

glenn

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

We cannot draw any conclusions from things that are "unidentified". Only that we don't know what it is. Even if there are a million "unidentifieds", we still cannot conclude that UFOs are alien spacecraft. Only that there are a million things we haven't identified.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes it is the correct way to procede because as much as you are whining about how wrong we are about perception it is the truth…. Human perception is a cacophony of kludges.

But NO-ONE has explained HOW human perception is to be considered significantly faulty in relation to UFO reporting. Merely stating over and over (like some broken record) does not make it true. You HAVE NOT demonstrated that your contention is significantly true in relation to UFO reporting.

This is one of the most favourite things the dogmatic UFO debunkers indulge in. Just repeat the unfounded, fallacious assertion over and over and over and over…ad nauseum It is a mindless exercise and DOES NOT MAKE AN ASSERTION TRUE.

THIS is why I am able to legitimately label you and your kind cultist, dogmatic, antirational, anti-scientific, anti-science and so on.

CFLarsen
(Rr: I think you have omitted some HTML tags so that the quote references are not visible? I have therefore not addressed some of your points as I can not see what they refer to)

Does that mean that the x% 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 x% also has a distribution of planes, satellites, Venus, etc. That still leaves us with a x% of x% of unknowns, but it still means that there isn't enough information.

This is a pack of nonsense. For example Blue Book and Blue Book Special Report No. 14 BOTH contained three broad categories, IFO, UFO and Insufficient Information.

IFOs DO NOT contain UFOs and UFOs do not contain IFOs or IIs. There are strict criteria (size, shape, dimensions, appearance, colour, movement, and so on and so on) which must be fulfilled for there to be sufficient information to attribute an object the status of (for example) an airplane. We can quickly determine HOW MUCH and WHAT TYPE of information is needed when we discover that we can readily and repeatedly ascribe UFO reports to be reports of mundane objects. THAT is the amount of information needed. If that amount of information is contained within a UFO report and we cannot ascribe a prosaic explanation, then it must (by definition) be an UNKNOWN (or UFO). This is simple, straightforward and logical.

Your statement that a certain percentage of “Unknowns” contain “Knowns” is therefore illogical, spurious, a representation of faulty thinking.

That is why physical evidence is so important.

You speak as if there was no physical evidence. Type in “UFO physical evidence” into any internet search engine and see what happens. You will find examples of UFO cases where physical evidence is manifest.

…nobody has denied the existence of UFOs-as-unindentified-flying-objects.

You are being disingenuous Mr Larsen. I am however gratified that you do acknowledge that there do exist UFOs.

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw the toolbox that NASA's astronaut Heidemarie Stefannyshyn-Piper lost from the International Space Station, ISS.

HeavensAbove

What can be learned from this? That UFOs are in the eye of the believer - as alien space ships.

But I already acknowledged that your original report did not contain sufficient information to make an attribution of EITHER IFO OR UFO. That you then make this statement indicates to me that you are obtuse. What other term can you think of to describe your behaviour when you submit a UFO report and ask if it is a quality report and I indicate it is NOT a quality report and falls under the category of “Insufficient Information” and then you submit this statement as if I had indicated your report represented a UFO. THAT is being obtuse on your part Mr Larsen.

Standards of evidence are universal. Bigfoot and cropcircles and chupacabras lack evidence due to the complete lack of DNA, bones, plasma vortexes etc. I don't give evidence for UFOs a free pass. Until I see a reasonable energy signature, some EM wave evidence, reasonable photographic evidence, I will not agree that UFOs have visited here.

“Google” “UFO physical evidence”. Physical evidence exists for UFO cases.

Interviewers could easily lead a person claiming to have seen a UFO…

Most UFO reports do not involve an interviewer at all, they are submitted without outside “interference”.

You will not get logical fallacies past many people on this forum...show me where I implied or stated science is dead. (strawman stuff)

You stated:

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.

What IS the implication of this Glenn if it is not that visiting aliens are a fallacious explanation for UFOs because the laws of physics indicate that interstellar space travel is highly improbable?

