UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

How can one have a rational debate with another who refuses to acknowledge that the process of elimination is a legitimate research methodology?

How can you claim your process of elimination is legitimate when you have yet to demonstrate how you "LEGITIMATELY" eliminated the rival hypotheses by using supporting scientific research documents to back this up? It is your claim that you can eliminate the blimp/aircraft hypothesis based on "perceptual research" but you have refused to present any of this "research" in a manner that supports your claim. Until you can do this, YOUR process of elimination is not legitimate because it rejects rival hypotheses without good scientific reason.

 

[Rramjet]

It is my contention that the witnesses COULD BE mistaken and not that they are. I base this on the simple fact that they report a craft shape that nobody has seen before or since. Since that is the case, it is probable they were mistaken about what they saw. On the other hand, it is your contention that these witnesses could not be mistaken about this shape. You then go on about how research in perception supports this claim. Therefore, you need to back up that claim with the SPECIFIC research that supports it. So far, you have yet to provide one iota of research that supports the claim that perceptual research backs up your claim that it is implausible the witnesses were in error.

First I don’t claim it is “implausible that the witnesses were in error” – clearly they could be in error – I merely contend that it is plausible that in certain aspects they were NOT in error while in others it is plausible they were in error – can you see the difference here between this and your (erroneous) formulation of the problem?

And yes I claim research supports my position:

“As mentioned in the previous chapter, the brain is especially sensitive to perceptual features such as lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors.” (Coon, D. (1992) Introduction to Psychology: exploration and application (6th ed.). West Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. p. 132)​

Note the use of the term “especially sensitive”. This means of course, in the context of Rogue River, that the shape of the object would be one area the witnesses could be considered to be accurate (noting also of course the excellent viewing conditions of a good contrast between the figure (UFO) and the ground (clear blue sky)).

Given this fact alone, “blimp” as an explanation immediately becomes implausible.

We can also assume that, given we are also “especially sensitive” to lines, edges, spots and colours - the other general descriptive characteristics of the UFO (eg; fin, patch on fin, dirty and wrinkled surface, no protuberances, no LOGO, etc), would be relatively accurate observations also. Again this rules out “blimp” as the explanation.

As for hearing, the absolute threshold of normal hearing is (for example) the “Tick of a watch under quiet conditions at 20 feet” (Coon, 1992. p.88). To place that in perspective: “The decibel (dB) has no dimensions. Decibel, dB is the logarithmic unit used for human audibility measurements ranging from 1, just audible, to 120, just causing pain. (…)The normal ear can distinguish intensities down to about 1 dB.” (http://www.uq.edu.au/~xxjelfic/UNPh26a.html#26.6.0) Now according to conservative estimates, the sound reaching the observers from a potential blimp at Rogue River would have been between 30 to 40 dB – clearly within normal hearing ability.

(Incidentally the threshold of normal vision is “Candle flame seen at 30 miles on a clear dark night” (Coon, 1992. p. 88)). The UFO debunkers would have us believe that our perception is very poor. In fact it is quite acute!

Now when it comes to distance and size perception – plausibly the witnesses could be in error. Critically this does NOT mean they were in error, just that they might have been. That is, in a clear blue sky there is a distinctive lack of depth cues. However, the witnesses were not totally without depth cues – there was the landscape around them, providing a horizon for example. Also I mentioned that there are limits on how far away and how close the object could possibly have been. The variation between witness estimates (about 30 feet to 65 feet) not only indicates a lack of collusion between them, but also indicates that their distance and size estimates are “within reason” and not “wildly inaccurate”.

When we add in the “speed of a jet plane” estimate, then something interesting happens. We can now determine what happens when we vary the estimates! This might seem trivial but it actually provides us with a great deal of information. For example, if the size estimate was too small, then the distance would have been greater and the speed correspondingly greater – this positively rules out blimp! If, on the other hand the size was smaller than estimated…well no blimp there either!

Astrophotographer likes to cite Loftus as a source for his “witnesses are always in error” contention. I stated in response:
“Sure, witnesses can be mistaken – but what is the context in which they ARE mistaken in your articles. This has come up before and you have refused to answer that question about context. Will you do so now?”

You are attempting to shift burden. You are the one who has stated the witnesses in Rogue River could not be mistaken about the shape because of the “perceptual literature/research”. However, you have yet to provide a single source of information to back up this claim. I, on the other hand, have given numerous cases of when witnesses were mistaken about what they saw (The Coral Sea and the Catalina Island case are two that come to mind but I can produce more) under similar conditions. Stating I never provided any cases or specifics about these cases is an inaccurate statement. Your continuous refusal to present your case about perceptual research that backs up your claim is being noted by everyone here.

