UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[arthwollipot]

These are the two things that I base my judgements on.

And exactly what are your judgements?

I'm losing patience here, Roger. This question has been asked of you many times, in a number of ways, in several different threads: What are you trying to convince us of?

 

[Pinely]

I read through many of these links and I signed up to the forum to make a couple comments. Initially I was going to go piece by piece through each of these, but it became pretty clear that doing so would be unnecessary. Instead, after reading a couple, I decided it would be better to present a general set of problems with the material presented and see if you could narrow down the evidence based on these problems. (Rogue River Case link you provided is also down, I'll take a look at that when it's back up).

First and more of a comment, the early UFO history information is weak evidence. The analysis is (where applicable) based off of translations and we have no way of knowing whether the original UFO research was conducted in the original language or not. Additionally, if we have people falsely reporting objects in the sky today, it is highly likely that they did the same thing in the past. As such, these accounts do nothing to "prove" ancient UFOs anymore than the modern eye witness accounts do.

Which brings me to my second point about the links. They are, overwhelmingly, eye witness accounts. There are numerous problems with eye witness accounts. In some cases, the person is outright lying. In most cases, the person isn't lying, but does not have an accurate assessment of what they saw. Even expert witnesses are often unqualified to identify an object, particularly when exposed to the object for a brief period of time. Eye witnesses are further subjected to a kind of group mentality that develops when discussing a topic, which is the same reasoning behind the isolation of witnesses after a robbery.

Third, there is an absence of citations for many of these articles you have linked. The few that do have citations cite UFO books. As a skeptic, it is impossible for me to assess the validity of an argument when I cannot easily see where the author drew the argument from. A good example of this is the very first link in the "reference" section. Although the author makes an attempt at citation, most of the quotes and facts presented are without citations. Worse, the citations presented lack vital information (such as page numbers for quotes). Most of your links are wholly without any citation whatsoever.

Fourth, there is a kind of circular reasoning around cover ups in some of these links (Kecksburg for example). If the government denies that there was a UFO, those that believe there was a UFO will call this a cover up. The cover up is then used as evidence that there was a UFO. Obviously this is circular reasoning, yet many of your articles dedicate time to the cover up and attempt to use that as evidence of a UFO.

Those are my problems with the sources you've presented. In addition, presenting a giant list of links and stating that the information is somewhere within is not a way to foster discussion. Rather, I'd recommend removing the events that do not contain physical evidence, finding better cited articles for these links, and then focusing on discussing these events. Additionally, the links with the photos should be grouped with the appropriate event, not left at the end for the reader to sort through.

 

[arthwollipot]

Great first post, Pinely! Welcome to the forum!

 

[Tapio]

Gord, I think I've spotted the problem which resulted in me accusing you of not reading the report before condemning it. It has to do, surprise surprise, with semantics.

This was your first post:

The witnesses had no idea how big the object was, how high it was or how far away it was.

I still think this was an unfair judgement. The witnesses did have some idea, however vague.

I read the whole damn thing. The viewers did not know how big the object was, how high it was, or how far away it was. The best they were doing was based on guessing it was the size of a C-46.

Now here you are demanding knowledge, whereas earlier on you talked about ideas. I don't know about you, but to me these are quite different areas of perception. I agree the witnesses didn't have knowledge (how could've they, taking the distance into account).

But not having knowledge was not what you were critizising in your first post (which was the one I reacted to).

They can estimate all they want but if they don't know how big it was, they don't know how high it was, or how far away it was.

Hmm...just to make sure I understand your POW correctly. Are you suggesting that if an eyewitness can not convey exact knowledge of the witnessed incident, his/her estimate of it can not be counted as anything?

Marduk, could you please provide reliable references to your research on the blimp-theory? Thanks! I'd really like to get to the bottom of things. At this point I've read the report and have to conclude that without solid evidence pointing to the contrary, it truly seems like a case of a UFO (can't see the link to 'alien' technology though...'seemingly the speed of a jet plane' doesn't quite cut it). Thanks!