Anyhow, to get from one star to the next, it takes energy. Force still equals mass times acceleration and energy still equals mass times the speed of light squared. Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance of providing enough energy to get from star to another.

Read up on the latest developments in physics. Interdimensional travel is mooted for a start. Besides your statement: “Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance…” indicate you DO believe physics is a dead subject with no hope for future discoveries.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167).

I stated 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)…

We cannot draw any conclusions from things that are "unidentified". Only that we don't know what it is.

I am glad you acknowledge that there ARE extant photos indicating “unidentified” (flying) objects. This is a breakthrough in your thinking?

Even if there are a million "unidentifieds", we still cannot conclude that UFOs are alien spacecraft. Only that there are a million things we haven't identified.

This is my point EXACTLY. Now we can move on to hypothesise about what the DESCRIPTIONS of those UNKNOWNs represent or suggest?

 

[arthwollipot]

I am glad you acknowledge that there ARE extant photos indicating “unidentified” (flying) objects. This is a breakthrough in your thinking?

I have never denied that there are photos of things that I cannot identify. A fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob. So no, no breakthroughs.

This is my point EXACTLY. Now we can move on to hypothesise about what the DESCRIPTIONS of those UNKNOWNs represent or suggest?

See, the difference between you and me is that you believe that the existence of unknowns is somehow significant or interesting. It isn't. There are always unknowns, there always have been, and there always will be. They only start to get interesting when they can be identified. To this date there is no good reason to identify any particular unknown as an alien spacecraft.

Unless you have a reason, that is. I'm quite willing to address whatever evidence you think you have.

 

[Rramjet]

I have never denied that there are photos of things that I cannot identify. A fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob. So no, no breakthroughs.

The cylindrical object in the photo at http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm is a fuzzy blob? Please let us not play games here. I would like your description of that object and what you think it may represent. If you believe that it may be a mundane object (or have an otherwise prosaic explanation) I would surely like to know.

...To this date there is no good reason to identify any particular unknown as an alien spacecraft.

Unless you have a reason, that is...

You are not ready to accept evidence of an alien presence yet Mr arthwollipot. When you are you will receive it.

I'm quite willing to address whatever evidence you think you have.

First I would like you to address the photo of the cylindrical object mentioned above... a fuzzy blob it is not

 

[arthwollipot]

The cylindrical object in the photo at http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm is a fuzzy blob? Please let us not play games here. I would like your description of that object and what you think it may represent. If you believe that it may be a mundane object (or have an otherwise prosaic explanation) I would surely like to know.

Roger, you've made enough posts now that you can post links.

I think it's a poorly-lit blimp. But I have to reiterate that I don't know, because there is not enough of it for me to draw a firm conclusion.

You are not ready to accept evidence of an alien presence yet Mr arthwollipot. When you are you will receive it.

And what the heck is that supposed to mean?

First I would like you to address the photo of the cylindrical object mentioned above... a fuzzy blob it is not

Well, it's still pretty fuzzy. But yeah. If I had to state what I thought it was, I'd say that I think it's a blimp, poorly lit from underneath. There's no suggestion that it's "tubular", by the way. One end is in shadow - there's no way of knowing what's there. It's impossible to tell how big it is or what may be hidden in shadow.

Note that this is not a positive identification of the object as a blimp. It's only what I think it might be. For all I know, blimps were not used in New York in 1950. It's an unknown. I don't know what it is.

But I am pretty sure it's not an alien spacecraft.

 

[CFLarsen]

My original report certainly contained more than enough information to make an attribution to whatever group: Time, place, direction, a clear description. All it would take is a bit of research.

This wasn't done. Instead, the wrong conclusion was reached.



On one hand, we are told that this is not to argue that there is evidence that aliens are visiting us.

On the other, we are told that once we are ready, we will accept the evidence. And that evidence exists.

So, let's see this evidence. Physical evidence.

No, a generic Google search is not physical evidence.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

I am not sure that word means what you think it means. I also offer to you that accurate for the measuring device used may not provide the desired precision.

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.

And here is where the lying begins. Ridicule is now torture, is it?

