UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

If you think that his alien-comic-book-inspired sketch of little men on a saucer is evidence, then that is your prerogative.

Here you attempt to cast the evidence as something it is not. If you think the sketch offered is “alien-comic-book” inspired, then of course you will be able to provide evidence that this is so. Your mere unfounded assertion does not make it so.

Father Gill's illustrations:


Comic books from the late 40's to early 50's:






Actually, this one might be the closest to the actual scene in New Guinea, with the scared natives.


So, given that we know mass hallucination / group hysteria is a real and well-known phenomenon, and that we know the UFO craze was in its heyday in the 50's, and that we know the popular image of aliens was arriving in a flying saucer, which is more likely:

1 - Father Gill was mistaken, and popular culture influenced his interpretation of what he saw.

or

2 - Aliens showed up in Papua New Guinea in 1959, and having travelled millions of light years to visit earth in a craft that could withstand such a journey, with risks of hitting space debris and meteors, arriving in the tropics, they said "Hey, it's nice and warm, let's put the convertible top down and go cruising."

Just to be fair to the comic books, at least they realized that aliens wouldn't be able to breathe the Earth's air, so they put a little bubble on the top so you can see the aliens, without having to suspend disbelief that aliens could fly about al fresco within our atmosphere.

I apologize for not addressing the rest of your post. Weather is too nice here today!

 

[tomi71]

I wonder where those comic books images come from? UFO stories? I also wonder why have the gnomes, halflings, elves and you-name-it in the folklore resemble the idea of a humanoid in ufology.

It´s like a question of which cane first: egg or a chicken? (ufo´s of a popular culture affected by real sightings OR sighting reports influenced by popular culture)

 

[Rramjet]

Assuming UFO reports are actual alien spaceships sent to monitor our civilization, I find their methods rather confusing. If they don't want to be seen, why provide lighting on their craft at night? If they don't want to be seen in the daytime, why can't their advanced technology develop something like our our drones that fly at high altitude, can barely be seen by the casual observer (if at all) but can monitor details down to that necessary for observing human behavior. Additionally, one would think that their craft would have the ability to mask their appearance against the background sky. This hypothesis/theory is not supported by the observed behavior of these UFOs. That is why I think Feynamn's quote is most appropriate (which bears repeating):

"I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."

YOU make that assumption – I do not. Besides, there are plausible reasons drawn from our own experiences on this planet why “aliens” might want us to notice them but refrain from contact. We know for example that direct contact of technologically advanced civilisations with less advanced cultures pretty much ends in disaster for the less advanced culture. There is also the parallel point about not wanting to “contaminate” the subject which you are studying. There is also the point that if we maintained an “introspective” perspective on our own civilisation then that simply increases the chances of self-destruction – and by having us “notice” them it at least indicates that there is a whole lot more “out there” waiting to be discovered – thus giving us further impetus NOT to self-destruct.

As for Feynman, obviously, he (as with you) could not imagine plausible scenarios (as outlined above) as to why “aliens” might behave in the manner we observe in UFOs. Besides, Feynman’s statement is merely an unfounded assertion. An opinion based on a lack of understanding that “unknown” does not necessarily equate with lack of existence. That is, just because we cannot understand something according to our own demonstrably limited concepts of the world and reality, does not mean that lack of understanding automatically means non-existence of the not understood phenomena.

Besides “the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence” and “the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence.” Are not mutually exclusive concepts. It is NOT necessarily an either/or proposition.

 

[Rramjet]

Considering my prospective: Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot identified by the observer or subsequent investigation.”

Apparently, you miss my point. Since the subsequent investigation will not be accepted by some that means that it will always be a UFO.

I get your point. According to your claim, the earth is flat and “will always be” so merely because there are some who do not accept the investigative conclusion that the “earth as spherical” (!) and that is patently an absurd proposition.

Obviously there are those who believe that UFOs are ONLY the result of either hoaxes, delusions, or misidentified mundane objects - and according to YOU, a UFO is ONLY “unidentified” from the perspective of the observer, at the time of the incident, and only because they have not tried hard enough to identify it (a la the original Wikipedia definition) (“ Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot be easily or immediately identified by the observer.”) But of course this definition is too narrow and does not allow subsequent investigation to identify a mundane explanation. That is, the object remains a UFO merely because the observer says so – and that is not a sustainable definition. That is why I added the investigator into my definition.

However, I have come to realise that my prospective UFO definition has its own difficulties. There is a sense in which the definition could be read as endorsing a UFO only if both the observer and subsequent investigation came to the same conclusion - and that is not right either. We could add in words such as “either”, but then the logic of that begins to look problematic. What we need is a simple, straightforward, immediately understandable definition. Therefore, what is wrong with dropping the whole “observer/investigator” caveat as unnecessary to end up with:

Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot identified.

You may ask: “Identified from whose perspective?” and the answer would be: “From the perspective of anyone who cares to examine the case, including the original observer.”

Then why not put that in the definition? Well, I just think it unnecessary and messy.

BTW, who is the ultimate authority about the results of UFO investigations?

BTW, who is the ultimate authority about the results of ANY investigations?

Since you seem to think most scientists are biased towards the UFMO idea…

I contended – and have done so many times – to the obvious chagrin of the UFO debunkers – that it is UFO debunkers who are “biased toward the UFMO idea”. That you get that I “seem to think” scientists are so biased from that, simply means that you have not comprehended what I am saying.

…are we going to rely on a group of amateurs (non-scientists) such as MUFON to make the call?

First, MUFON is not exactly an “amateur” organisation in the sense that you try to make out. Its members contain many qualified scientists and its methods of investigation are clearly delineated and standardised across the organisation.