 

[Pixel42]

If "weight of evidence" was enough to convince me of something I would be convinced of the validity of dowsing, telepathy, ghosts, homeopathy, psychic abilities, etc etc. There is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence for all of them, including hundreds of eye witness accounts. Sceptics point out that there are mundane explanations for all of it, believers counter that "just because the explanation could be mundane that doesn't prove it [/I]is[/I] mundane. There is so much evidence, there must be something to it".

Fortunately in most cases there is a simple way to find out who is right: test the phenomena under conditions where mundane explanations are carefully and methodically excluded, and see if they still occur. As everyone posting on this JREF forum knows, they never do. We therefore conclude that all the "weight of evidence" is indeed due to the well known and well understood ways in which the perceptions of even intelligent, rational people can be fooled.

There are, however, cases where this method is difficult to apply - ghosts, for example, because ghost sightings are not predictable. So while we may strongly suspect that ghost sightings are also due to these same faulty perceptions, we cannot dismiss them with the same confidence that decades of methodical testing have given us when we dismiss claims of paranormal abilities.

It seems to me that UFO sightings are in this latter category. The precedent of all the other cases where "the weight of evidence" was proved to be misleading may justify a strong suspicion that the same is true here, but no definitive proof will ever be available.

 

[GeeMack]

You seem to have missed my question, Rramjet...

Please provide the quotes, with references, from those professional and scientific research projects which show that any initially unidentified sky sightings turned out to be, after identification, aliens/craft from space or other planets. Or, if you are unable to do that, acknowledge that you can't.

In your response to Stray Cat in this post you infer that you accept certain UFO studies/research projects as professional and scientific.

Oh, so Blue Book, Condon, Sturrock, Condign, et al. are "unprofessional" and "unscientific"? Please StrayCat, your opinion is at odds with, well...just about everybody on that score...

Your inference is repeated here in another of your typically smart-assed replies to Stray Cat...

...and again, you finish with a wild assertion that cannot be supported by the facts. It actually flies in the face of science and rational thought. Facts. Research. These are the two things that I base my judgements on. Others may choose alternate methods... (shrugs) that is their prerogative.

Just so we're all clear on this, did any of those studies, the ones you regard as scientific and professional, identify any previously unidentified sky sightings as craft piloted by beings from space/other planets or by a race of advanced, unknown Earthlings? If they did, please provide quotes from the studies and/or specific references to those conclusions. If they didn't, acknowledge that no such conclusion was reached so we can move forward understanding the position of those studies on that issue.

 

[StevenCalder]

What are you trying to convince us of?

This is the odd thing about this thread.

He's not trying to prove any 'Alien' Hypothesis.

He's hoping to disprove all mundane hypotheses.

So I am, on that basis, merely providing evidence to support the case that mundane (or "natural") explanations are NOT the answer - NOT that the answer IS ET.

 

[LTC8K6]

The drawings are "vague"? Have you even looked at the report? The drawings are particularly precise actually.

I am not surprised at this type of post though. It fits a general pattern. When there are no substantial objections to the evidence, just make up some unfounded and generalised negative assertion and given that no-one seems interested in looking at the actual evidence, then who is to find out that the assertion is false?

But,also of course you have your opponent running around in circles just trying to counter such nonsense, wasting time and energy, instead of focusing on the real issues with the story... and as yet no-one has come up with anything to substantively dispute the account...

The only thing so far has been some sort of "blimp" hypothesis, but if you read the report, you will understand why that is just grasping a straws and not a real objection at all. If it were a "blimp" then the Air Force would have stated as much - instead they reached for "kite", an altogether more improbable explanation than "blimp". Moreover, "blimp" directly contradicts the eyewitness accounts of jet plane speeds. Please...read the accounts. Examine the evidence. Come up with anything substantive to dispute the conclusion that the sighting represents a TRUE unknown.