Shifting the burden of proof? Let’s examine this a little more closely:

1. I make a claim (the veracity of eyewitness reports) , you reasonably ask that I provide evidence to support my claim (as I have done above and have always done so)

2. YOU make a claim (witness error) and I reasonably ask you to supply evidence to support that claim – and what happens – you refuse to do so! …and not only that you claim I am shifting the burden of proof! Nonsense.

Just answer my question please. What is the context in which the witnesses are mistaken in Loftus’ research? In fact what is the context in which witness error was produced in ANY of the other “UFO” case literature you cite?

We must be able to compare “apples with apples” here. If the research you cite does NOT have the same contextual application, then it has NO relevance! So please, explain the context and the relevance of the research you cite. Anyone can throw out a “name” and claim their research supports their position, but without providing relevant examples, then (to paraphrase your own words) “You then go on about how research supports your claim. Therefore, you need to back up that claim with the SPECIFIC research that supports it. So far, you have yet to provide one iota of research that supports the claim that Loftus and other literature backs up your claim…”

Under “certain conditions”? Are you stating that you can predict when a witness will make an error in perception? If that is the case, then you have learned to take human error out of the equation. I am unaware of any scientist (until now), who states they know how to identify or predict human error based upon the conditions in which they see something.

I AM contending precisely that. You simply have not done as I suggested and looked up any basic text on the principles of perception. Even the source I cited above (Coon) – an introductory psychology textbook provides such information and the research to support it! Please – just look up the research.

I stated:
“If there is no such thing as “extraordinary evidence” then why does it need a scientist to point that out? I have given many people ample opportunity to rationally define “extraordinary evidence”. So far nothing has been forthcoming. Simply it cannot be done. Evidence is evidence – you either have it or you do not.”

The more exotic the claim, the more important it is to get the evidence correct. You can’t say something exists because people say “they know what they saw” because it is not good enough. The more exotic the claim the better the evidence has to be to prove it is true. Nobody cares if somebody says they saw the Easter Bunny at the mall because it is probable they saw somebody in an outfit. There is no need to go down to the mall and verify this evidence. However, if they insist it was the "real" Easter Bunny, you are going to demand to go down to the mall and see the evidence for such a thing because it is a shift in what is known about the world. If you want to prove the Easter Bunny exists, you better produce the Easter Bunny and not just some candy eggs you found laying around. It isn’t good enough.

Have you defined “extraordinary evidence” then? No, of course you have not. No matter what the claim is, if there is contention about the veracity of the claim, then the evidence becomes “important”. Yet it remains evidence – ordinary everyday evidence – it does NOT somehow magically transform into “extraordinary evidence” that we require. It remains the same type of evidence used to verify ANY claim. In your Easter Bunny example, all we need do is find the man, the suit and evidence that he was employed to walk through the mall at precisely the time the “Easter Bunny” was sighted. Preferably we would have witnesses who saw him don the suit and immediately walk through the mall after doing so (that is an unbroken chain of evidence). We also note that historically there has been shown to be NO “Easter Bunny” (No Virginia, there IS no Santa Claus!). IF however we cannot find ANY of this (ordinary, mundane, everyday) evidence, then we might begin to wonder… But even THEN we would not want to leap to conclusions. For example we might want to “capture” the “Easter Bunny” and show that it is NOT a “suit” that he is wearing. We might even obtain surveillance video that shows that the characteristics of the “Easter Bunny” mean it could NOT even possibly have been human. Yet all that evidence is ordinary evidence! It is the same ordinary evidence that we require to analyse ANY claim.

Simply “extraordinary evidence” is NONSENSE! And Sagan was in error to imply that it exists in any way, shape or form.

I stated:
“Just because you do not understand the process of elimination does not mean that it is not an existing and legitimate methodology. Was the Rogue river object a telephone? Was it a tulip? Was it a photo of my great aunt Mary? According to you it could have been any of these things.

I think it is you who does not understand the methodology because you have eliminated legitimate potential sources without any sound reason. You claim that perceptual research gives you the reason to eliminate them. However, you have yet to provide one source of this “research” that demonstrates you can. You are eliminating based on a desire to believe something is true rather than demonstrating that it is true. It is not scientific at all.

You mean I cannot eliminate “telephone” or “tulip” or “a picture of my great aunt Mary”?!? What about “page 352 of War and Peace”, can I eliminate that? If you really ARE contending that such things cannot be eliminated – then IMO you have simply lost touch with reality (how much more delicately or accurately can I express it when someone cannot see that, for example, “telephone” is most definitely not a rational explanation for the Rogue River sighting?).

