UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Here is an interesting story

Seriously? Interesting?

1. Witnesses claim alien
2. Blurred video provided as proof

So far it's like yet another bigfoot story.

And then comes 3:
An unspecified scientist has taken a geiger counter to the site 8 months after the event and found a small pocket of space behind the lamppost with radiation levels higher than at Tjernobyl. Not only that, the radiation is at previously unheard of high AND low frequencies. Yet, plants, soil and the lamppost itself shows normal radiation levels when tested.

Got any real data about these measurements?

 

[carlitos]

Rramjet, I am asking this in all seriousness, and I hope it makes it to the thread due to the moderated status. What do you mean when you put a word in "quote" marks? Are you doing it for emphasis, special meaning, what is the reason? This information might help me to understand your point better.

Thanks.

 

[carlitos]

I stated:
“(Note here that Astrophotographer has also recently reminded us that we often see planes in the sky seeming to move much more slowly than their actual speed – but we NEVER see things the other way around – unless of course the observer is moving at high speed – which the observers at Rogue River were clearly NOT doing – so their speed estimate is likely to have been an underestimate, rather than the other way around).”

You have simply failed to note my caveat there: “unless of course the observer is moving at high speed - which the observers at Rogue River were clearly NOT doing” (perhaps to clarify I could have added ...moving at high speed in the same direction to the motion of the sighted object... but I simply assumed people would know what I meant - a misguided assumption obviously.)

Do you have evidence that we never see things "the other way around?" (i.e., we never see things moving faster than their actual speed)? Forget the caveat about moving at high speed. Do you have evidence that we never see things as moving faster than reality, "unless the observer is moving at high speed?" I would like to see your evidence for this assertion.

 

[Jocce]

I have consistently and on many occasions stated that Rogue River is a UFO, plain and simple. I make absolutely no claims about it being an “alien craft” – in fact I have specifically denied this claim by the UFO debunkers on many occasions.

You say so, but at the same time your definition of UFO excludes mundane objects. Ergo, UFO=alien.

 

[Jocce]

The mere stating of “Witnesses can be mistaken” does not mean that in any particular case they are mistaken. All the evidence in the Rogue River case (five witnesses, clear day, sun at their backs, the use of binoculars, etc) points to the fact that the witnesses provided an accurate description of a circular (like a coin or pancake) object which crossed their field of vision and departed “at the speed of a jet plane”.

You present evidence that is open to interpretation, contradictory and ambigous and claim that the objects observed can't be mundane. My only claim is that all the observations you have presented for discussion are unidentified objects. They can me mundane, or alien. The data available is just not enough to identify them one way or the other. Present a case with better data or just drop it. You have failed to make a convincing case.

This comment goes for the rest of your post too.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It only looks like a blimp if you have no understanding of how such a three dimensional circular object as the witnesses observed was represented on a 2-dimensional surface.


I have explained this a number of times.

You certainly have explained this a number of times. But in all those times it never seems to have occurred to you that the 2-D drawings still look like a blimp even when you have a perfectly clear understanding that the witnesses were attempting to draw a 3-D object which they interpreted as being a flat disc seen at an oblique angle. Nobody here (so far as I can tell) has even the slightest difficulty in grasping the point that the witnesses interpreted the object they saw as being a flat disc shape, seen at an oblique angle. Nor, so far as I can tell, does anyone else have a moment's difficulty in seeing that it could easily be a misinterpretation of a blimp-shaped object.

 

[Rramjet]

Seriously? Interesting?

Seriously? You don’t find the incident interesting?

1. Witnesses claim alien

Nowhere have the witnesses claimed “alien”! Your misrepresentations here (and in other posts) pre-suppose no-one will actually look at the evidence I have presented. Indeed it is clear that even you have not looked at the evidence (see point "3" below).

2. Blurred video provided as proof

No-one is claiming the video is “proof” – merely that something unusual was caught on film - that on the face of it deserves our attention.

So far it's like yet another bigfoot story.

Oh? Bigfoot has been caught on film attempting to grab the arm of a witness and has left radiation evidence behind?

And then comes 3:
An unspecified scientist has taken a geiger counter to the site 8 months after the event and found a small pocket of space behind the lamppost with radiation levels higher than at Tjernobyl. Not only that, the radiation is at previously unheard of high AND low frequencies. Yet, plants, soil and the lamppost itself shows normal radiation levels when tested.