Let me give you another example of trying to call a dog a faucet:

Reading intellectually dishonest screeds on the internet is mentally traumatic, and the blunt, non rapier wit used to present it is damaging to my mental well being. You are invited to turn yourself in to the police for inflicting blunt trauma upon me. Assault, with stupidity as a weapon.​

What began as a critique of James Randi's less than airtight prose turns into a silly appeal to victim status, evoking torture as your emotional tool.

Rramjet, you are well named for the posting style you have adopted:

The air comes in, mixes with gas, and then comes out as hotter gas having moved nothing inside the boor. (Or is it bore?)


ETA: I need to say this. Sparring with Larsen is one thing, Claus likes to quibble a lot.

Insulting Glenn/Hindmost is another. He's a very calm, rational, and decent net conversationalist, who is very well grounded in science , as well as energy generation and conversion. My only caveat on his excellent points regarding the energy requirements for interstellar travel would be, (anti-matter and all)

"nothing we've been able to figure out as practically buildable and implementable in the geometries resembling the reports of UFO's that are deemed by some to be from extraterrestial sources."​

In short, if there is something in the universe as we know it that is manipulable such that is allows a "stargate" sort of wormhole travelling mechanism, and thence a mother ship sending out smaller ships to do whatever in and near Earth, it's not yet been figured out. Given how far down into matter and energy states the earth based physicists have delved, the spacecraft typically alluded to are unlikely in the extreme to be crafted and operated.

Regarding your faith in eyewitnesses:

I have better than average eyesight. I spent over two decades as a pilot. I have made some excellent visual identifications at range, and certainly some errors. While many people give decent eyewitness reports, visual acquisition and identification of a flying object can be horribly wrong.

Go back about fifteen years, and check out the two US Army Blackhawks that were misidentified by professional pilots with excellent visual acuity, both of whom were trained observers of flying objects: a pair of USAF F-15 pilots. Read here if you have 100% faith in the ability of untrained observers identifying and describing flying objects. The pilots blew the Visual Identification. Twenty Six dead.

 

[Rramjet]

Mr Larsen. you are being irritatingly obtuse. What else am I to think when you submit a personal UFO “report” and then ask whether it is a “quality” report and I indicate to you that it is NOT a quality report and that there is in fact insufficient information to rule out a mundane explanation and then you immediately imply that I actually said it WAS a UFO… Here is the exact record of the conversation Mr Larsen…

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”.

Oddly enough, my account contained a heck of a lot more information than many UFO accounts that are deemed as alien spaceships.

E.g., the fact that direction, location and description would have made it easy to determine the cause:

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw the toolbox that NASA's astronaut Heidemarie Stefannyshyn-Piper lost from the International Space Station, ISS.

HeavensAbove

What can be learned from this? That UFOs are in the eye of the believer - as alien space ships.

But I already acknowledged that your original report did not contain sufficient information to make an attribution of EITHER IFO OR UFO. That you then make this statement indicates to me that you are obtuse. What other term can you think of to describe your behaviour when you submit a UFO report and ask if it is a quality report and I indicate it is NOT a quality report and falls under the category of “Insufficient Information” and then you submit this statement as if I had indicated your report represented a UFO. THAT is being obtuse on your part Mr Larsen.

My original report certainly contained more than enough information to make an attribution to whatever group: Time, place, direction, a clear description. All it would take is a bit of research.

This wasn't done. Instead, the wrong conclusion was reached.

What wrong conclusion Mr Larsen? … I stated clearly that your report COULD NOT rule out mundane objects and I certainly did NOT classify it in the UNKNOWN category (that is that it was a true UFO). That left me in the position of stating that I had insufficient information to make a judgement and so to state that your report did not constitute a “quality” UFO report.

IN FACT if you search Google for the city, date and time that you provide in your “report” it DOES NOT REVEAL anything to do with astronaut’s toolboxes …so your “All it would take is a bit of research” assertion is patently false. How else am I going to research your account Mr Larsen? With what other tools would you approach the topic of your report?

Furthermore, you were clearly withholding information from me to see if I would walk into some kind of trap. THAT is underhand and sneaky Mr Larsen… and you utterly failed in the attempt… yet you carried on as if I had walked into your trap!