 

[Astrophotographer]

And yes I claim research supports my position:

“As mentioned in the previous chapter, the brain is especially sensitive to perceptual features such as lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors.” (Coon, D. (1992) Introduction to Psychology: exploration and application (6th ed.). West Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. p. 132)​

?

And where does it say they always get the shape right? I don't see it.

Where does it state that witnesses always get the shape of objects in the sky right? I don't see it.

Why is it, that Hendry states that aircraft have been described as "discs" when observed in the sky? Why did't the witnesses get these shapes right?

When we add in the “speed of a jet plane” estimate, then something interesting happens. We can now determine what happens when we vary the estimates! This might seem trivial but it actually provides us with a great deal of information. For example, if the size estimate was too small, then the distance would have been greater and the speed correspondingly greater – this positively rules out blimp! If, on the other hand the size was smaller than estimated…well no blimp there either!

You are ignoring the fact that speed and size estimates are completely invalid unless you have something to measure them with. These estimates are essentially worthless. Any error in these "estimates' introduces an error you are not considering. How far away were these jet speed estimates based upon? I have seen jets flying at 600 mph that move very slowly and I have seen small propeller aircraft flying at 120mph move rather quickly across the sky. Therefore, saying something was moving at the speed of a jet without any frame of reference is not a valid measuring tool.

Shifting the burden of proof? Let’s examine this a little more closely:

1. I make a claim (the veracity of eyewitness reports) , you reasonably ask that I provide evidence to support my claim (as I have done above and have always done so)

No you haven't. The above says nothing about experiments on witnesses that demonstrates they always get the shape correct.

2. YOU make a claim (witness error) and I reasonably ask you to supply evidence to support that claim – and what happens – you refuse to do so! …and not only that you claim I am shifting the burden of proof! Nonsense.

A claim you admit is possible in this very post (that witnesses can be mistaken). I never made the claim they were absolutely mistaken. I only state that is probable they were mistaken simply because of the fact they report something nobody has seen before or since. I have provided several cases (Coral sea and Catalina island) to support this observation. I have cited several sources but you don't read them. I think everyone in this forum has considered my presentation adequate regarding this issue.

You, on the other hand, contend it is implausible they were mistaken because of the shape of the craft they observed. That requires evidence based on research, which you have yet to present.

Just answer my question please. What is the context in which the witnesses are mistaken in Loftus’ research? In fact what is the context in which witness error was produced in ANY of the other “UFO” case literature you cite?

Am I supposed to provide you all the case materials because this will take some time to do so and there may be some copyright concerns about copying entire books/chapters. I have presented the context in the two cases I have mentioned. If you want more you will have to ask specifically what you desire.
Loftus' research is based on her experiments on test subjects that are outlined in her book, which is available (in part) on line at Google books. In one of the sources you listed previously, her research into eyewitness testimony was referenced numerous times. That must mean something.

I AM contending precisely that. You simply have not done as I suggested and looked up any basic text on the principles of perception. Even the source I cited above (Coon) – an introductory psychology textbook provides such information and the research to support it! Please – just look up the research.

Nonsense. You listed one book and brief passage that does NOT support your claims. You continue to refuse to present any other materials that make up this body of research that proves you are correct. It is not up to me to find your evidence for you. You are making your case here and it is a very poor presentation.

You mean I cannot eliminate “telephone” or “tulip” or “a picture of my great aunt Mary”?!? What about “page 352 of War and Peace”, can I eliminate that? If you really ARE contending that such things cannot be eliminated – then IMO you have simply lost touch with reality (how much more delicately or accurately can I express it when someone cannot see that, for example, “telephone” is most definitely not a rational explanation for the Rogue River sighting?).

Now you are just being ridiculous in attempt to make it appear that your methodology is sound. You CAN reject these things simply because of what they are. They are not airborne objects (at least not for any great period of time when thrown/dropped). However, you claim that you can eliminate all potential sources for this event based on some research you have yet to produce. If you can not present this "research" that demonstrates witnesses always get the shape correct, then your case for eliminating the blimp/aircraft hypothesis is invalid. I would think that was the first thing you learned in your scientific education.

 

[Archer17]

Just to cut through all the pages, posts, and words - this is how it is: A "UFO" is something that is unidentified to a particular observer(s), nothing more, nothing less. "UFOs" are usually lumped together to make it seem like we have ourselves a singular "phenomenon" but the 'U' is the only common denominator. Any 'burden of proof' lies with those that try to replace the 'U' with their own particular notion of what that 'U' is. That, more often than not, is just a unfalsifiable intellectual exercise. The exceptions like Jimmy Carter's Venus and the Campeche oil "flares" can be retroactively investigated and "debunked." Most sightings can't. Not because they are above explaining, it's because the transient "thingie" doesn't tend to hang around long enough.