Second, no-one is “relying” on anyone to “make the call”. Anyone CAN “make the call”! However, it is up to individuals to decide concerning whose authority they believe in the matter. And this is precisely the same as it is in any scientific field of investigation. There are many historical examples where highly respected peer organisations in science have got it utterly wrong - you even pointed to the example of the BAA as doing so regarding the canals ion Mars - so blindly accepting “authority” (as you seem to suggest we should) is not exactly the best method of proceeding either. Simply we must assess each investigation on its merits and consider ALL the evidence, no matter what “authority” is making the claim.

 

[Rramjet]

You've answered your own question. The witnesses at Campeche were mistaken. You've admitted that the witnesses at Rogue River were likely as mistaken. Witnesses can be mistaken.

Glad I could help.

To carry it further, in your list of seven mundane explanations that you've eliminated as possibilities, you've included secret military hardware. Please list the secret military hardware that you are familiar with and the UFO sightings that DO have that as a plausible mundane explanation.

So the ONLY link between Rogue River and Campeche is that the witnesses ”were mistaken”. But on those terms that means there is a link between ANY human observation concerning anything and everything. There is NO human observation that is immune from the charge that “Witnesses can be mistaken”.

Yours is NOT a useful formulation. It does not advance us closer to knowledge about anything. What we NEED to do is be able to assess IF (how and where) witnesses make mistakes. In that we have plenty of perceptual research that has been conducted to enable us make such judgements. We must apply the findings of such research to individual cases to ascertain if/where/how mistakes might have been made. The type of observational mistakes made in one case might bear absolutely NO relation to the types of mistakes made in another case. Your “Witnesses can be mistaken” does NOT advance our search for knowledge anywhere – it simply “muddies the waters” and that is not a sceptical or scientific method of proceeding. We need details. We need the how and the why. You supply NONE of that.

As regards to “secret military hardware” as an explanation for Rogue River, then I simply contend that we do not see ANY military craft that has subsequently developed either the shape or the “silent running”. Usually erstwhile “secret” military technology will usually become manifest in subsequent aircraft design and according to what is known about the state of technology at the time, nothing of the sort was available. HOWEVER, IF you contend that there IS a huge military conspiracy that keeps “UFO-like” technology invisible from us for more than 60 years, then perhaps you would care to delineate the grounds on which you hold that belief. No… simply on the available evidence it is unlikely - that “secret military hardware” IS the answer for Rogue River, and thus I rule it out as a plausible explanation.

Of course the UFO debunkers want to contend that mere possibility is enough to provide an explanation, but if we were to go down THAT path, then theoretically anythingis possible - and once again we find ourselves in a position where the waters are muddied and our quest for knowledge is going nowhere (and of course this is precisely[ the situation the UFO debunkers want us to be in!).

 

[Rramjet]

We can go back and forth about this forever but it is clear from all of this information that more than just a few astronomers were reporting seeing the canals, which makes my point:

1) "Trained" observers make mistakes in observation.

2) Optics do not guarantee accurate observations

3) When told what to see or how to see an object, an observer will do so even though this object may be something completely different.

Yes, you can make that point. However it is not your original point about there being a “consensus” among astronomers of the time - and that is of course where my refutation was directed - and you have failed to acknowledge your error in that respect – but addressing your point above we must consider whether you point(s) is(are) likely to be applicable to the Rogue River case.

1) Is there anything about the Rogue River sighting that might lead us to conclude that observational mistakes were made? In your example of the “canals on Mars”, even the staunchest proponents conceded at the time that they simply could not “see” many of the canals that their colleagues claimed were there. However, in the case of Rogue River, all the witnesses agreed on basically the same thing: that is a circular craft, moving silently at the speed of a jet plane. Sure there were differences, but critically, those differences were where we should expect differences to arise if the witnesses were telling the truth and not colluding: that is, in distance and size estimates.

2) Is it likely that the use of binoculars did not positively aid the observations by the witnesses? Certainly much detail about the object “resolved” with the use of binoculars – and the two witnesses who used them were in agreement as to what those details were – something distinctly lacking in your “canals on Mars” example where the “witnesses” did NOT agree on location or positioning of canals.

3) No-one in the Rogue River case “told” the other witnesses “what to see”. The witnesses provided detailed testimony about the sequence of events. Each independently described what they saw.

Of course observational error and “confirmation bias” is always a possibility – but given the evidence in the case ( in that we can clearly see where and how observational errors arose and it is unlikely that confirmation bias played a significant role) the question MUST be asked as to whether it is plausible that the factors you describe played any significant role in the substance of the observations… and we CAN answer that there might have been elements of those factors at play, but it is unlikely (implausible) that those elements played a significant role, enough to make identification of a potential mundane object impossible.

Interestingly, the UFO debunkers DO want SOME parts of the witnesses observations to be “accurate” – in as much as they could be construed as describing a “blimp” – but want to contend that everything else about the witness observations were in error!

 

[Rramjet]

I have never made such a claim. What I was posting now is the same thing I have been posting several times over the last months.

You stated:
” Every spring I watch migrating raptors soaring at a height of 3-6000 feet. I do that from an island in the baltic sea, the raptors are over the mainland and sometimes over the sea itself. I assure you that heat haze is a major problem.”

I replied (outlining the definitions of “heat haze” and where and how it is manifest and concluded):
” meaning of course that over water “heat haze” is NOT a factor!

To which you replied:
“You are wrong in many ways here. First of all, heat haze can definately be a factor if the water is warm and the air is cold. Second, the object wasn't flying over water.”

So you DID make the claim that “heat haze” is a factor over water! Moreover, I provided you with the evidence that you were incorrect in your assessment concerning “heat haze” - (http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/mars/opposition06.html , http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heat+haze and http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Heat+haze) – but you simply ignored that evidence – and now you are trying to contend that you never made the claim in the first place! Well, patently you DID make the claim.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the blimp was not hovering over water. Your reading comprehension problems that has been demonstrated before is probably to blame so you're excused.

First you NEVER contended that “the blimp” was not “hovering over water” so it is not my comprehension problems that are in question here.