A conversation with Mr Larsen:

CFL: “This is my assertion.”
Rr: Your assertion is incorrectly made because…”
CFL: This IS my assertion”
Rr: “Yes, we know it is your assertion, but you need to provide supporting evidence.”
CFL: “This is my ASSERTION”
Rr: “So you have repeatedly stated, but consider this alternate way of seeing things.
CFL: THIS is my assertion”
Rr: “Are you being deliberately obtuse?”
CFL: “This is my assertion and moreover YOU agree with it.”
Rr: “Don’t be irrational Mr Larsen. Nowhere have I stated I hold to that view, in fact quite the opposite.
CFL: “THIS IS my assertion and it is YOUR assertion too”
Rr: “Now Mr Larsen, really. How is one to logically debate you?
CFL: “THIS IS MY assertion AND yours too”
Rr: “…!”

 

[technoextreme]

Well, it's still pretty fuzzy. But yeah. If I had to state what I thought it was, I'd say that I think it's a blimp, poorly lit from underneath. There's no suggestion that it's "tubular", by the way. One end is in shadow - there's no way of knowing what's there. It's impossible to tell how big it is or what may be hidden in shadow.

It's probably the moon. I've mastered the art of the shaky hand photos and it's a shaky hand photo of a full moon taken at a long enough exposure. The problem is that the interview information is missing. If it's something he only noticed after he took the picture it's definitely the moon. If it's something before he took the picture then I would agree with you. I would tend to lean towards the moon because apparently some people are predisposed to assign supernatural phenomenon towards normal optical phenomenon in pictures.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's probably the moon. I've mastered the art of the shaky hand photos and it's a shaky hand photo of a full moon taken at a long enough exposure. The problem is that the interview information is missing. If it's something he only noticed after he took the picture it's definitely the moon. If it's something before he took the picture then I would agree with you. I would tend to lean towards the moon because apparently some people are predisposed to assign supernatural phenomenon towards normal optical phenomenon in pictures.

I think the moon explanation is not likely, because there are actually a couple of faint stars visible in the shot as well. It could be a very long exposure, so that the moon moves through the field of view, but I would have expected to see more stars. If it's a shaky-hand photo, then the stars would be streaked as well.

 

[technoextreme]

If it's a shaky-hand photo, then the stars would be streaked as well.

Nope. Meet shaky-hand photo #1:

Though this is more pick up camera and toss it around than it is shaky photo because as you can tell there were more beams of light than light sources in that picture. Notice how the van de graf generator remains in focus while it's evident that I shook the camera around. I don't know why it happened but it did. It is also the reason why I kept it around because it defies what I expected when I realized what I had done. Swift also has pictures exactly like that one that have been described as the work of ghosts so it's not exactly a fluky event.

 

[Hindmost]

Snip....



“Google” “UFO physical evidence”. Physical evidence exists for UFO cases.



Most UFO reports do not involve an interviewer at all, they are submitted without outside “interference”.

UFOs do get reported to people that put them in the paper and on websites....not everyone that sees something immediately opens their own website to report it. There are always filters and some of them can swayed by confirmation bias...a very real thing. Read: Mistake were Made, but not by me."

You stated:

Originally Posted by Hindmost
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.


What IS the implication of this Glenn if it is not that visiting aliens are a fallacious explanation for UFOs because the laws of physics indicate that interstellar space travel is highly improbable?



Read up on the latest developments in physics. Interdimensional travel is mooted for a start. Besides your statement: “Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance…” indicate you DO believe physics is a dead subject with no hope for future discoveries.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167).

I stated 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)…

I do like shakespeare, but his insights won't provide evidence. I should add that fusion and antimatter are not the ONLY chance--that was shortsighted on my part. However, they are reasonable propulsion possibilities and fusion the most likely a first step for any civilization. I certainly don't think physics is dead since I keep buying new books on the subject.

Since the physics of space travel make it highly improbable, that tends to push occam's razor toward UFOs being of earth origin...or possibly meteors which do hit the planet on a daily basis.