The one thing the drawings are NOT, is "vague".

If you didn't want my opinion, why did you come here? I think the drawings are vague, and the reports are typical. Did you want me to give someone else's opinion?

Does anyone other than Bruce tout this incident and report on it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is the odd thing about this thread.

He's not trying to prove any 'Alien' Hypothesis.

He's hoping to disprove all mundane hypotheses.

Oh good, now everyone can sit back and just wait for him to disprove all mundane hypotheses for all those links he provided then.

Rramjet, please disprove the blimp hypothesis in the Rogue River case. You know, of course, that anecdotal evidence won't provide proof, right?

 

[jakesteele]

The Phoenix Lights has been long debunked as a set of parachute flares dropped during an Air Force exercise.

Just a week or so ago I asked about the Phoenix Lights on this skeptic site and others and I got surprisingly little, if no, good explanations for the entire chain of events which encompassed much more time and distance than just the more publicized PL scenario.

Here's the basic run down I came up with and the questions that arose for me that have as yet to be answered satisfactorily:


• There were two separate events – The first event starting in Prescott, Arizona at approx. 8:15pm and the much publicized Phoenix Lights event starting at approx. 10:00pm. In Phoenix.
• The first event – (Wiki) “The "V," which appeared over northern Arizona and gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state, eventually passing south of Tucson -- was the allegedly "wedge-shaped" object reported by then-Governor Symington and many others. This event started at about 8:15 over the Prescott area, and was seen south of Tucson by about 8:45.
• The second event was the set of nine lights falling behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain ridge to the southwest of Phoenix, at around 10pm. This was also observed by numerous people who may have thought they were seeing the same lights as those reported earlier.
• Total approx. time for both events, 8:15pm to 10:00pm – 1 hr. 45 min.
• Total distance of sightings, approx. 250 miles from Prescott to Barry Goldwater range.
• The Prescott sighting, upon arriving in Phoenix, is allegedly observed by Mitch Stanley, amateur astronomer. According to his statement, which is anecdotal evidence, he claims he saw airplanes and, (Wiki) “After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft. However, to date, no one has claimed to be the pilots of that alleged flight.”
• 2nd event occurs, now known as the Phoenix Lights. (Wiki) “In addition to the triangular formation, a separate phenomenon occurred in the Phoenix area. A series of lights appeared, one by one, and then were extinguished one by one. At this point many widely publicized videos and photographs were taken.” The Air Force states that they were LUU-2 flares which have a burn time of approximately 5 minutes while suspended from a parachute.
•
• TENATIVE CONCLUSION FOR 1ST EVENT (Prescott, Arizona): The first event has only the anecdotal evidence of a young, amateur astronomer alleging he saw airplanes and that the also told his mother. The fact that anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable (Skeptic’s Dictionary, “…Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate.”) and that there are no corroborating witness who have stepped forth to claim ownership to being one of the pilots, tends to leave the first sighting wide open in that there are no Official Stories or reasonable explanations that comfortably fit the available data in a logical, plausible way.
• TENATIVE CONCLUSION FOR 2ND EVENT (Phoenix Lights): The fact that the second sighting, now referred to as the Phoenix Lights, was observed as lights that blinked out one by one tends to be corroborated by the Air Force’s statement that the flares they used have a 5-minute burn time.

Any help in areas or details I have missed or misstated would be greatly appreciated, especially a good explanation for the 1st event starting in Prescot.

Thanks.

 

[Tapio]

Now instead of repeating the mistakes of the UFOlogists past 50 years of unprofessional/unscientific 'research', why not spend some forum time with a thread on how methods of researching UFO's could be vastly improved?
This, I'm sure would be more use than examining the past mistakes over and over again.

I think this is a brilliant idea! Would you be so kind as to start with The Rogue River Sighting and present your view on what could've/should've been done differently in the investigation of the case in order for it to reach a more definitive conclusion?