I can claim "UFOs" are Earth-bound "elementals" and probably do a better job rationalizing the ufological lore - which includes splitting hairs about "eyewitness testimony" like I'm seeing here - than those that propose an ETH, but who has the burden of proof here? You? Of course not. I could recount the lore sighting-by-sighting and point out that the "nuts & bolts" aspect of the ETH isn't consistent with many of the 'UFO reports', but is that good enough? Nope. See what's missing? What do I need to do to sell my "elementals?"

Rramjet, you type passionately about the 'U' but fail to see why your own take falls short of what you need to do to convince others. It's "evidence." Not the kind that needs a million words to "work," the real kind that speaks for itself no matter what someone happens to believe. The kind that sticks around.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I did a quick search of Rramjet's single quote and found two pertinent sites on-line. The first is a lesson plan, which appears to have been taken from this book. The quote he gives comes right after discussing the "Ames Room" Illusion implying the quote is out of context.

Additionally the text makes the following statements:

Past experience, motives, context, or suggestions may create a perceptual expectancy or set that prepares you to perceive in a certain way. In essence, an expectancy is a perceptual hypothesis we are very likely to apply to a stimulus-even if applying it is inappropriate. Perceptual sets often lead us to see what we expect to see.

Most people misperceive the objects they are trying to draw. The person sees what she or he expects to see, rather than what's there. All perceptions, to a degree, are affected by similar processes of labeling, categorizing, and expectation.

http://www.eldora-np.k12.ia.us/enphs/Academics/Chapter7Lecture.pdf

The idea that flying saucers existed in the media can lead a witness to perceive an object as circular in shape. Didn't I state this before?

The other source is a google on-line book co-authored by the same individual Rramjet quoted.

Introductiong to psychology:Gateways to mind and behaivor (Coon and Mitterer)
http://books.google.com/books?id=vw20LEaJe10C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Introduction+to+psychology:Gateways+to+mind+and+behavior&source=bl&ots=LheLwu0BEy&sig=pNLBTyww7S8MGEBVIOnaqiKMsWw&hl=en&ei=xyLJS6CfHsT_lgeA67jqCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

There seems to be more evidence here that Rramjet quoted him out of context. He is not talking about sensitivity to shapes in regards to visual observations. He is discussing how perception of such is partly learned and that shapes can affect that learned perception (See page 167). This is also right after the book discusses the Ames room illusion. There is nothing in this quote that supports his claim that witnesses can not be wrong about the shape they observed.

Additionally, there is an interesting section of the text can be found on P.176:

Actually, having confidence in your testimony has almost no bearing on its accuracy (Brewer and Wells 2006). Psychologists are gradually convincing lawyers, judges, and police that eyewitness errors are common....Unfortunately, perception rarely provides "instant replay" of events. As stated earlier, impressions formed when a person is surprised, threatened, or under stress are especially prone to distortion (Yuille and Dalen 1998). In addition, being questioned tends to make witnesses more confident about what they saw, even if they are wrong..

Hmmmm....imagine that. When a person is "Surprised" (OMG, there is a flying saucer!!!) their perceptions of this event can be prone to distortion. Boy, who would of thunk it? Maybe everyone in this forum except for one.

 

[Jocce]

Radar echoes in the precise direction and at exactly the same time as visual AND film sightings are what I am talking about

Then why haven't you procided such detailed data about any observations in this thread? Please provide it now.

 

[Jocce]

It does not matter “to what degree”. The observers did NOT hear ANY sound from the object and scientific calculations show that it is plausible that potential blimp engine sounds would have reached the observers.

What are you talking about? I have seen only calculations that show that an engine that has a sound level of 107 dB at 3ft distance won't be heard by the observers.

But that is merely one data point and it is not a point that the whole case rests on, merely another bit of information to consider when assessing the case as a whole. The UFO debunkers seem to be concentrating on the minutia of cases and therefore simply missing the wood for the trees.

What is most honest? Accept that data is inconclusive and leave an object as unidentified or just dismiss all evidence that points in another direction than the belief you hold?

I stated:
“Yes but the lack of detail in those photos has more to do with the resolution and photographic artefacts of the photos, rather than anything that is observable in the real world.”

Do you have any argument against my contention in this regard?

Not really. You make another unsupported claim. I notice it.