Second, your categorical assertion that it was a blimp tends to refute all your fellow posters here who claim that no-one is asserting (or has ever asserted) that it was a blimp.

Regarding the rest of your comments I understand that you have not yet been able to perform my suggested experiment. Get back to me on the issue when you've had time to do that. Then you don't have to continue guessing about the problems you can have when watching a small object in binoculars from an unstable observation platform in warm spring conditions.

Then you simply understand incorrectly. Not only have I had such experience in the past but I also had the opportunity to perform precisely that experiment two days ago in a small boat on a rough sea (note not a tidal stretch of river – but a rough sea) and was able to observe distant objects in fine detail with no problem at all – details which observers with the naked eye simply could not make out. Quite simply one CAN adequately compensate for the movement of a boat when using binoculars. Can I assume that your statements in opposition to this mean that you have not conducted your own experiment?

 

[Rramjet]

I asked:
“How CAN they be UFOs if they have a “plausible mundane explanation”?

And stated: ”You have not answered the question!”

Plausible is not the same thing as confirmed.

So you are now contending that if a UFO does have a (your words) “plausible mundane explanation”, then it remains a UFO? This would seem to be at odds with your assessment that mere possibility makes the “blimp” explanation likely.

I claim that there is not ENOUGH reliable evidence available. Please, pay attention and get off your high horses. You have eyewitness statements and pretty much nothing else. Yeah, yeah. I know you claim to have physical evidence and visual/radar confirmations etc. but we both know that it's not true. All you have is guesswork and you present it using lots of words to make up for lack of substance. Standard tactic.

Your claim is an unfounded assertion – which is what I contended it was in the first place - so please pay attention to what I was actually stating. Moreover, the implication of your claim is that there exists unreliable evidence in the case, so my statement that you wave away the evidence as unreliable by way of unfounded assertion is a reasonable observation under the circumstances.

 

[Rramjet]

So, given that we know mass hallucination / group hysteria is a real and well-known phenomenon, and that we know the UFO craze was in its heyday in the 50's, and that we know the popular image of aliens was arriving in a flying saucer, which is more likely:

1 - Father Gill was mistaken, and popular culture influenced his interpretation of what he saw.

or

2 - Aliens showed up in Papua New Guinea in 1959, and having travelled millions of light years to visit earth in a craft that could withstand such a journey, with risks of hitting space debris and meteors, arriving in the tropics, they said "Hey, it's nice and warm, let's put the convertible top down and go cruising."

Just to be fair to the comic books, at least they realized that aliens wouldn't be able to breathe the Earth's air, so they put a little bubble on the top so you can see the aliens, without having to suspend disbelief that aliens could fly about al fresco within our atmosphere.

First of course, as tomi71 suggests, those comic book images from “the late 40’s to early 50s” were influenced by the “UFO wave” following Kenneth Arnold’s sighting and the popularisation of that and subsequent sightings in the media. In other words those comics are a reflection of the culture of the time, an attempt to “cash in” on the popularity of UFOs at the time – they are not the drivers of the culture at all!

Second, Father Gill’s sighting was in 1959 and he seems well aware of such implications of UFO sightings as you suggest – as the letter he wrote before his own startling experience testifies. It states in part:

“I do not doubt the existence of these "things" (indeed I cannot, now that I have seen one for myself) but my simple mind still requires scientific evidence before I can accept the from outer space theory. I am inclined to believe that probably many UFOs are more likely some form of electric phenomena, or perhaps something brought about by the atom bomb explosions, etc.

That Stephen should actually make out a saucer could be the work of the unconscious mind as it is very likely that at some time he has seen illustrations of some kind in a magazine, or it is very possible that saucers do exist, but it is only a 50/50 chance that they are not earth made, still less that they should carry men (more likely radio controlled), and it is still unproven that they are solids.

It is all too difficult to understand for me; I prefer to wait for some bright boy to catch one to be exhibited in Martin Square. 'Please return this report as I have no copy and I want Nor, (Rev. Norman Crutwell) to have it. Yours, Doubting William Anglican Mission, Boianai. 27/6/59” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)​

So the man was a skeptic before he had his own experience and wanted “scientific evidence” before he could “believe”. That does NOT sound like a man easily influenced by even his own observations - he states he HAS “seen one for himself” – but he draws no “popular cultural” conclusions from it whatsoever! So he is definitely and demonstrably NOT a man “influenced by popular culture” as you contend.

So that brings your “or” into play. But here your contention of “Aliens” that have “travelled millions of light years” etc, etc, is mere speculative opinion. It is an unfounded assertion. An assertion that simply is NOT supported by the evidence in the case at all. It is in fact merely a straw man. Imagined from your own “popular cultural” belief set concerning what UFOs are and it shows plainly and in no uncertain terms that it is in fact you who are influenced by popular culture, not father Gill.

Your contention that “aliens wouldn’t be able to breathe Earth’s air”(and subsequent statements) is also a reflection of how you have been influenced by “popular culture” …and you seem to have swallowed that popular cultural mythos hook, line and sinker. I would thus ask you to consider whether your own beliefs about UFOs are simply a cultural by-product rather than based on any truly sceptical or scientific examination of the evidence in the UFO cases I have been presenting.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I would thus ask you to consider whether your own beliefs about UFOs are simply a cultural by-product rather than based on any truly sceptical or scientific examination of the evidence in the UFO cases I have been presenting.

OK.

<Considers>

Neither. They're a product of considering all the "evidence" I have encountered in total.

And my conclusion so far is that no evidence has been shown good enough to make me conclude that any UFO report reflects a genuine flying object piloted by non-humans.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I asked:
“How CAN they be UFOs if they have a “plausible mundane explanation”?

And stated: ”You have not answered the question!”


So you are now contending that if a UFO does have a (your words) “plausible mundane explanation”, then it remains a UFO? This would seem to be at odds with your assessment that mere possibility makes the “blimp” explanation likely.

