UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

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)[(quote]

No objective evidence.

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)

No objective evidence.

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

No objective evidence. Evidence of damage is not evidence of a cause.

 

[Jocce]

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, and others, have already replied on this issue. Plausible is not the same as confirmed. You f ex claim that it is plausible that the cases you present are aliens. That is not the same thing as confirmed aliens.

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.

We are left with an object that had the outline of a blimp, in an area where there were blimps active, observed under conditions that could make identification difficult. It was also far away so absence of sound is not strange at all. I agree with your conclusion though. It has not be proven to be a blimp or anything else (mundane or alien) so thus it is still unidentified - a UFO.

The evidence we DO have seems to positively rule out mundane explanations

Not in my opinion.

 

[Jocce]

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.

You have claimed that you can account for witness errors using research that seems to be available only to you. You have repeatedly been asked to present references to such research but have failed to do so.

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.

1. You again say "I can't think of any mundane explanations so therefore it is alien". That's not an explanation of the elimination process.

2. You take witness statements at face value although some potential problems with the observation has been pointed out to you.

That leaves us with a UFO and we can't say if it's alien or mundane.

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?

Which is exactly the point. How can you eliminate something that you're not familiar with? You're guessing, that's all.

 

[Jocce]

Again you make some generalisations about what happens when people “talk” about events between themselves after the event.

Here's a summary of a talk by professor George Fisher at Stanford uni. In this and among the many references I'm sure you can find some answers to your questions about the veracity of witness statements.

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

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.

Present your sources for the bolded part and argue from them about this specific case then.

It is you who make the claim that binoculars are useless from such a platform,

Noone is making that claim. The claim is that the circumstances during the observation degraded the quality of observation to a non negligable degree.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)

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

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?

Like a juror in court, I can only consider the available evidence and decide to what extent I believe the accounts given.

I don't know what Father Gill really saw (Venus maybe), but I find his tale quite unbelievable. It reads to me like a story much improved in the telling. A spectacular flying craft which comes back; what a pity nobody thought to look for a camera. I'm sure you won't like it this time any more than all the previous times you've heard it, but I simply do not believe Father Gill's tale.

I have no idea what officer Zamora saw. Parts of the account suggest a helicopter, other parts say not. There appear to be intriguing hints of trace evidence collected at the scene - I wonder what became of that. Sorry to give an unsatisfactory answer, but I simply can't decide what I think Zamora saw.

Johnson case - I believe a sleepy cop on nightshift nodded off at the wheel and ran his car off the road, lightly damaging it. He wasn't quite sure what happened, but tried to pull together a coherent story so as not to look stupid or take the blame for the damage. The story escalated from there.

As I said, I'm sure you won't like my answers, but they're what I really think.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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?

Do you believe that it would advance our knowledge more than or less than your religious-like belief in aliens?

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.

It's interesting that in the same post where you declare a strawman argument, you also demonstrate the very thing you are calling a strawman. I ask how you eliminate witness error and you ask what fits the description of witness statements. Hilarious!

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?

And then turn around and create your own strawman argument. So I'll ask you again, how did you eliminate secret military hardware to arrive at your positive claim of aliens?

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?

Indeed, I do see that. That's why I asked you to list the ones you were familiar with so that we could see how you eliminated them. Also list the ones that you are not familiar with and describe your methodology for eliminating them. Surely you can see that your entire argument is utter nonsense until you can answer the above questions?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

You have not. You keep claiming that there is "research" that backs you up but you have yet to provide anything specific. I have seen you post a few links to journals some time ago but no specific articles that address this situation. It is a false claim until you present scientific studies that ensure that the witnesses were 100% accurate in describing the exact shape and details about the craft at Rogue River. Until you do so, your argument fails no matter how much you proclaim it to be correct.

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.

I have looked at the literature but I have yet to see anything that supports the claims that you continously make about being able to understand how witnesses could not be mistaken. It just is not there. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong documents but I am not the one making this argument. Feel free to present the articles/studies that support your arguments. Until you do so, it is your opinion based on a belief and not scientific.

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.

It is your argument that you can understand human perception and determine when it is potentially fallible. You proclaim yourself the expert here and have made the claim. I have yet to see you present one scientific study that suggests you are correct. Again, if you can not provide supporting documentation, then you argument is based solely on personal belief and not science.

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.