I stated:
“I stated in reference specifically to the missing Goodyear logo:
“This is a clincher. Fine surface details of the object were noticed (eg: “dirty” and “wrinkled”). If such fine detail could be observed it is utterly implausible that a huge Goodyear logo could have been missed.”

Mr C stated: “The trailing edge of the object as it travelled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm). So please, if you are going to accuse me of lying then get your facts straight before hand.”

Please point out where I stated “IT WAS SEEN”. Oh, you cannot? ...huh. If something “appeared to be”, then it obviously was “noticed” and it was also “observed” – you are simply making something of nothing here.

And so you go back to arguing semantics instead. You claim they saw fine detail (ie that the surface was dirty and wrinkled). I say that they only reported that it appeared to be dirty looking and wrinkled. What colour was the dirt and how many wrinkles did they see? That would be fine detail to have.

 

[Rramjet]

And where does it say they always get the shape right? I don't see it.

Where does it state that witnesses always get the shape of objects in the sky right? I don't see it.

Why is it, that Hendry states that aircraft have been described as "discs" when observed in the sky? Why did't the witnesses get these shapes right?

You simply misunderstand the scientific method. Science works on a preponderance of evidence, not on absolute proofs, for theoretically anything is possible – including that our most cherished of scientific theories could be wrong!

Clearly the witnesses could have got the shape wrong. However, given what we know about the perceptual research (that our brains are “especially sensitive” to “lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors”) and that the figure/ground ratio was high (UFO in a clear blue sky) and the witnesses were able to observe the object with the aid of binoculars and over a period of a minute or two – then it is simply quite reasonable to assume, in the absence of countermanding factors, that their description of the object was substantially accurate. THAT is the bottom line here.

Now, you on the other hand want to introduce factors that do lead the witnesses into error… That’s a reasonable thing to do. However, you have offered no research to support such a contention. You state that the research of Loftus does – yet can provide no concrete examples where this might be so (ie; that her research is relevant in the context). You state that Hendry’s cases show witness error, yet utterly fail to provide the context in which the errors were produced.

You ask the question “Why did't the witnesses get these shapes right?” and that is the bottom line question for which you have provided absolutely no answer to! Unless you know why the witnesses in the cases you allude to (no refs. again!) were in error, then howcan you apply the results to another case? That you attempt to do so IS unscientific!

 

[Rramjet]

You are ignoring the fact that speed and size estimates are completely invalid unless you have something to measure them with. These estimates are essentially worthless. Any error in these "estimates' introduces an error you are not considering. How far away were these jet speed estimates based upon? I have seen jets flying at 600 mph that move very slowly and I have seen small propeller aircraft flying at 120mph move rather quickly across the sky. Therefore, saying something was moving at the speed of a jet without any frame of reference is not a valid measuring tool.

We have the experienced minds of the observers to measure them with! They were not newborn infants with absolutely no experience in such observation, they worked at an aerospace laboratory attached to a military airfield! They would have had a great deal of experience with planes of manykinds (including blimps!).

Your experience on the other hand is irrelevant in the matter. Nevertheless, it is interesting that you have seen planes appear to be flying “very slowly” (when obviously they were moving at high speed) but critically you have NOT seen the opposite! And it is this opposite observation which you need to be true to maintain your case. It takes a very particular circumstance to make low speed objects appear to be moving fast and that particular circumstance is if the observer is moving at high speed. Patently the observers at Rogue River were NOT moving at high speed! The source of error you allude to actually works to make it plausible that the witness error concerning the speed of the UFO was actually an underestimate of the actual speed of the UFO! Thus of course – not a blimp.

This is what I mean by your complete lack of contextual information in the “research” you “cite”. Simply we need to understand the particular context in which any observation is made in order to determine how potential errors might be produced and then to see if those particular circumstances might apply in any new case we care to examine. Your complete and utter failure to supply the context of the observational errors you propose (well a blanket statement such as you propose - “Witnesses can be in error” - is not really even a concrete proposal…)… means that (so far at least) the “research” you “cite” is completely and utterly irrelevant to the cases under current examination.

 

[Rramjet]

I only state that is probable they were mistaken simply because of the fact they report something nobody has seen before or since. I have provided several cases (Coral sea and Catalina island) to support this observation. I have cited several sources but you don't read them. I think everyone in this forum has considered my presentation adequate regarding this issue.