I can't and won't speak for Jocce but UFO's can have plausible mundane explanations unlike the ETA hypothesis you use, it takes time and effort to find out what is the most likely of explanation of say Rogue river UFO. Also wasn't there like an on going thread on this forum about this case? I think it's called UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Your claim is an unfounded assertion – which is what I contended it was in the first place - so please pay attention to what I was actually stating. Moreover, the implication of your claim is that there exists unreliable evidence in the case, so my statement that you wave away the evidence as unreliable by way of unfounded assertion is a reasonable observation under the circumstances.

Shifting the burden of proof, I have failed to see why UFO's are "alien" All I have read from you is UFO's are alien but no evidence, but now you know you have no evidence of this now you are trying to make a debate out of the null hypothesis, while handing waving any evidence doesn't suggest Aliens.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So the ONLY link between Rogue River and Campeche is that the witnesses ”were mistaken”. But on those terms that means there is a link between ANY human observation concerning anything and everything. There is NO human observation that is immune from the charge that “Witnesses can be mistaken”.

Yes, you've finally got it. Can you now provide a list of ten cases where witnesses were mistaken?

Yours is NOT a useful formulation.

Not useful to you to advance your belief in aliens?

It does not advance us closer to knowledge about anything. What we NEED to do is be able to assess IF (how and where) witnesses make mistakes. In that we have plenty of perceptual research that has been conducted to enable us make such judgements. We must apply the findings of such research to individual cases to ascertain if/where/how mistakes might have been made. The type of observational mistakes made in one case might bear absolutely NO relation to the types of mistakes made in another case.

What method have you used to eliminate witness error? Also, still waiting for you to describe the method you have used to eliminate all other mundane explanations. You listed seven and unilaterally declared them to not be the answer. Describe your methodology in doing so and then complete the description by including all other mundane explanations. You may wish to limit it to only those mundane explanations that you can think of.

Your “Witnesses can be mistaken” does NOT advance our search for knowledge anywhere – it simply “muddies the waters” and that is not a sceptical or scientific method of proceeding. We need details. We need the how and the why. You supply NONE of that.

How and why do you propose a particular thing, "aliens", for unknowns? And give the details of them.

As regards to “secret military hardware” as an explanation for R[ogue River, then I simply contend that we do not see ANY military craft that has subsequently developed either the shape or the “silent running”. Usually erstwhile “secret” military technology will usually become manifest in subsequent aircraft design and according to what is known about the state of technology at the time, nothing of the sort was available. HOWEVER, IF you contend that there IS a huge military conspiracy that keeps “UFO-like” technology invisible from us for more than 60 years, then perhaps you would care to delineate the grounds on which you hold that belief. No… simply on the available evidence it is unlikely - that “secret military hardware” IS the answer for Rogue River, and thus I rule it out as a plausible explanation.

No, you have made a mistake there, perhaps deliberately. I don't contend military hardware, I asked how you eliminated secret military hardware and to list that which you are familiar with. Do not misrepresent what I've said again.

Of course the UFO debunkers want to contend that mere possibility is enough to provide an explanation, but if we were to go down THAT path, then theoretically anythingis possible - and once again we find ourselves in a position where the waters are muddied and our quest for knowledge is going nowhere (and of course this is precisely[ the situation the UFO debunkers want us to be in!).

Anything, such as oil well fires? Also, can you tell me how you believing in "aliens" advances our knowledge?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Yes, you can make that point. However it is not your original point about there being a “consensus” among astronomers of the time - and that is of course where my refutation was directed - and you have failed to acknowledge your error in that respect!

This is incorrect because I stated many posts ago that I was probably hasty in the use of the word “Consensus” (meaning a general agreement). See post 6989 on March 25th:

So in response to your claim that I lied, I can now point to where I had drawn that conclusion. I had reasonably recalled what Sheehan and others had written on the subject. Was it a "consens" (sic)? Perhaps that is a poor choice of words but a good number of astronomers seemed to be willing to accept these observations as accurate.

So, I did acknowledge this poor choice of words. However, there were statements by Sheehan that it was accepted that the canals did exist among many astronomers. This is something you refused to accept and just kept putting up comments about remarks concerning Lowell from a few sites that did not discuss the history behind the canals.

Is there anything about the Rogue River sighting that might lead us to conclude that observational mistakes were made? In your example of the “canals on Mars”, even the staunchest proponents conceded at the time that they simply could not “see” many of the canals that their colleagues claimed were there. However, in the case of Rogue River, all the witnesses agreed on basically the same thing: that is a circular craft, moving silently at the speed of a jet plane. Sure there were differences, but critically, those differences were where we should expect differences to arise if the witnesses were telling the truth and not colluding: that is, in distance and size estimates.

It does not matter that others could not see them. Several of the canals were seen by different observers because others were reporting them in these locations. They saw what they wanted to see. In this case, we can suggest the witnesses wanted to see a “disc” (the popular shape of a UFO at the time) and they saw one. Witnesses are not going to memorize details such as distance and size (unless they plan to). However, thinks such as shape and a tail fin are going to be things they will remember after discussing it between each other.

Is it likely that the use of binoculars did not positively aid the observations by the witnesses? Certainly much detail about the object “resolved” with the use of binoculars – and the two witnesses who used them were in agreement as to what those details were – something distinctly lacking in your “canals on Mars” example where the “witnesses” did NOT agree on location or positioning of canals.

The canals were being seen by various observers in the same locations. Sure, some saw more and some saw less but there were canal locations that everyone agreed upon. Of course, this is because they were communicating with each other. If they did not see the same canals, the idea that the canals existed would not have gained a foothold. One can draw a comparison to this case. They were next to each other and certainly discussed the event after it happened. Observed details were going to be shared. Are you are suggesting that they did not talk about it with each other after the event?