 

[Stray Cat]

and I’ll just keep repeating then - that merely to state (even over and over again) that something is true, does not make it true.

And yet this is exactly what you keep doing...
You are claiming that these UFO events actually amount to something when over and over they have been shown to be at the very most UNEXPLAINED. Which as we all know doesn't mean unexplainable.
Not a single one has EVER been conclusively explained by "the alien hypothesis" non have EVER been conclusively proven as Alien Space Craft. Mundane conclusion has NEVER been completely ruled out.

I make no extraordinary claims whatsoever. All I am stating is that there exists evidence for UFOs and something else that we might loosely term “alien”, but that is all, nothing extraordinary in that. I have presented the evidence for why I believe my contention. On the other hand, I see you presenting no evidence to the contrary.

The 'evidence' you post contains the extraordinary claims... without providing the extraordinary evidence to back any of them up.

Are you proposing some sort of conspiracy theory then?

Yes, but not the one you probably think.
Mine is a much more humanly based one that involves making a few extra dollars in retirement.

I beg to differ and propose that anyone with “half a mind” would look at the photos AND the research and conclude that a hoax had indeed been ruled out. Even Hartman (in Condon) ruled out a hoax – and that was a scientific investigation of the evidence – not wild speculation along the lines of “It might have been, therefore it was”.

I haven't checked that thread today (yet), have you come up with something new and compelling?
Hartman stated in the Condon Report that the possibility of a hoax couldn't be completely ruled out and indeed Sheaffer's later work managed to convince him that it was sensible not to completely rule out a hoax.

These tests do not rule out the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved thread.

Umm…A’s website. What’s the link?

Knock yourself out: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm

Back to the “blimp” hey? (chuckles) All I am asking you (anyone) to do is read the accounts and then pronounce on their veracity. You could begin by stating: “I don’t believe the estimates of speed or size because…”

I don't believe the estimates of speed and size because it is impossible to tell speed and size... even to a trained observer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8474842
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-938421211.html
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=wright1166731181

But you raise a contention that I am NOT proposing. I do NOT contend “Aliens are visiting our planet”. It is of course possible that “aliens” are, but on the evidence we cannot conclude that. It is again the “strawman” argument.

Then the whole of your stance is a charade.

There is no research that cannot be improved on. I have never argued anything else. And I am calling for people to realise that research on the subject is advisable if we ever want to find out what is going on and further, we just might make discoveries that open up possibilities we have never even dreamed of. It was YOU who stated that the research conducted was “unscientific” and I merely pointed out that this was an unfounded assertion that could not be supported in the face of the evidence.

But you still keep accepting such faulty research as the examples you have given?

So let me get this straight…you believe that NO critical research of any worth has been conducted in the field?

Condon and it's ilk appear to be quite scientifically methodical in their approach... You know, the one's which didn't reach for conclusions beyond the evidence. The one's who stopped at "Unexplained" as the answers to those few cases where there wasn't strong enough evidence to show mundane explanations. The unscientific ones are the Maccabees, who's default setting is it's an Alien Craft until someone proves us wrong. Hoagland, Art Bell, Dilettoso, Meier, Lazar, Maussan, Linda Moulton Howe, the list goes on.

…and again, you finish with a wild assertion that cannot be supported by the facts. It actually flies in the face of science and rational thought. Facts. Research. These are the two things that I base my judgements on. Others may choose alternate methods… (shrugs) that is their prerogative.

You keep talking about the weight of evidence being the key point.
Well all backed up by reams and reams of reports that far outweigh your evidence is the s**tpile of hoaxes that have fooled the unprofessional UFOlogists since the 50's, which have later been exposed as hoaxes. The pile of reports that were looked into and later discovered to be mundane misidentified objects. You don't base anything on Facts or Research because you promote your original set of links as something they are not.
What they are is mostly badly researched reports devoid of verifiable facts, done by people with an emotional investment in providing a mystery to people because it's more profitable than providing an answer.