The scientist is specified at 1:12 and at 3:22 of the Part 2 video (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-3). He is also named repeatedly in other parts of the video. Clearly you have not even bothered to look at the evidence I present before commenting. Now my Spanish is not so good but it sounds like his name is Jorge Guerrero (or something like that) a “Master of Science in physics, mathematics and astronomy”. Also at 4:50 we have the statement that “They made these tests in front of the media, in front of the researchers, in front of the people, so there was no doubt…”, then at 6:08 we have “Jorge Guerrero made a challenge on national TV to other scientists from Mexico, to come to the place and take their own measurements and compare the results”. Apparently this was done by three separate university teams from Merina who found the same results. If all these things were not verifiable after such a public exposure, then we can be certain that the media would have picked up on it.

…and you mean there existed extraordinarily high radiation readings even eight months after the event? Wow…isn’t that something. Even after all that time it had not dissipated… how do you explain that? (and unless you have access to information we don’t, you are “exaggerating” the precise areas of radiation measurement)

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, I am asking this in all seriousness, and I hope it makes it to the thread due to the moderated status. What do you mean when you put a word in "quote" marks? Are you doing it for emphasis, special meaning, what is the reason? This information might help me to understand your point better.

Thanks.

When I use quotation marks I either mean that it is a direct quote from a specified source or it has a specific definition that needs to be indicated (or is being delineated).

I most commonly use quotation marks around the term “alien”. This indicates that it is NOT meant to represent ET or any other particular hypothetical explanation that has been commonly attributed to UFOs. That is, it seems whenever people hear the word “alien”, they seem to automatically assume ET – and I am trying to avoid leaping to that conclusion. I actually mean “alien to our common conception of reality”. That is, UFOs are “alien” to us because we have no mundane explanation for them. I know this has lead to confusion and debate and this is because people simply cannot (or will not) see past ET as an explanation for UFOs. My contention is that while UFOs may not have mundane explanations, we cannot assume this automatically means ET.

It is a point of distinction the UFO debunkers have (as is their wont) tried to muddy the waters around and obscure in confusion. In arguments to me they deliberately swap (without specification) between using “alien as ET” (an explanation) and my “alien as not mundane” (a definition) in the same argument, setting up a strawman so they can then claim I am confused. I originally used quotation marks around “alien” in the hope of forestalling that type of misrepresentation, but of course the UFO debunkers found a way to confuse the issue anyway. IMO it seems for UFO debunkers it is better for confusion to reign that clarifying definitions or investigation to emerge.

I hope this answers your question carlitos. If not, perhaps you have other specific examples in mind you could point to that I could use explicate the issue further.

 

[Rramjet]

Do you have evidence that we never see things "the other way around?" (i.e., we never see things moving faster than their actual speed)? Forget the caveat about moving at high speed. Do you have evidence that we never see things as moving faster than reality, "unless the observer is moving at high speed?" I would like to see your evidence for this assertion.

At its most basic you are in part asking me for a physics lesson. Are you familiar with the use of vectors in physics and the formulae used to calculate them? If not then it would be pointless of me to provide a set of mathematical formulae and expect you to grasp their application. But it is not that simple (!) either – as the abstract of this paper demonstrates (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1093703.1093712) and here (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102212932.html)
and here (http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/71958/).

So we have three factors at play here: First the basic physics and second our brain’s processing systems and finally the resultant psychological interpretation of speed – none of which is easy to explicate in layman’s terms.

In simple terms, the further away an object is, the slower it will seem to move relative to its own true speed. This apparent speed of movement will be variously altered depending on the direction of movement of the object relative to the observer and any motion of the observer relative to both the object and the viewing environment.

An appreciation of the “true” speed of an object can only be a had when an object is relatively close to the observer and moving directly across the field of view, or where the brain has been trained to understand the relative speed differentials of “perceived” speed relative to true speed and distance and relative motion (of object, observer, and landscape).

In all circumstances (except where the object is close to the observer and the observer is moving in the opposite direction to the object relative to the landscape) perceived speed will be slower than actual speed relative to the landscape.

Did I say “in simple terms”? I hope you can now appreciate the complexities of the problem. The bottom line is however, that perceived speed will always be slower than actual speed except in one very specific circumstance (and that circumstance did not apply at Rogue River). This of course means that it is more likely than not that the witnesses at Rogue River underestimated the actual speed of the observed object - that is "speed of a jet plane" is most likely an underestimate.

 

[Rramjet]

You present evidence that is open to interpretation, contradictory and ambigous and claim that the objects observed can't be mundane. My only claim is that all the observations you have presented for discussion are unidentified objects. They can me mundane, or alien. The data available is just not enough to identify them one way or the other. Present a case with better data or just drop it. You have failed to make a convincing case.

This comment goes for the rest of your post too.

You say it is “open to interpretation” etc, but that does not make it so. The basic observations of shape and speed have been well explained (based on the research on the principles of human perception) in this thread and those basic observations positively rule out mundane objects. The data is sufficient to undertake at least this much of the analysis of the sighting.