Once again, you completely misrepresent the position everyone seems to have here in order to shift the burden of proof. Nobody has stated the witnesses were wrong 100% of the time. However, we are questioning observations of an object that nobody has seen before or since. If they had reported a flying dragon, I am sure you would question it. However, because they report a flying disc, you have no problem accepting it. It is the argument of just about every "debunker" in this forum that based on what was reported it was more probable the witnesses were mistaken in these observations (I even gave the Catalina case as an example of how an aircraft could be mistaken for a disc). It is your argument that it is unlikely or implausible they could could be mistaken based on some vague references to the "perceptual literature" and, therefore, the witnesses were accurate in their observations.

Members of this forum have cited sources about problems with eyewitness testimony based on actual studies several times. I find it ironic that you have made several claims that I attempt to "hide" my sources (even though I do reveal them when requested) and now you seem to be very intent on not presenting an actual source that is pertinent to your argument. I can only draw the conclusion that you have no such source and that you have not done any of this research that you claim. Prove me wrong. Present documentation THAT IS PERTINENT to this situation and demonstrates that is implausible or unlikely that the witnesses were mistaken.

 

[wollery]

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.

And once again you entirely miss the point. Who decides what is and isn't plausible? You say the blimp explanation is highly implausible. Almost everyone else seems to think that it is reasonably plausible. So where does that leave your plausibility requirement? Plausibility is subjective and (more to the point) often misleading because, as you yourself pointed out the last time, it is only a measure of the appearance of truth.

Basically, because the documented historical evidence suggests no blimp

No, it doesn't give us any real information about which blimps were where at what time, which is not the same thing. And that is why you are forced to use the word "suggests", because you don't actually know. Even Goodyear don't know where their blimps were or what they were doing at the time (I emailed them to ask - they don't keep records from that long ago), so how can you? The evidence does nothing more than show that there probably weren't any USN blimps in the area, although it's far from conclusive. But there definitely was at least one blimp within a few hours flying distance. We know this because of newspaper reports from both before and after the sighting that place a Goodyear blimp in the area.

and the eyewitness accounts describe something that is most definitely not a blimp,

According to you. But this is where your plausibility argument starts to fall apart, because here your statement above is slightly wrong. What they "describe" isn't a blimp, but that doesn't mean that the actual object they saw wasn't a blimp, just that their perception of it was different than you might expect if it was a blimp. Of course, that doesn't mean it was a blimp either, but it could have been.

Let's see,

RR UFO: Silvery, oval in profile, fin.

Blimp: Silvery, oval in profile, fins.

Yes, there are differences, but there are also startling similarities, that you continue to overlook.

then I contend that “blimp” IS an implausible explanation.

<bolding mine>
Exactly. Your decision to label the blimp explanation as implausible is due to your subjective view of the evidence. Other people view it differently and come to the decision that "blimp" is perfectly plausible.

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

According to your personal interpretation of the evidence. Others disagree.

– thus implausible as an explanation.

Or plausible as an explanation, depending on your interpretation of the evidence.

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.

The historical evidence is lacking, whilst the observational evidence is anecdotal, and not independent. Which is pretty poor evidence if you want to approach things scientifically, as you (with your scientific training) ought to know.

 

[Toke]

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.
Snip....

I am not so sure about the distance and the breathing air.
For all I know there are only a limited number of stable atmospheres for life bearing planets.
The app. 21/79% we have appears to be stabilised somehow, and humans can function in a range of atmospheres.

 

[Paul2]

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.

This shifts the burden of proof from the claimaint to the skeptic inappropriately. It is up to the claimaint - one who claims that eyewitness testimony is correct - to provide independent evidence that the eyewitness testimony was not based on misperception, etc. It is not up to the skeptic to provide a scenario which would prove the eyewitness testimony incorrect, and failing to do so, conclude that the eyewitness testimony must be correct.

 

[Rramjet]

No objective evidence.

That is not exactly correct. The Reverend Father Gill (http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html) and police officers Lonnie Zamora (http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm) and Val Johnson (http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm) objectively reported what they observed. It is an objective fact that each of them observed something unusual and it is also an objective fact that whatever they observed was something we find (and they found) inexplicable in mundane terms. In Father Gill’s case there were multiple witnesses to events occurring over a number of days. In the Lonnie Zamora and Val Johnson cases physical trace evidence was left behind. In all cases the primary witnesses were judged by their peers and case investigators to be reliable, sober minded people who were “pillars” of their community. Quite simply we have no rational reason to disbelieve that the incidents did not occur as the witnesses described them.