No-one in the Rogue River case “told” the other witnesses “what to see”. The witnesses provided detailed testimony about the sequence of events. Each independently described what they saw.

They were NOT independent because they were together. To suggest they were independent of each other is ignoring the meaning of the word. You are also incorrect in that there was no influence on the observers. The popular description of “flying saucers/discs” (promoted by the media of the time) was all they needed to suggest to them what shape the UFO would be. If they saw something that looked to them like a “disc” then they might describe it as a “disc”. That does not necessarily mean that is what they actually saw. This is very similar to the canals story. They were told that canals existed and some saw them.

Of course observational error and “confirmation bias” is always a possibility – but given the evidence in the case ( in that we can clearly see where and how observational errors arose and it is unlikely that confirmation bias played a significant role) the question MUST be asked as to whether it is plausible that the factors you describe played any significant role in the substance of the observations… and we CAN answer that there might have been elements of those factors at play, but it is unlikely (implausible) that those elements played a significant role, enough to make identification of a potential mundane object impossible.

You keep claiming “evidence”. The sole evidence is eyewitness testimony, which CAN BE fallible. Even you agree on that point. That is the ONLY evidence and it is weak because it is based solely on the eyewitnesses. We also have the lack of any supporting evidence from any other group in the area. One would think that such an object would have been seen by multiple groups but nobody ever reported such an object. I know you have used the “fear of ridicule” argument but that fails in that just the month (April 27, 1949) before, the USAF publicly stated they were seriously investigating these reports and they were “not a joke”!

http://www.project1947.com/fig/projsauc.htm

You can not prove observational error/confirmation bias did not play a role in these observations. That is the point everyone keeps making. I keep asking for you to provide any specific scientific papers (concerning observers with binoculars in a boat observing distant objects) that you can present to prove your point on this matter and you haven’t. Therefore, these factors can play a role (just like the canals of Mars) and to quantify the role they played as “unlikely” is based on “belief” and not through any scientific research on the matter. Wanting to believe something is true is in the realm of religion and not science.

As always, this is one big death spiral and you have convinced nobody that I am aware of in this forum. I see no reason to waste my time any more on this topic unless you can provide these scientific studies you claim to have that help you eliminate/compensate for/understand the possibility of human error.

 

[wollery]

I asked:
“How CAN they be UFOs if they have a “plausible mundane explanation”?

And stated: ”You have not answered the question!”

So you are now contending that if a UFO does have a (your words) “plausible mundane explanation”, then it remains a UFO? This would seem to be at odds with your assessment that mere possibility makes the “blimp” explanation likely.

Yes. Plausibility is not the same as confirmation. Something can be plausible and wrong, or implausible yet right. We've been over this before, with examples.

Plausibility is pretty much irrelevant, no matter how hard you try to force it into the argument. Mainly because plausibility is extremely subjective, as the arguments over the blimp hypothesis prove.

 

[carlitos]

But here your contention of “Aliens” that have “travelled millions of light years” etc, etc, is mere speculative opinion. It is an unfounded assertion. An assertion that simply is NOT supported by the evidence in the case at all. It is in fact merely a straw man. Imagined from your own “popular cultural” belief set concerning what UFOs are and it shows plainly and in no uncertain terms that it is in fact you who are influenced by popular culture, not father Gill.

Your contention that “aliens wouldn’t be able to breathe Earth’s air” (and subsequent statements) is also a reflection of how you have been influenced by “popular culture” …and you seem to have swallowed that popular cultural mythos hook, line and sinker. I would thus ask you to consider whether your own beliefs about UFOs are simply a cultural by-product rather than based on any truly sceptical or scientific examination of the evidence in the UFO cases I have been presenting.

No, I was not basing these things on popular culture. I was basing them on science. Aliens would have to come from a place where beings could live. The nearest one would be millions of light years away. The odds of life evolving on another planet elsewhere in the universe and being able to breathe the earth's atmosphere are so great as to be impossible.

If Father Gill says that he saw alien beings flying around in a convertible flying saucer in 1959, then he is just wrong. The fact that you believe him doesn't impress me a bit, but I guess it's not surprising. The fact that you believe Travis Walton, who is clearly a fantasist, tells me that you are overly credulous of alien claims.

Speaking of science:

Perhaps you would like to assess the evidence in the “Hair of the alien” case then? (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)

A human hair exhibits anomalous mitochondrial DNA, therefore it is "alien hair." Well, at least I can see where you get your logic from. That is a bit of a leap for me. There is a whole lot of speculation on the part of the "Ufologist" (his term) in that case. I see zero proof of aliens. Moreover, he quotes Carl Sagan in supporting his "science-based" approach to validating alien encounter cases, on the same page as he hypothesizes that aliens have cross-bred with humans! Similar to my comments above, perhaps he would be better reminded that Sagan said this:

Yes, and the classic science-fiction stories even have it that human beings can mate and produce viable offspring with beings of other planets. The fringiest part of the UFO fringe literature continues to have that idea, and there are reports—of course extraordinarily unreliable—of seduction and rape by extraterrestrials. I think the chance of a man mating with a petunia is much greater than the chance of him being able to mate, much less produce offspring, with an inhabitant of another planet.

 

[Rramjet]

And my conclusion so far is that no evidence has been shown good enough to make me conclude that any UFO report reflects a genuine flying object piloted by non-humans.

Let us quickly review some of that evidence then and perhaps you can explain what it DOES mean to you.