I am glad you acknowledge that there ARE extant photos indicating “unidentified” (flying) objects. This is a breakthrough in your thinking?

This is my point EXACTLY. Now we can move on to hypothesise about what the DESCRIPTIONS of those UNKNOWNs represent or suggest?

Of course I believe there are UFOs...I just don't think they come from another solar system. (In my college days, UFOs were "unidentified fried objects"...but I digress.) Some photos are convincing. Some are just silly. I am usually amazed how aliens always forget to turn off their headlights. Now, if the UFOs were accompanied by a radar signature...or gamma rays or sophisticated EM, then I would really be on the side of earth having been visited by an alien. But to accept only photographic evidence is just not scientific. I certainly don't accept abduction stories.

Any advanced civilization would have to exploit physics similar to what we have since they would have the same proton, neutrons and electrons. Therefore, the signature for that civilization should be out among the stars as well. SETI hasn't found anything close to convincing.

http://www.physorg.com/news8817.html

The link above provides some compelling physics associated with space travel. It leaves out an Orion type project which also has potential. Pay particular attention to the bit on antimatter.

Now, I would love to believe a wormhole could be established for interstellar travel...but they are completely theoretical and--if they do exist--really hard to keep open for a period of time. Plus, the negative energy/mass thing is troublesome. I actually wonder what a wormhole opening on our horizon would look like.

glenn

 

[arthwollipot]

Nope. Meet shaky-hand photo #1:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=65&pictureid=510
Though this is more pick up camera and toss it around than it is shaky photo because as you can tell there were more beams of light than light sources in that picture. Notice how the van de graf generator remains in focus while it's evident that I shook the camera around. I don't know why it happened but it did. It is also the reason why I kept it around because it defies what I expected when I realized what I had done. Swift also has pictures exactly like that one that have been described as the work of ghosts so it's not exactly a fluky event.

This happens because of the way long shutter speeds work with the flash. The flash goes off either when the shutter opens, or just before it closes. So the part of the scene that is dark is sharp (because it is illuminated by the flash) and the bright points are spread out because the shutter is open and they have enough light for the camera to pick up.

I don't think Roger's "cylindrical object" fits the bill here, because it is a bright object on a dark field, while the stars are very dim. For the flash to be illuminating the stars, they would have to be, well, not stars.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can we see the physical evidence or not?

 

[technoextreme]

This happens because of the way long shutter speeds work with the flash. The flash goes off either when the shutter opens, or just before it closes. So the part of the scene that is dark is sharp (because it is illuminated by the flash) and the bright points are spread out because the shutter is open and they have enough light for the camera to pick up.

I don't think Roger's "cylindrical object" fits the bill here, because it is a bright object on a dark field, while the stars are very dim. For the flash to be illuminating the stars, they would have to be, well, not stars.

Nope. Just doubled checked the exif data. No flash. I think your right but the flash is irrelevant.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I don't think Roger's "cylindrical object" fits the bill here, because it is a bright object on a dark field, while the stars are very dim. For the flash to be illuminating the stars, they would have to be, well, not stars.

Are we sure the white specs are stars and not just dust specs on the scan/negative? To me it looks like somebody took multiple exposures of the moon on one negative over several minutes but that is just an opinion based on first glance. If they are stars, that would refute this idea. Just remember, this is a scan of a negative or print. Any dust that is on that negative/print will be scanned in as well. I would like to see a better image. However, I don't think we can discount the moon in the case quite yet.

 

[Astrophotographer]

After examination of the photograph, I am fairly convinced (not 100%) that the Project Grudge boys got this one right. Take a look at this photograph:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2298/2325579711_1a9d6b5b54.jpg?v=0

I suggest we rethink the stars argument because of the type of films in use in 1950. Most of the films were slow ISO(at that time ASA) rating of <400. Recording anything but very bright stars/planets on slow films for short duration exposures would almost be impossible. If this was a "snapshot" of a single UFO with a handheld camera, you would not see stars in the image. Therefore, it is my opinion that the "stars" are really just dust specs or imperfections in the scan. Looking at the multiple exposure photo of the moon I linked above you can see similarities with the 1950 shot. Apparently, somebody just took a camera and did not advance the film. They probably took numerous 1/4-1/60th second exposures over and over again on a fixed tripod every few seconds. The end result would be a bunch of crescent moons apparently connected together.