Evidence of damage is not evidence of a cause.

Something caused the physical evidence – and the description of that something defies mundane explanation!

 

[Rramjet]

I, and others, have already replied on this issue. Plausible is not the same as confirmed.

You made the contention that an object will remain a UFO even after a “plausible mundane explanation” has been proposed. I found that somewhat perplexing and questioned you (a number of times now) on his contention: “How CAN they be UFOs if they have a “plausible mundane explanation”?

If you are now contending that unless a mundane explanation is confirmed, then “UFO” is the conclusion that we must reach and so the reported objects in all the cases I have presented so far are then, according to you, UFOs! That is they remain “unidentified” because no mundane explanation has been confirmed.

So then what are these “unidentified flying objects”? Certainly no plausible mundane explanations can be found for them. So where DO they come from? What IS their explanation?

You f ex claim that it is plausible that the cases you present are aliens. That is not the same thing as confirmed aliens.

Perhaps it IS plausible that the cause is ETI. However you are deliberately obfuscating terms here. I know you mean by “alien” ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence) but you also know that I DO NOT mean ETI when I state “alien”. I mean by “alien” that UFOs are foreign to our concept of the natural and technological world. That is they do not fit into our understanding of the world as we know it. But that does NOT mean the cause IS ETI.

We are left with an object that had the outline of a blimp, in an area where there were blimps active, observed under conditions that could make identification difficult. It was also far away so absence of sound is not strange at all. I agree with your conclusion though. It has not be proven to be a blimp or anything else (mundane or alien) so thus it is still unidentified - a UFO.

So you simply ignore the evidence to make things up to support your belief system (shrugs). I am not surprised because that is what UFO debunkers DO. Patently the object did NOT have “the outline of a blimp”. Do you know of any Goodyear blimp of the era (for that is the only possible blimp that could have been in the area) that had no gondola, engines, fins or logo and was circular in shape and able to move silently (for a blimp would most likely have been heard, as has been shown by the calculations you proposed) and at the speed of a jet plane? Of course it has not been “proven” to be a blimp, the historical and observational evidence simply rule out “blimp” as a plausible explanation. So it is a UFO. But not only that, it is a True UFO – meaning it has NO plausible mundane explanation.

Not in my opinion.

…but you can only maintain that opinion if you ignore the evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

You have claimed that you can account for witness errors using research that seems to be available only to you. You have repeatedly been asked to present references to such research but have failed to do so.

I have provided the information that you need to explore research surrounding the principles of perception. I have even outlined some of the relevant principles that you should be looking for. If you cannot find any research on this then you are simply not looking. If you cannot understand that we ARE talking about principles of perception here (and their specific application to the UFO cases I have been presenting), then I am afraid I cannot help you further.

1. You again say "I can't think of any mundane explanations so therefore it is alien". That's not an explanation of the elimination process.

You simply ignore the post where I outlined the process of elimination. It IS mundane. It consists of asking relevant questions, like: “Is it a bird”? Well…Is it? No? then we move on. “Is it a meteorite”? Well… IS it? No? Then we move on. THAT is the process of elimination. We just keep asking questions like that until we run out of plausible mundane explanations. I state “plausible” because it would seem rather stupid to begin asking questions like “Is it a telephone”? or “Is it a pair of trousers”? The range of plausible mundane explanations is thus a finite set – and not a particularly big set at that.

Besides, I have NEVER claimed “therefore it is alien”. I claim therefore it is a UFO and I have an opinion that ETI is a plausible explanation, but that does NOT mean that ETI IS the explanation.

2. You take witness statements at face value although some potential problems with the observation has been pointed out to you.

I have NEVER taken “witness statements at face value”. I have pointed out time and time again that the witnesses can be mistaken and that these mistakes can even help us in our cogitations on the matter. Once again, if there are plausible problems with the observations, then they need to be accounted for. For example you claim the binoculars were faulty and I note that when the binoculars were used that details of the object “resolved” – meaning of course that the binoculars were useful aids in the observation. That is I use the evidence to refute your claim. You claim that binoculars are useless from a boat. I point out that this is nonsense - as any person who HAS used binoculars from a boat will attest to. You claim “heat haze” was a factor and I point out that heat haze is a localised ground effect and not apparent over water. And so on… So in fact I DO account for such factors.