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)

“In a signed statement, the witnesses agreed that the object was circular, had a wide base and a narrower upper "deck," had something like legs beneath it… (…)

"As we watched it," Father Gill said, "men came out from this object and appeared on top of it, on what seemed to be a deck on top of the huge disk. There were four men in all… (…)

"Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light… (…)

When the large object disappeared at 9:30 P.M., Father Gill said it made a slight wavering motion, then suddenly shot away at tremendous speed, changing color to red and blue-green, and disappeared across the bay, vanishing. No sound was heard throughout. (…)

The next evening, about 6 P.M., the same or a similar object reappeared while the sky was still bright, first seen by Annie Laura Borews, a Papuan medical assistant at the hospital. She called Father Gill, who in turn called Ananias and several other to watch. "We watched figures appear on top.'' Father Gill said. "Four of them. There is no doubt that they were human. This is possibly the same object that I took to be the 'mother ship' last night. Two smaller UFOs were seen at the same time, stationary, one above the hills, west, and another overhead." (…)

"I stretched my arm above my head and waved. To our surprise the figure did the same. Ananias waved both arms over his head, then the two outside figures did the same. Ananias and self began waving our arms and all four seemed to wave back. There seemed to be no doubt that our movements were answered. All the Mission boys made audible gasps (of either joy or surprise, perhaps both)." (http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)​

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)

“Suddenly noted a shiny type object to south about 150 to 200 yards. It was off the road. At first glance, stopped. It looked, at first, like a car turned upside down. Thought some kids might have turned over. Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat. At this time I started moving my car towards them quickly, with idea to help. Had stopped about only a couple seconds. Object was like aluminum--it was whitish against the mesa background, but not chrome. Seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned white car. Car appeared to be up on radiator or on trunk, this first glance.

The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids. (…)

Object was oval, in shape. It was smooth--no windows or doors. As roar started, it was still on or near ground. Noted red lettering of some type (see illustration). Insignia was about 2 1/2' high and about 2' wide I guess. Was in middle of object... (…)

As I was calling Nep, I could still see the object. The object seemed to lift up slowly, and to "get small" in the distance very fast. It seemed to just clear the Box Canyon or Six Mile Canyon Mountain. It disappeared as it went over the mountain. It had no flame whatsoever as it was traveling over the ground, and no smoke or noise. (…)

Then Sgt. Chavez came up, asked me what the trouble was, because I was sweating and he told me I was white, very pale. I asked the Sgt. to see what I saw, and that was the burning brush. Then Sgt. Chavez and I went to the spot, and Sgt. Chavez pointed out the tracks. When I first saw the object (when I thought it might be a car) I saw what appeared to be two legs of some type from the object to the ground. At the time, I didn't pay much attention to what it was--I thought it was an accident--I saw the two persons. I didn't pay any attention to the two "legs?" The two "legs" were at the bottom of the object, slanted outwards to the ground. The object might have been about three and a half feet from the ground at that time. I just glanced at it.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)​

Val Johnson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)

“Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson of Marshall County was on duty that night, driving not far from the North Dakota border, when at around 1:40 a.m. he saw a light through his side window. It was obviously not on a road and looked too glaring to be a car headlight. He first thought it might be a small plane on or very near the ground. He turned left on another road to try to get closer to the light to identify it. Suddenly, the light moved toward him, travelling so fast that it almost instantaneously was upon his car (covering an estimated mile and a half). Johnson was blinded by the brilliance of the light and heard glass breaking, then lost consciousness.

When he returned to consciousness, the car was stalled and had skidded across the highway. He felt sluggish and shaky. He radioed headquarters, at 2:19 a.m., to request assistance. Soon another deputy arrived, who called an ambulance. The doctor who examined Johnson found him to be in a mild state of shock. His eyes were irritated as if Johnson had suffered "mild welder's burns," and Johnson couldn't stand to be exposed to any bright lights.

The patrol car had very peculiar damage. The inside headlight on the driver's side was smashed but not the one to its immediate left. There was a flat-bottomed circular dent on the left side of the front hood, about a half inch in diameter, close to the windshield. There was a crack in the windshield on the driver's side, that ran from top to bottom, with four apparent impacts. The electric clock was running 14 minutes slow, as was Johnson's wristwatch. The shaft of the roof antenna was bent over at a 60-degree angle, starting about 6 inches above its base. The trunk antenna was bent over at 90 degrees, but only near the top. No damage occurred to the car's regular antenna on the front hood. Essentially, all the damage to the car occurred on the left, or driver's side. (http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)​

So clearly there are beings involved and the objects certainly were “genuinely flying” and there was physical trace evidence. Obviously there is no dispute about the “genuinely flying” part but could the beings have been human? If they were, then how do you explain the technology they were using? What DO you make of the evidence in these cases?

 

[Rramjet]

I can't and won't speak for Jocce but UFO's can have plausible mundane explanations unlike the ETA hypothesis you use, it takes time and effort to find out what is the most likely of explanation of say Rogue river UFO. Also wasn't there like an on going thread on this forum about this case? I think it's called UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

First, Jocce’s contention was that an object will remain a UFO even after a “plausible mundane explanation” has been proposed. I found that somewhat perplexing and questioned him (a number of times now) on his contention thus: “How CAN they be UFOs if they have a “plausible mundane explanation”? I don’t see how your reply addresses that issue at all.

Second, I have never used the “ETA” hypothesis (whatever that is). Can you really expect to continue to build such straw man arguments and have me (or others) take you seriously?

As for Rogue River, considering the evidence (that has taken a great deal of “time and effort” to delineate) that makes the “blimp” explanation implausible (none of the major details of a “blimp” were observed by the witnesses – size, shape, speed, noise, fins, gondola, engines, and critically a logo – none of the witness observations in this respect conform to a “blimp”), then what we are left with is a relatively small, circular object that moved silently at the speed of a jet plane. Considering that no plausible mundane explanation has been forthcoming, then that means we are left with UFO.

Shifting the burden of proof, I have failed to see why UFO's are "alien" All I have read from you is UFO's are alien but no evidence, but now you know you have no evidence of this now you are trying to make a debate out of the null hypothesis, while handing waving any evidence doesn't suggest Aliens.

There is a difference between the popular cultural belief of UFO debunkers that UFOs = extraterrestrial spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrial beings (aliens) and my definitional concept of “If not mundane then alien”.