 

[Stray Cat]

Just a week or so ago I asked about the Phoenix Lights on this skeptic site and others and I got surprisingly little, if no, good explanations for the entire chain of events which encompassed much more time and distance than just the more publicized PL scenario....

Hi Jake, looks like you may be interested in Astrophotographer's website too.
I'll repeat the link I've just given to Rramjet: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm

 

[Stray Cat]

I think this is a brilliant idea! Would you be so kind as to start with The Rogue River Sighting and present your view on what could've/should've been done differently in the investigation of the case in order for it to reach a more definitive conclusion?

I think it was the "definitive conclusion" that was reached that was the problem. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
But sensation sells doesn't it and aren't UFOlogists just experts at sensationalism?

I'm getting a 404 at Rramjet's link... I'd have to re read it to give more details.

 

[Astrophotographer]

• The first event – (Wiki) “The "V," which appeared over northern Arizona and gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state, eventually passing south of Tucson -- was the allegedly "wedge-shaped" object reported by then-Governor Symington and many others. This event started at about 8:15 over the Prescott area, and was seen south of Tucson by about 8:45.

AND

• The Prescott sighting, upon arriving in Phoenix, is allegedly observed by Mitch Stanley, amateur astronomer. According to his statement, which is anecdotal evidence, he claims he saw airplanes and, (Wiki) “After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft. However, to date, no one has claimed to be the pilots of that alleged flight.”

AND

• TENATIVE CONCLUSION FOR 1ST EVENT (Prescott, Arizona): The first event has only the anecdotal evidence of a young, amateur astronomer alleging he saw airplanes and that the also told his mother. The fact that anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable (Skeptic’s Dictionary, “…Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate.”) and that there are no corroborating witness who have stepped forth to claim ownership to being one of the pilots, tends to leave the first sighting wide open in that there are no Official Stories or reasonable explanations that comfortably fit the available data in a logical, plausible way.

I am not sure what skeptical forums you have gone to but you did ignored what I have written here (I also did not see you post in the BAUT forum). I hate having to repeat myself over and over. If you want to throw out Mitch Stanley's observations as the sole reason to disprove the formation of aircraft hypothesis, that might be valid. However, there is other witness testimony that supports this observation so Stanley's observations are not the sole reason this conclusion is reached (see my website on the subject). Additionally, we have the only video of the event, which supports the testimony of Stanley and negates the testimony of the witnesses who claim there was a massive structure in the sky. There is a good amount of testimony that supports Stanley's observations and negate the massive spaceship observations, which were made by only a minority (roughly 25% of all the INITIAL reports made to NUFORC) of the witnesses (But they got all the air time)

As for no pilots coming forward, I can only state that no pilots have come forward PUBLICLY with this information. From what I have been able to determine, the aircraft were probably Canadian Tutors (see the article by Randy Fitzgerald in the Readers Digest of May 1999, where he quotes an airplane crew who talked to the enroute ATC when they saw the lights) flying in a "big Vic" formation with their taxi lights illuminated. This was not exactly authorized to do but because they were probably pilots learning how to fly in formation, they chose to do this with lights for safety reasons. As a result, the pilots probably will not come forward if they are still active duty military. You can dismiss this as unlikely or likely. It is your choice. However, I find this scenario far more likely than a huge alien spaceship flying over the state of Arizona.

 

[Tapio]

I think it was the "definitive conclusion" that was reached that was the problem. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Sorry, I was too vague. As I recall, the definitive conclusion of the report Rramjet linked to was that the Rogue River Sighting was a 'genuine' UFO.

What I meant by my question (which was also how I interpreted your earlier post) was that it would be great to hear suggestions on how the Rogue River case (for example) could've been investigated so that it could not be used as such (even after decades) by any UFO 'nut' as back up to their theory.

I wonder if I'm more clear this time?

Why wasn't the second official explanation ('aircraft') given a corrective ('blimp') if that was indeed the case? Or is the whole report so utterly biased that it can't be relied on as an actual reference for the case?