Thus your statement here completely ignores the context in which the alleged errors occurred. If the witnesses to those cases were in a moving car with the windows covered in mud and they were legally blind, then obviously it is plausible that their observations might have been in error! (Even then they might have got it right – but it is reasonable to assume they would not have). So you failure to provide the contextual information probably means that these cases are simply not relevant to the cases I have been presenting – otherwise I have no doubt that you would have supplied the information from those cases to refute my contentions with some alacrity.

 

[Rramjet]

You, on the other hand, contend it is implausible they were mistaken because of the shape of the craft they observed. That requires evidence based on research, which you have yet to present.

I stated:
“First I don’t claim it is “implausible that the witnesses were in error” – clearly they could be in error – I merely contend that it is plausible that in certain aspects they were NOT in error while in others it is plausible they were in error – can you see the difference here between this and your (erroneous) formulation of the problem?” In other words you misrepresent my contentions here.

…and what is this if not evidence?

“As mentioned in the previous chapter, the brain is especially sensitive to perceptual features such as lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors.” (Coon, D. (1992) Introduction to Psychology: exploration and application (6th ed.). West Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. p. 132)

 

[Rramjet]

Am I supposed to provide you all the case materials because this will take some time to do so and there may be some copyright concerns about copying entire books/chapters. I have presented the context in the two cases I have mentioned. If you want more you will have to ask specifically what you desire.

I merely require you to support your “witness error” contention with contextual evidence. That does not require “entire books/chapters” to accomplish. Again your own question is the one question you fail to answer for the cases you present: ” Why did't the witnesses get these shapes right?”

Answer your own question and we will be getting somewhere positive!

 

[Rramjet]

Loftus' research is based on her experiments on test subjects that are outlined in her book, which is available (in part) on line at Google books. In one of the sources you listed previously, her research into eyewitness testimony was referenced numerous times. That must mean something.

Maybe…but what does it mean? How is it applicable[ to the cases under examination? Unless you answer these questions, you are merely making unfounded assertion.

 

[Rramjet]

Nonsense. You listed one book and brief passage that does NOT support your claims. You continue to refuse to present any other materials that make up this body of research that proves you are correct. It is not up to me to find your evidence for you. You are making your case here and it is a very poor presentation.

So thousands of psychology undergraduates are being mislead because Coon (a standard university textbook by the way) is wrong? You demand evidence, I provide evidence, then you say you need other evidence!? Not only that your primary assertions in the above passage are completely unfounded. I have pointed out many times that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion does NOT make it true – yet strangely you persist in making them - so obviously you do believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion DOES make it true - and I believe that for you to hold such a belief is irrational.

 

[Rramjet]

Now you are just being ridiculous in attempt to make it appear that your methodology is sound. You CAN reject these things simply because of what they are. They are not airborne objects (at least not for any great period of time when thrown/dropped).

Did you or did you not state “I think it is you who does not understand the methodology because you have eliminated legitimate potential sources without any sound reason.” in response to my contention that “tulip”, “telephone” and a picture of my “great aunt Mary” CAN be eliminated? You did state that! Now you contend I am “being ridiculous” when I pointed out that you had lost touch with reality in that statement (because “telephone” is most definitely Inot a rational explanation for Rogue River – and thus CAN be eliminated – along with “tulip” etc)?

Now, after reading that, you suddenly backflip to say you CAN rule these things out? Okaaaay… then why don’t you continue a rational pursuit of that process of elimination and extend it to more mundane explanations for Rogue River? The process of elimination IS after all a legitimate scientific process.

 

[Rramjet]

However, you claim that you can eliminate all potential sources for this event based on some research you have yet to produce. If you can not present this "research" that demonstrates witnesses always get the shape correct, then your case for eliminating the blimp/aircraft hypothesis is invalid. I would think that was the first thing you learned in your scientific education.

Then you again make a completely and utterly false claim about my contentions. I claim that we can use perceptual research to assess the veracity of the observations. Once the particular descriptive aspects of the object are verified as plausible or not, then we can use the plausible descriptive characteristics in a process of elimination. What is it you do not get about this scientific process?

 

[Rramjet]

Just to cut through all the pages, posts, and words - this is how it is: A "UFO" is something that is unidentified to a particular observer(s), nothing more, nothing less. "UFOs" are usually lumped together to make it seem like we have ourselves a singular "phenomenon" but the 'U' is the only common denominator.

You are simply confusing “sighted object” with “UFO” and thus you misunderstand my position.

We have the sighted object categorisations of:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ETI
2) Interdimesional beings
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

Any 'burden of proof' lies with those that try to replace the 'U' with their own particular notion of what that 'U' is. That, more often than not, is just a unfalsifiable intellectual exercise. The exceptions like Jimmy Carter's Venus and the Campeche oil "flares" can be retroactively investigated and "debunked." Most sightings can't. Not because they are above explaining, it's because the transient "thingie" doesn't tend to hang around long enough.