The UFO debunker’s “alien” is a physical explanation. My “alien” simply means something that does not conform to our concepts of the natural or technological world. The UFO debunker’s “alien” IS covered by this definitional construct – but not necessarily so – there are hypotheses that can be proposed as alternatives. All I am really trying to point out is that the ETI hypothesis is NOT directly supported by the evidence. The evidence might be highly suggestive of an ETI explanation – but if history has taught us anything it would be not to leap to conclusive explanations in the absence of direct evidence.

The evidence we DO have seems to positively rule out mundane explanations (at least as far as our current concept of the natural and technological world is concerned), but that STILL does not mean that we should automatically accept the ETI hypothesis as THE explanation. Something “strange” is going on and it is that very “strangeness” that should make us cautious about going beyond what can be determined from the observational (eyewitness, radar and photographic/film) and physical trace evidence. I believe we must stop short of the ETI explanation – no matter how suggestive the evidence might seem. But that is merely an opinion. However, in my opinion it would also seem that the ETI explanation is the most parsimonious explanation – which of course is precisely why so many use it – but I am naturally a conservative person and find that the ETI hypothesis might not necessarily be “it”.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, you've finally got it. Can you now provide a list of ten cases where witnesses were mistaken?

What specific purpose would my doing so serve? What illumination on the subject would it provide? How would it advance out knowledge of the cases in any meaningful way?

What method have you used to eliminate witness error? Also, still waiting for you to describe the method you have used to eliminate all other mundane explanations. You listed seven and unilaterally declared them to not be the answer. Describe your methodology in doing so and then complete the description by including all other mundane explanations. You may wish to limit it to only those mundane explanations that you can think of.

This continual use of straw man arguments by UFO debunkers is becoming ridiculous. I have NEVER claimed to “eliminate witness error” and it is utterly disingenuous of you to imply that I have. But of course in the absence of you being able to directly discuss and analyse the evidence in the cases I have been presenting (and you have even failed to do so in the cases YOU raise – Campeche ring any bells for you RoboTimbo?) then I suppose that building straw men is all you have left.

As for the methodology of eliminating mundane explanations then the process itself is entirely mundane. For example at Rogue River we have a relatively small, circular object than moves without sound at the speed of a jet plane. What mundane objects ARE there that fit that description? Can you think of any? I can’t.

No, you have made a mistake there, perhaps deliberately. I don't contend military hardware, I asked how you eliminated secret military hardware and to list that which you are familiar with. Do not misrepresent what I've said again.

Then you have simply not payed close enough attention to what I actually wrote in reply to your request. I described in detail how I eliminated “secret military hardware” as a plausible explanation and then stated that “IF you contend… (secret military hardware)…” then “perhaps you would care to delineate…”. IF you do not contend “secret military hardware”, then you also must have used some process of elimination. Perhaps you would care to delineate that process?

Moreover, (and this is something I did not point out in my previous reply because I thought it would be churlish to do so, but since you seem to want to ride the point) asking someone to list secret military hardware that they are “familiar with” is an utter nonsense. Surely you can see that?

 

[Rramjet]

This is incorrect because I stated many posts ago that I was probably hasty in the use of the word “Consensus” (meaning a general agreement). See post 6989 on March 25th:

So in response to your claim that I lied, I can now point to where I had drawn that conclusion. I had reasonably recalled what Sheehan and others had written on the subject. Was it a "consens" (sic)? Perhaps that is a poor choice of words but a good number of astronomers seemed to be willing to accept these observations as accurate.

So, I did acknowledge this poor choice of words. However, there were statements by Sheehan that it was accepted that the canals did exist among many astronomers. This is something you refused to accept and just kept putting up comments about remarks concerning Lowell from a few sites that did not discuss the history behind the canals.

But this is your problem right here: “probably hasty” and “perhaps a poor choice”. You cannot just come straight out admit that you were wrong. Even your original “admission” was hidden in the midst of an almost 800 word justification FOR your position… and not only that, my cited quotes in refutation of your (“consensus”) position were directly drawn from (among other sources) your source! Something that you also fail to acknowledge.

It does not matter that others could not see them. Several of the canals were seen by different observers because others were reporting them in these locations. They saw what they wanted to see. In this case, we can suggest the witnesses wanted to see a “disc” (the popular shape of a UFO at the time) and they saw one. Witnesses are not going to memorize details such as distance and size (unless they plan to). However, thinks such as shape and a tail fin are going to be things they will remember after discussing it between each other.

Actually you are only half correct here. “Several” different observers saw “canals”, yes, but tellingly those observers could never agree on the location of those canals – as my quote from your source demonstrates:

“In the 1890s, Antoniadi collaborated with Flammarion on several canal-filled maps of the planet (fig. 16). At this time he was convinced of the canals' objective reality. (…but later…) Antoniadi's experience was somewhat different; at Juvisy he found that "the canals are very difficult objects, visible only in rare glimpses." He added that "but for Prof. Schiaparelli's wonderful discoveries, and the foreknowledge that `the canals are there'," he would have missed three quarters at least of those seen.” (http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/mars/chap09.htm)​

So in fact (in this example) they did NOT “see what they wanted to see” by at LEAST “three quarters”! I agree with you entirely that there IS a sense of “confirmation bias” at play here. Lowell proposed “canals” and “several” subsequent observers “saw” canals. Critically however, it was the technology that was letting them down, not the observations themselves per se. Due to the indistinct nature of the markings that were observed, one could interpret what was seen as “canals”, however it is important to note also the comments of some of Lowell’s peers in this regard (again from your source):

“James Keeler, then at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh, complained to George Ellery Hale: "I dislike his style. . . . It is dogmatic and amateurish. One would think he was the first man to use a telescope on Mars, and that he was entitled to decide offhand questions relating to the efficiency of instruments; and he draws no line between what he sees and what he infers. (http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/mars/chap07.htm)​

Now in regard to Rogue River and witness memory of the event, you show a distinctive lack of understanding about how memory and recall actually works. It is precisely this type of event that IS remembered very well. This has a lot to do with attention, arousal and rehearsal (this does not mean collusion by the way…). Such “throwaway” generalisations as you have made here are insidious because they work directly against science and knowledge and it would take a great deal of effort in explaining the research to show precisely how and why you are mistaken in your concepts here - and of course that is precisely why you make such unfounded generalisations – because you KNOW that to correct your conceptual errors and explain how memory and recall actually works in such circumstances means that the effort involved to do so is beyond the amount of time an ordinary individual has. Suffice to say I think just about everyone would recognise that memory for these type of events is enhanced beyond the ordinary.