Additionally, the moon on March 20, 1950 was a thin evening crescent just over 2 days old (4% illuminated) and set around 8:20PM EST for New York. The rough angle at which this is titled is measured to be about 55 degrees. When I measured the angle of the moon's setting motion for New York on that evening, I got a value of roughly 68 degrees. Not exactly the same but if the camera was not level, it could explain the deviation of 13 degrees.

Finally, the moon was in Pisces with many faint stars nearby and no bright ones. No bright stars (the only type that can be recorded in short exposures) would have been recorded preventing the casual observer from recognizing that it was multiple exposures of the moon setting.

To me, there is enough evidence to suggest this could very well be a multiple exposure of the crescent moon setting that night. I think the Project Grudge boys may have gotten this one correct despite the lame proclamations by the UFO website.

 

[arthwollipot]

I bow to the superior knowledge of someone who knows something about astrophotography.

 

[Rramjet]

I found another image of that “cylindrical” object http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm which shows New York City in relation to the object http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/northamerica/Photo393.htm. It looks like the photo I drew people’s attention to at might actually be an “enhanced” section of a larger original… (don’t you hate it when they DO that without showing the original on the same page or even labelling it as an enhanced section taken from an original...? I do!) the original (!) shows the camera was level and also indicates (if one knows New York I guess) which direction the camera was pointing.

I suppose it now should be (relatively?) easy for astrophotographer to work out if the moon could have been at that position in the sky and tracking at the angle indicated in the photo?

I cannot disagree with astrophotographer that the picture looks like it COULD have been a multiple exposure of the moon and I will be willing to accede to astrophotographer's explanation if he is certain that the moon could have been tracking where it is and at the angle it is shown to be in the photo – but given that his initial estimations were out by 13 degrees and he explained this as possible camera angle deviation, I humbly request a clarification from him concerning position and tracking angle of the “moon” in the "original" photo...I don’t go for that “mothership” speculation on the website either…

 

[jmcvann]

I think it's a poorly-lit blimp. But I have to reiterate that I don't know, because there is not enough of it for me to draw a firm conclusion.

Wow. I think you're being generous. "Blimp" implies it's big and way up in the air. Looks like the tube from a roll of paper towels to me. And considering the poor lighting, easy to fake.

But I'm no expert. I'll let other folk hash this out. It's fun reading.

 

[jj]

What do we have, after 'n' pages of unfounded accusations, insults, and claims of misconduct on the skeptics' part?

Nothing. No evidence, no substance, no UFO, nothing but empty words, insults, and accusations.

I know, maybe this guy is actually an alien trying to convince us he doesn't exist!!!!

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, with that new picture I'm more convinced that this is a long exposure of the moon. It's the right size, and in 1950 you'd have to have the shutter open for quite a long time to get such resolution of the city lights, and the "glow" above the city confirms it. Grudge was right.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I cannot disagree with astrophotographer that the picture looks like it COULD have been a multiple exposure of the moon and I will be willing to accede to astrophotographer's explanation if he is certain that the moon could have been tracking where it is and at the angle it is shown to be in the photo – but given that his initial estimations were out by 13 degrees and he explained this as possible camera angle deviation, I humbly request a clarification from him concerning position and tracking angle of the “moon” in the "original" photo...I don’t go for that “mothership” speculation on the website either…

Well, it is hard to guess at the angle we are looking at because the actual horizon of the city is not clear. I too later found this photograph. I found the camera to be tilted around 5 degrees but that was based on the lights on the waterfront and may not be a very accurate measurement. Additionally, my earlier measurements were rough guesses using a crude protractor and an inexpensive freeware program that may be off in it's calculations. The difference can be simply due to measurement error. I will attempt later it again, when I get a chance this evening with photoshop and a more precise astronomy program if you so desire. BTW, The bright area behind the object is probably the twilight sky background. Additionally, the "UFO" is in the same location the moon would be around that time of the evening. I see no reason to reject the moon hypothesis because of my earliest measurements having a potential for being in error. Most important is if it is in the early evening as the sky twilight suggests and it is on the date in question, I ask the simple question, where is the moon if this is a "true UFO"? The moon should be present in the photograph (especially since city lights were recorded).