That leaves us with a UFO and we can't say if it's alien or mundane.

Oh but we CAN rule our mundane explanations – as I have shown above. So where does THAT leave us? I am loathe to claim ETI, but perhaps that is because I am naturally conservative, as any good skeptic should be.

Which is exactly the point. How can you eliminate something that you're not familiar with? You're guessing, that's all.

But that is why I am not alone in my assessments. No-one has been able to come up with any plausible explanation for the cases I have presented (familiar or not). Perhaps you can come up with something I have not thought of to explain the cases?

 

[Rramjet]

Here's a summary of a talk by professor George Fisher at Stanford uni. In this and among the many references I'm sure you can find some answers to your questions about the veracity of witness statements.

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

But this completely misses the point. The cases cited are VERY contextually specific. It is talking about the specific introduction of circumstances that lead to false memories. If you can point to any part of the research studies conducted and discussed in the article that are applicable or otherwise relevant to the UFO cases under discussion, then you should do so.

Present your sources for the bolded part and argue from them about this specific case then.

I cannot explain to you what takes years of study to understand in the limited time and space I have. All I can do is point you in the right direction to enable you to undertake the research for yourself. I will state that visual acuity has been explored in some detail by Dr Maccabee here (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and I have already touched on size and distance perception. Other areas you might want to explore include perception of figure and form (I also suggest you might look up the effect of instrument magnification on perception), movement and auditory perception (to name some of the more particularly relevant perceptual factors in the case).

I stated:
“It is you who make the claim that binoculars are useless from such a platform,”

Noone is making that claim. The claim is that the circumstances during the observation degraded the quality of observation to a non negligable degree.

But that is merely an unfounded assertion. You provide no evidential support that this was the case. You provide no research that even suggests that this might have been the case. On the other hand I provide you with the evidence that with the aid of binoculars a great deal of detail that was otherwise not apparent to the naked eye “resolved” such that the witnesses who utilised the binoculars were able to describe the object in greater detail than those who did not have such an advantage. That is the evidence we HAVE.

 

[Rramjet]

Like a juror in court, I can only consider the available evidence and decide to what extent I believe the accounts given.

I don't know what Father Gill really saw (Venus maybe), but I find his tale quite unbelievable. It reads to me like a story much improved in the telling. A spectacular flying craft which comes back; what a pity nobody thought to look for a camera. I'm sure you won't like it this time any more than all the previous times you've heard it, but I simply do not believe Father Gill's tale.

IF you assess the cases on the “available evidence” then you would know that “Venus” does not even come close to a reasonable explanation. It is in fact an irrational explanation.

You find Father Gill’s testimony “unbelievable”, but that is your opinion and it in no way accounts for the evidence. You are merely parroting the UFO debunker faith-based belief that “It cannot be, therefore it is not”.

Father Gill wrote the events into his dairy at the time of the incidents. We even have letters he wrote immediately before and immediately after the incident. So this is one case at least where we specifically KNOW that details were not altered in retelling.

Perhaps there was no camera available, besides, even if a photo were available I would have absolutely no doubt you would cry “hoax”!

I have no idea what officer Zamora saw. Parts of the account suggest a helicopter, other parts say not. There appear to be intriguing hints of trace evidence collected at the scene - I wonder what became of that. Sorry to give an unsatisfactory answer, but I simply can't decide what I think Zamora saw.

Parts of his account suggest “Helicopter”? Then once again you simply have not taken the evidence into account. Precisely what “parts” suggest “helicopter”?

If you had assessed the account you would know that the trace evidence amounted to burning bushes and indentations on the ground from the “landing gear” and you would also know that photos of this evidence were taken (I am not sure where those photos can be accessed, or even if they can, but there is one photo of the investigating personnel here (http://www.nicap.org/zamora3.htm). There is also a suggestion of other types of evidence found (http://ufocasebook.com/Zamora.html) and a statement that the Air Force has never released the results of the investigation to the public. Now why would that be I wonder?

Johnson case - I believe a sleepy cop on nightshift nodded off at the wheel and ran his car off the road, lightly damaging it. He wasn't quite sure what happened, but tried to pull together a coherent story so as not to look stupid or take the blame for the damage. The story escalated from there.

Once again your beliefs on the matter are not supported by the evidence (http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm). You claim to assess the cases based on the evidence, but clearly you do not.