The canals were being seen by various observers in the same locations. Sure, some saw more and some saw less but there were canal locations that everyone agreed upon. Of course, this is because they were communicating with each other. If they did not see the same canals, the idea that the canals existed would not have gained a foothold. One can draw a comparison to this case. They were next to each other and certainly discussed the event after it happened. Observed details were going to be shared. Are you are suggesting that they did not talk about it with each other after the event?

Again you make some generalisations about what happens when people “talk” about events between themselves after the event. Often such talk can actually enhance and correct details – but you seem to make out this was some sort of complex situation that required a great deal of processing to understand. In fact the major details in the case were VERY simple and required little or no processing to understand. Circular (with no protrusions other than the single fin), silent and moving at the speed of a jet plane: pretty straightforward really.

You keep claiming “evidence”. The sole evidence is eyewitness testimony, which CAN BE fallible. Even you agree on that point. That is the ONLY evidence and it is weak because it is based solely on the eyewitnesses.

Yes of course I agree that eyewitness testimony CAN be fallible. But I also contend that such fallibility is circumstantial and we must therefore – guided by perceptual research- examine the circumstances to see if any that lead to fallibility ARE present or not.

We also have the lack of any supporting evidence from any other group in the area. One would think that such an object would have been seen by multiple groups but nobody ever reported such an object. I know you have used the “fear of ridicule” argument but that fails in that just the month (April 27, 1949) before, the USAF publicly stated they were seriously investigating these reports and they were “not a joke”!

http://www.project1947.com/fig/projsauc.htm

Why is it that UFO debunkers can only see things in terms of “either/or”, as if such processes as they talk about are mutually exclusive? In the minds of the witnesses there WOULD have been a tension between fear of ridicule and what they would have seen as their duty to report such an event. It is likely that much of the discussion of the group would have centred around this tension (rather than the details of the case itself): to report or not to report - and the fact that it was two weeks before they DID report means that discussion was difficult for them and that the tension was very real.

You can not prove observational error/confirmation bias did not play a role in these observations. That is the point everyone keeps making. I keep asking for you to provide any specific scientific papers (concerning observers with binoculars in a boat observing distant objects) that you can present to prove your point on this matter and you haven’t. Therefore, these factors can play a role (just like the canals of Mars) and to quantify the role they played as “unlikely” is based on “belief” and not through any scientific research on the matter. Wanting to believe something is true is in the realm of religion and not science.

Sure, but similarly you cannot “prove” that such elements DID play a significant role! You claim to have been in the Navy, yet you have never had the opportunity to use binoculars from a sea going vessel? Besides you are shifting the burden of proof here. It is you who make the claim that binoculars are useless from such a platform, yet it is you who cannot provide the evidence to show your contention has any veracity whatsoever. I simply point out the obvious that the Navy does issue binoculars for use on boats and they would NOT do this if they thought that they were useless for the purpose of observation from boats.

As always, this is one big death spiral and you have convinced nobody that I am aware of in this forum. I see no reason to waste my time any more on this topic unless you can provide these scientific studies you claim to have that help you eliminate/compensate for/understand the possibility of human error.

I have already produced this information for you! It is only a “death spiral” because you choose to ignore the information I provide for you in this respect. There are many factors involved in human perception (visual acuity, brightness and discrimination, colour, space, form, movement, auditory, learning and memory and so on, just to name some of the more relevant factors). What I would suggest you do is look up a basic text on the principles of perception and I you will find in there a great deal of informative research that can be applied to the situations we are discussing. It seems to me that a major problem with UFO debunkers is that they are unwilling to apprise themselves of knowledge that is directly relevant to the subject they discuss. It is not my position (nor do I have the time or inclination) to teach a course on human perception (or memory) just so that you can understand the application of perception and memory to real world situations. Clearly you need to conduct some basic research yourself. Everyone knows that perception and memory are fallible, but that mere generalisation does nothing to advance knowledge: we need to understand the context and circumstances of where and how perception and memory ARE fallible – because they are NOT fallible ALL the time in every circumstance! Your position on the matter can only be maintained if you can show that witnesses are in error 100% of the time – and that is patently a nonsense! DO some research.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes. Plausibility is not the same as confirmation. Something can be plausible and wrong, or implausible yet right. We've been over this before, with examples.

Plausibility is pretty much irrelevant, no matter how hard you try to force it into the argument. Mainly because plausibility is extremely subjective, as the arguments over the blimp hypothesis prove.

You are right, we have been over this before, and you seem to have totally ignored what I said about plausibility – merely to repeat an initial position without accounting for any of the points I made.

Basically, because the documented historical evidence suggests no blimp and the eyewitness accounts describe something that is most definitely not a blimp, then I contend that “blimp” IS an implausible explanation. This does not mean that “blimp” is impossible (for theoretically at least anything is possible), just that on the balance of evidence, “blimp” is neither probable or likely – thus implausible as an explanation. The ONLY way the “blimp” hypothesis can be maintained is if the evidence in the case (both historical and observational) is ignored and that is not a scientifically tenable position to hold.