The burden of proof in providing an explanation for “sighted object” lies with whomever proposes the explanation.

The difference between the UFO debunkers and the UFO proponents is that UFO proponents utilise research to procedurally eliminate mundane explanations as far as possible until a plausible explanation is found, whereas UFO debunkers simply cease at the proposal of a mundane explanation (citing something along the lines of “It is possible, therefore it is likely”).

And of course you have caught yourself in a double standard involving circular reasoning here. You have contended that it IS possible to investigate cases – but only if they have a mundane explanation! This is of course nonsense.

I can claim "UFOs" are Earth-bound "elementals" and probably do a better job rationalizing the ufological lore - which includes splitting hairs about "eyewitness testimony" like I'm seeing here - than those that propose an ETH, but who has the burden of proof here? You? Of course not. I could recount the lore sighting-by-sighting and point out that the "nuts & bolts" aspect of the ETH isn't consistent with many of the 'UFO reports', but is that good enough? Nope. See what's missing? What do I need to do to sell my "elementals?"

I do not propose the “ET” hypothesis. It is the UFO debunkers who cannot see past this hypothesis. I have contended all along that the evidence is not strong enough to conclude ETI. So once again you simply misunderstand my position.

But I am afraid you have lost me with your “Ufological lore” and your “elementals”. We do not analyse sighting reports according to “ufological lore” or “elementals” – we simply analyse them on the evidence.

Rramjet, you type passionately about the 'U' but fail to see why your own take falls short of what you need to do to convince others. It's "evidence." Not the kind that needs a million words to "work," the real kind that speaks for itself no matter what someone happens to believe. The kind that sticks around.

So I do not argue passionately about the “U” – I simply present the cases, explore the evidence and ask “Is there any plausible mundane explanation for this case”? If the answer is “No”, then I propose “UFO”. IF I propose UFO, then I am allowed an opinion on what that might mean (I can speculate on explanations) but I do not claim ETI is the answer.

 

[Rramjet]

I did a quick search of Rramjet's single quote and found two pertinent sites on-line. The first is a lesson plan, which appears to have been taken from this book. The quote he gives comes right after discussing the "Ames Room" Illusion implying the quote is out of context.

Actually it is you who have taken the above quotes out of context!

The actual context of my original quote…

“As mentioned in the previous chapter, the brain is especially sensitive to perceptual features such as lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors.” (Coon, D. (1992) Introduction to Psychology: exploration and application (6th ed.). West Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. p. 132)

…is that…

“Individual cells in the cortex of the brain act as feature detectors to analyse visual information” (Coon, p. 117).

That is these cells are inherently sensitive to the features outlined in my original quote. They automatically organise visual stimuli according to the cited characteristics and it is this [/I]automatic[/I] organisation of stimuli that leads - in specific context and circumstance - to illusions (that is, NO illusion is produced if the specific context or circumstance is not present).

Thus is the Ames Room (that is a room where the floor slopes up diagonally - and one corner is also further from the viewer than the other - in such a way so when an observer views two people of the same height one looks larger than the other) it is perceptual principle of shape constancy (the room looks square) that triumphs over size constancy. This is because shape is a more fundamental organising principle than size[/I] (as indicated in my original quote).

That however does NOT negate the fact that “shape” is something our brains do well and automatically, it does show that because of that, in very specific situations, illusions will be produced. So…WAS there an Ames room in the sky at Rogue River? Obviously not… (well…implausibly not at least…)

Now let us look at the rest of your out of context “quotes” Astrophotographer.

Additionally the text makes the following statements:

Past experience, motives, context, or suggestions may create a perceptual expectancy or set that prepares you to perceive in a certain way. In essence, an expectancy is a perceptual hypothesis we are very likely to apply to a stimulus-even if applying it is inappropriate. Perceptual sets often lead us to see what we expect to see.

Most people misperceive the objects they are trying to draw. The person sees what she or he expects to see, rather than what's there. All perceptions, to a degree, are affected by similar processes of labeling, categorizing, and expectation.

http://www.eldora-np.k12.ia.us/enphs/Academics/Chapter7Lecture.pdf

The idea that flying saucers existed in the media can lead a witness to perceive an object as circular in shape. Didn't I state this before?

So let us look at “perceptual expectancy” in the Rogue River case (and THIS is what I mean by our ability to USE perceptual research to analyse cases).