As I said, I'm sure you won't like my answers, but they're what I really think.

I appreciate you candour here, it is refreshing …however because you do not assess the cases “on the available evidence” (as you claimed) then that is why I might not “like” your answers.

 

[Rramjet]

You have not. You keep claiming that there is "research" that backs you up but you have yet to provide anything specific. I have seen you post a few links to journals some time ago but no specific articles that address this situation. It is a false claim until you present scientific studies that ensure that the witnesses were 100% accurate in describing the exact shape and details about the craft at Rogue River. Until you do so, your argument fails no matter how much you proclaim it to be correct.

I have NEVER claimed the research “backs me up”! I claim that we can USE the research to inform us in our assessments of the cases in question.

I have NEVER claimed that the witnesses were “100% accurate”! In fact I have taken a great deal of time to explain that in specific instances the witnesses were likely to have been in error.

I have looked at the literature but I have yet to see anything that supports the claims that you continously make about being able to understand how witnesses could not be mistaken. It just is not there. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong documents but I am not the one making this argument. Feel free to present the articles/studies that support your arguments. Until you do so, it is your opinion based on a belief and not scientific.

Again you make false claims about what I contend. I have NEVER claimed the witnesses “could not be mistaken”. As I suggested (a suggestion that you seem to have ignored because it is in the post you quote me from here) go and look up research on the principles of perception (look at my reply to Jocce above to get some hints on specific areas you might care to investigate – but of course I have already delineated those to you directly and thus once again you simply ignore my suggestions).

It is your argument that you can understand human perception and determine when it is potentially fallible. You proclaim yourself the expert here and have made the claim. I have yet to see you present one scientific study that suggests you are correct. Again, if you can not provide supporting documentation, then you argument is based solely on personal belief and not science.

That’s merely your opinion. Please go do some research on the principles of perception. If there are parts you do not understand I am willing to help.

Once again, you completely misrepresent the position everyone seems to have here in order to shift the burden of proof. Nobody has stated the witnesses were wrong 100% of the time. However, we are questioning observations of an object that nobody has seen before or since. If they had reported a flying dragon, I am sure you would question it. However, because they report a flying disc, you have no problem accepting it. It is the argument of just about every "debunker" in this forum that based on what was reported it was more probable the witnesses were mistaken in these observations (I even gave the Catalina case as an example of how an aircraft could be mistaken for a disc). It is your argument that it is unlikely or implausible they could could be mistaken based on some vague references to the "perceptual literature" and, therefore, the witnesses were accurate in their observations.

I do not misrepresent the UFO debunker’s position at all. To maintain their position they must maintain that the witnesses are wrong in 100% of the cases. Moreover, they are in error 100% of the time except where an observation might fit a mundane explanation. That IS the UFO debunker (and your) position. No misrepresentation required. That you claim it is “more probable” than not that the witnesses are in error does not change this.

Members of this forum have cited sources about problems with eyewitness testimony based on actual studies several times. I find it ironic that you have made several claims that I attempt to "hide" my sources (even though I do reveal them when requested) and now you seem to be very intent on not presenting an actual source that is pertinent to your argument. I can only draw the conclusion that you have no such source and that you have not done any of this research that you claim. Prove me wrong. Present documentation THAT IS PERTINENT to this situation and demonstrates that is implausible or unlikely that the witnesses were mistaken.

Actually you are mistaken. No relevant source material concerning perceptual errors relevant to the cases I have been presenting has been cited and you notoriously do NOT cite your sources in a manner that allows immediate identification.

If you believe that relevant research on the principles of perception does not exist then that is your loss I am afraid.

 

[Rramjet]

And once again you entirely miss the point. Who decides what is and isn't plausible? You say the blimp explanation is highly implausible. Almost everyone else seems to think that it is reasonably plausible. So where does that leave your plausibility requirement? Plausibility is subjective and (more to the point) often misleading because, as you yourself pointed out the last time, it is only a measure of the appearance of truth.

The evidence is what decides plausibility. In the case of Rogue River, it is the historical evidence (showing it is implausible that a blimp was at the time and place) and the witness testimony that definitely describes an object that does not resemble a blimp at all. That is what makes the “blimp” explanation” implausible. It is not rocket science.