 

[Sledge]

Can I check I'm understanding this right: Rramjet acknowledges that none of the "evidence" is convincing, but the sheer amount of unconvincing anecdote somehow turns it into proof?

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry, I was too vague. As I recall, the definitive conclusion of the report Rramjet linked to was that the Rogue River Sighting was a 'genuine' UFO.

The UFO sites claim "genuine UFO" the official report claims "aircraft" or "kites" - both show a complete lack of real investigation.

What I meant by my question (which was also how I interpreted your earlier post) was that it would be great to hear suggestions on how the Rogue River case (for example) could've been investigated so that it could not be used as such (even after decades) by any UFO 'nut' as back up to their theory.

I wonder if I'm more clear this time?

I don't think it's a case of scuppering attempts by UFOlogists to use the historical cases as back up. It's a general call for some objective critical research. Much like that which is done in the wider world, whether criminal investigation or scientific investigation. It thorough objective approach and verifiable analysis works quite well in other subjects, why does UFOlogy seem to think it is any different?

Why wasn't the second official explanation ('aircraft') given a corrective ('blimp') if that was indeed the case? Or is the whole report so utterly biased that it can't be relied on as an actual reference for the case?

A lot of people think sceptics just accept the official story (in this case Blue Book's vague explanation), but from what I've read about Rogue River (which was from UFO Evidence website as Rramjet's link gives a 404 error), the Blue Book explanation seems as unlikely as the genuine UFO explanation, both being unverifiable. Also being a seasoned UFO researcher myself, I know not to take on face value third hand reports, because too many times in the past information has been misinterpreted, misrepresented and taken out of context, or a case has been made by simple excluding all the information available that disproves the case the UFOlogist is trying to prove.
If MardUK over 50 years later, can provide a trail that leads back to a blimp company flying blimps that match in description, in the correct area, at the time of the sighting, then it leads to all sorts of questions about the depth of research done at the time by UFologists and Blue Book.
But I can also expand and say that nowadays we have a much more accurate view on the validity of witness statements and our understanding of the UFO phenomenon is much better informed by the "weight of evidence" that Rramjet is trying to convince us must be a key factor... which of course it is, but in the opposite way to the way Rramjet thinks it is.

 

[Tapio]

Thanks, Stray Cat! Well put.

Although going on my 30s I've only fairly recently started using the Internet, so all this is quite new to me. I also think the blimp-theory is a good one, now I only hope Marduk can back it up with some references...I too have learned not to take anything at face value (even if it supports my position).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gord, I think I've spotted the problem which resulted in me accusing you of not reading the report before condemning it. It has to do, surprise surprise, with semantics.

This was your first post:



I still think this was an unfair judgement. The witnesses did have some idea, however vague.



Now here you are demanding knowledge, whereas earlier on you talked about ideas. I don't know about you, but to me these are quite different areas of perception. I agree the witnesses didn't have knowledge (how could've they, taking the distance into account).

But not having knowledge was not what you were critizising in your first post (which was the one I reacted to).



Hmm...just to make sure I understand your POW correctly. Are you suggesting that if an eyewitness can not convey exact knowledge of the witnessed incident, his/her estimate of it can not be counted as anything?

OK then. When I said the witnesses had "no idea", I did not mean what they thought; I meant what the could actually know with any great certainty.

There is no way to know the size of anything at a distance without some reference -- either it is a known object or it can be directly compared to something of a known size. Stereoscopic vision does not work beyond a few feet. If you have multiple observations of an object from different locations with accurate directions, angle of altitude, angular size and time then, of course, you could do the right calculations.

These people just saw something in the sky. Their observations are not worthless but do not contain sufficient information to draw an unequivocal conclusion. Looking at the drawing, I'd say the blimp explanation looks pretty reasonable.

PS a common "UFO" "sighting" that illustrates the size/height/distance issue is those folks who are "chased" by the Moon.

<snip>

/quote]