 

[Astrophotographer]

After looking at the astronomy program again, I realized I used too small a sample for the moon's motion and may have been looking at the ecliptic when I obtained my value of 68 degrees. Actually, if I recall my celestial mechanics correctly, the motion would be roughly at the same angle as the celestial equator, which is a function of observer's latitude (i.e. somebody on the equator would have the celestrial equator straight up and down to the horizon or 90 degrees while at the north pole the angle would be 0). The angle for the celestial equator would be about 49 degrees for NY (which is close to 41 deg latitude). This means objects at the celestial equator would set at an angle of 49 degrees. There are some issues that are introduced as the object deviates from the equator but the moon was only 10 degrees above the celestial equator that evening so I do not think the deviation is significant.

As far as the tilt of the camera goes, I stated I measured a rough tilt of 5 degrees (I actually remeasured several values between 2 and 5). This 2-5 degree tilt is angled upward from the artificial horizon (The left is higher than right). This means we need to subtract this tilt from the motion of the object. That gives us a motion of the object of 50-53 degrees (as I stated previously this is a crude measurement made by a protractor against my monitor). I think some crude measurements of 50-53 is close enough to 49 to demonstrate it is the moon. I guess it is up to those who state it is not the moon to demonstrate that my measurements and rough calculations are incorrect.

IMO, stick a fork in it. It's the moon.

 

[Astrophotographer]

OK, I have managed to make the measurements using photoshop and the angle for the moon is roughly 54.5 deg. The camera tilt is not as easy as I described previously because we only have lights to look at. Again, this value varies between 2-5 degrees depending on which row of lights you want to consider. Bottom line is that the Grudge boys did their homework and this is most likely the moon.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

OK, I have managed to make the measurements using photoshop and the angle for the moon is roughly 54.5 deg. The camera tilt is not as easy as I described previously because we only have lights to look at. Again, this value varies between 2-5 degrees depending on which row of lights you want to consider. Bottom line is that the Grudge boys did their homework and this is most likely the moon.

Either that, or we have to ask, as we do in so many of these situations, why can't we see the Moon that should be right there in the sky close to where the UFO is? Sort of like in the case of "Jimmy Carter's UFO". Where the heck was Venus?

 

[Hindmost]

found some evidence...



glenn

 

[arthwollipot]

So what happened to rramjet? Was he abducted or something?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

More of an intrusive close encounter. The proctologist is having trouble removing the implants.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So what happened to rramjet? Was he abducted or something?

Perhaps he is working on his UFO Best evidence thread he promised in his critical evaluation of Phil Klass's ten UFOlogical principles thread. I am not holding my breath.

 

[Rramjet]

Not abducted just a bit ill...

I accept the moon explanation.

And yes astrophotographer I HAVE been working on getting a new thread up concerning UFOs... it will happen... but I am going for a holiday for Xmas/New Year and I won't have web access where I am going - so that posting will have to wait until mid-January... sorry to disappoint!

I also have some more to say about this thread in relation to Randi - but again that will have to wait.

So... I must now take my leave for a couple of weeks or so. Hope you don't miss me too much!

Merry Xmas and Happy new Year!
Rramjet.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can we see the physical evidence or not?

Anytime will be fine.

 

[arthwollipot]

Merry Christmas, Rramjet, and I hope you're feeling better soon.

 

[technoextreme]

Wow. I think you're being generous. "Blimp" implies it's big and way up in the air. Looks like the tube from a roll of paper towels to me. And considering the poor lighting, easy to fake.

But I'm no expert. I'll let other folk hash this out. It's fun reading.

Thank you for posting what I originally thought. It does look like a paper towel tube.

 

[arthwollipot]

Looks can be deceiving...

Obviously, the photo could be a blatant hoax. People are known to do this, for whatever reason. That cannot be ruled out.