No, it doesn't give us any real information about which blimps were where at what time, which is not the same thing. And that is why you are forced to use the word "suggests", because you don't actually know. Even Goodyear don't know where their blimps were or what they were doing at the time (I emailed them to ask - they don't keep records from that long ago), so how can you? The evidence does nothing more than show that there probably weren't any USN blimps in the area, although it's far from conclusive. But there definitely was at least one blimp within a few hours flying distance. We know this because of newspaper reports from both before and after the sighting that place a Goodyear blimp in the area.

Ughh, the evidence against USN/USNR blimps is incontrovertible! The evidence against a Goodyear blimp is circumstantial (Goodyear ran blimp tours from Tillamook, but they ceased in 1948) and the witnesses describe an object that does NOT resemble a blimp.

According to you. But this is where your plausibility argument starts to fall apart, because here your statement above is slightly wrong. What they "describe" isn't a blimp, but that doesn't mean that the actual object they saw wasn't a blimp, just that their perception of it was different than you might expect if it was a blimp. Of course, that doesn't mean it was a blimp either, but it could have been.

Let's see,

RR UFO: Silvery, oval in profile, fin.

Blimp: Silvery, oval in profile, fins.

Yes, there are differences, but there are also startling similarities, that you continue to overlook.

Yeah, but add in no logo, no gondola, no fins, no sound, circular and the speed of a jet plane and that does NOT add up to “blimp”

Your decision to label the blimp explanation as implausible is due to your subjective view of the evidence. Other people view it differently and come to the decision that "blimp" is perfectly plausible.

Yeah, right.

The historical evidence is lacking, whilst the observational evidence is anecdotal, and not independent. Which is pretty poor evidence if you want to approach things scientifically, as you (with your scientific training) ought to know.

The historical evidence is extensive. The observational evidence is what it is. It is only “poor” if you need to make a case that the witnesses were in error. There is simply no plausible reason not to accept the witnesses statements as substantially correct – except where we KNOW that they might plausibly have been in error – such as size and distance estimates.

 

[Rramjet]

This shifts the burden of proof from the claimaint to the skeptic inappropriately. It is up to the claimaint - one who claims that eyewitness testimony is correct - to provide independent evidence that the eyewitness testimony was not based on misperception, etc. It is not up to the skeptic to provide a scenario which would prove the eyewitness testimony incorrect, and failing to do so, conclude that the eyewitness testimony must be correct.

But that is exactly how the cases end up being UFOs in the first place. The witnesses were in error. Then we ask questions. Okay they were in error, so what lead them into error. What were the conditions like? Oh, a clear day, the sun was at their backs…hmmm, nothing there. Were they blind? No evidence for that. Oh, they used binoculars? They aid observation …hmmm, what about a hoax? They were reliable people…hmmm, what else…? Does confirmation bias, memory, culture play a role? We investigate and so we eliminate all sources of error and what we end up with, after all those factors (and more) have been accounted for is ostensibly reliable information. That’s it.

 

[Paul2]

But that is exactly how the cases end up being UFOs in the first place. The witnesses were in error. Then we ask questions. Okay they were in error, so what lead them into error. What were the conditions like? Oh, a clear day, the sun was at their backs…hmmm, nothing there. Were they blind? No evidence for that. Oh, they used binoculars? They aid observation …hmmm, what about a hoax? They were reliable people…hmmm, what else…? Does confirmation bias, memory, culture play a role? We investigate and so we eliminate all sources of error and what we end up with, after all those factors (and more) have been accounted for is ostensibly reliable information. That’s it.

If we can't put our finger on the specific source of eyewitness error, and the eyewitness report is unbelievable, and there's no independent evidence (maybe not the case in all of your UFO cases you've cited, I understand, but bear with me for the sake of argument for this limited range of cases), we don't conclude that the eyewitnesses are correct. It's more likely that we just can't put our finger on the source of error, or the hoax, than is the unbelievable story that would have to otherwise be true.

 

[Access Denied]

Parts of his account suggest “Helicopter”? Then once again you simply have not taken the evidence into account. Precisely what “parts” suggest “helicopter”?

Try reading your own thread. For you to pretend this hasn’t already been discussed is one of theses reasons why I see no point in discussing any of these cases with you any further… it’s a waste of time, you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Now you ask about photographs of the trace evidence and claim the Air Force has never released the results of their investigation to the public… the Blue Book files were declassified in 1975 and all the photographs and diagrams are in there. Why don’t you make some effort to look it up for yourself?

By the way, the official ATIC Form 329 filed on the case says…

”Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."