A reasonable question to ask is what people expect to see when they see something flying in the sky. Of course they expect birds, and planes and – because of the era – blimps, etc. That is people expect to see mundane objects. When they DO see an object, their brains will automatically discern lines, shape, etc (according to the fundamental organising principles outlined in my original quote) and then people will go through a natural process of elimination based on that perceptual image: Is it a bird, a plane, a blimp, etc. That is they run through a list of what they naturally expect the object to be (this expectation is also “learned” in the sense that experience has taught us what to expect) and what they expect is mundane.

In the case of a true UFO, people are genuinely surprised when this natural and entirely mundane process fails. They take a more close look. “Huh…what IS it then?” They might consciously run through the process of elimination again. Indeed, the process of expectation of it being a mundane object is so strong that they might settle on it being a mundane object – even to the extent of ignoring some of the evidence of their own eyes! It is the old UFO debunker thought process of “It cannot be (unknown), therefore it is not (unknown)” that comes into play.

The other source is a google on-line book co-authored by the same individual Rramjet quoted.

Introductiong to psychology:Gateways to mind and behaivor (Coon and Mitterer)
http://books.google.com/books?id=vw2...page&q&f=false

(…section snipped because dealt with above…)

Additionally, there is an interesting section of the text can be found on P.176:

Actually, having confidence in your testimony has almost no bearing on its accuracy (Brewer and Wells 2006). Psychologists are gradually convincing lawyers, judges, and police that eyewitness errors are common....Unfortunately, perception rarely provides "instant replay" of events. As stated earlier, impressions formed when a person is surprised, threatened, or under stress are especially prone to distortion (Yuille and Dalen 1998). In addition, being questioned tends to make witnesses more confident about what they saw, even if they are wrong..

Hmmmm....imagine that. When a person is "Surprised" (OMG, there is a flying saucer!!!) their perceptions of this event can be prone to distortion. Boy, who would of thunk it? Maybe everyone in this forum except for one.

The first point to note here is that this contention actually contradicts your initial contention (above) concerning perceptual expectancy! You cannot have it both ways Astrophotographer. Either they expect to see a UFO (in which case they will not BE surprised when they do) or (as is the case in the real world) they do NOT expect to see a UFO and WILL be surprised when their natural cognitive process lead them to that conclusion.

Now, as I have outlined, the perception of shape, etc, is primary. That is it precedes any rationalisation and as I also noted, the subsequent rationalisation will be biased toward the mundane. By the time the whole process has got to “OMG UFO!” then the characteristics of the object will have been imprinted quite strongly and subsequent description will rely then on this. The “surprise” at “UFO” is because we take for granted that our natural perceptive and thought processes will yield an entirely mundane explanation.

So… as you can see, when there is a lack of understanding of perceptual principles and psychological processes, then errors in interpretation will occur. More, it is only through the above process that we can learn how perceptual principles actually DO apply in the real world. It would have been entirely useless of me to outline the great amount of information on perceptual principles that exist on the mere chance that one of them might have been the one being misunderstood. Instead, Astrophotographer has done a little research (as I asked) and has come back to me showing where his misunderstanding occurred and I have been able to correct it accordingly. THIS is how the process should work.

 

[Jocce]

Clearly the witnesses could have got the shape wrong. However, given what we know about the perceptual research (that our brains are “especially sensitive” to “lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors”)...etc.

Lines, shapes and edges get you the sillhouette. We are questioning the witness interpretation of those lines and edges into a 3-dimensional object and has argued that they might have gotten it wrong.

Now, you on the other hand want to introduce factors that do lead the witnesses into error… That’s a reasonable thing to do. However, you have offered no research to support such a contention.

Hazy day, in a boat, using binoculars of unknown quality observing a distant object with no references in the field of view. There are so many potential sources for errors and yet you claim that they don't affect the witness accuracy to any noticable degree.

 

[Astrophotographer]

We have the experienced minds of the observers to measure them with! They were not newborn infants with absolutely no experience in such observation, they worked at an aerospace laboratory attached to a military airfield! They would have had a great deal of experience with planes of manykinds (including blimps!).

So we are back to the "trained observers" argument? This is a false argument based on what we know about UFO reports. I gave you Hendry and refused to believe his data. Now I will quote Hynek from 1949:

First of all, it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, UNLESS THE OBJECT IS IDENTIFIED FIRST… It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude and size ARE EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED (My emphasis). (Steiger Project Blue Book p. 228)

Of course, SR 14 states the same thing:

This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy.

Unless you can provide evidence that these individuals were above average (i.e. tests that were run on them on estimating speeds and distances), then this claim (that they were experienced observers who could make accurate estimates of these types) remains invalid.