I have presented many other cases. In the NZ case we have (for example) the conjunction of a multiple witness visual, radar and film sighting of a UFO. If that is not “good data” I don’t know what you think “good data” might consist of…

 

[Rramjet]

You certainly have explained this a number of times. But in all those times it never seems to have occurred to you that the 2-D drawings still look like a blimp even when you have a perfectly clear understanding that the witnesses were attempting to draw a 3-D object which they interpreted as being a flat disc seen at an oblique angle. Nobody here (so far as I can tell) has even the slightest difficulty in grasping the point that the witnesses interpreted the object they saw as being a flat disc shape, seen at an oblique angle. Nor, so far as I can tell, does anyone else have a moment's difficulty in seeing that it could easily be a misinterpretation of a blimp-shaped object.

The object in the drawings only looks like a blimp IF you have an a priori confirmation bias toward “blimp”. Once the true nature of the drawings is appreciated (that they were meant to represent a circular object at an oblique angle), then they no longer resemble a blimp. Obviously you have failed to appreciate the true nature of the drawings, even after my multiple clear and concise explanations.

Yes, the witnesses interpreted a perceived elliptical shape as a disc – and they did so for a very good reason. That is the object maintained its elliptical aspect even while it manoeuvred across and turned within the witnesses field of view. A blimp-shaped object simply could not have achieved this (that is a blimp’s aspect would have substantially changed as it manoeuvred as the object did). I have explained this a number of times. That you keep returning to the same point simply means you have not understand my explanations. Can you please tell me precisely what part of my explanation you do not understand and perhaps I can help explicate it for you.

 

[Jocce]

Seriously? You don’t find the incident interesting?

Not really. It is like 100's of other events. A blurred video and claims of extraordinary data being gathered. I see no data though. If you have access to it, it might be a good idea to present it.

 

[Jocce]

In arguments to me they deliberately swap (without specification) between using “alien as ET” (an explanation) and my “alien as not mundane” (a definition)

I can't speak for the rest of this forum but in this thread, when I've used alien, I've meant it as not mundane, but not necessarily ET. You on the other hand, has repeatedly assumed I and others mean ET despite the fact that I've corrected you on that several times.

 

[Jocce]

You say it is “open to interpretation” etc, but that does not make it so. The basic observations of shape and speed have been well explained (based on the research on the principles of human perception) in this thread and those basic observations positively rule out mundane objects. The data is sufficient to undertake at least this much of the analysis of the sighting.

If this was true, and the data was clearly unambiguous, we would have ended this discussion 180 pages ago.

I have presented many other cases. In the NZ case we have (for example) the conjunction of a multiple witness visual, radar and film sighting of a UFO. If that is not “good data” I don’t know what you think “good data” might consist of…

It has not been shown that radar, visual and film was of the same object. Observations at approximately the same time in the same general direction is just not good enough for me. I have higher standards than you when it comes to accepting evidence. Just deal with it.

 

[Jocce]

The object in the drawings only looks like a blimp IF you have an a priori confirmation bias toward “blimp”.

And when you have an a priori confirmation bias toward circular disc, it looks like one.

 

[Rramjet]

Not really. It is like 100's of other events. A blurred video and claims of extraordinary data being gathered. I see no data though. If you have access to it, it might be a good idea to present it.

Really... I'd like to hear of these "100s" of other events where an "alien" has reached out to attempt to pull a person toward itself - and it has been caught on film... Blurry or not, it captures a rather extraordinary event. You don't find that even a little bit interesting? And please tell me why you are posting in this thread at all if you're not interested?

 

[Rramjet]

I can't speak for the rest of this forum but in this thread, when I've used alien, I've meant it as not mundane, but not necessarily ET. You on the other hand, has repeatedly assumed I and others mean ET despite the fact that I've corrected you on that several times.

You keep making false claims and unfounded assertions as if the mere statement of them makes them true.

 

[Rramjet]

It has not been shown that radar, visual and film was of the same object. Observations at approximately the same time in the same general direction is just not good enough for me. I have higher standards than you when it comes to accepting evidence. Just deal with it.

“The captain turned on the weather radar in the mapping mode (M. E. L. Co., EL90; vertical fan beam 40 to 150 down; 3 sec sweep cycle; ranges: 20, 50, 150 nm) and immediately picked up a strong target in the direction of the light at a distance of about 18 nm.

(…)

About this time Fogarty and Grant came up to the flight deck and they, too, saw the bright lights. Grant said his initial impression was of a white-yellow sphere like a ping pong ball in a dark room and illuminated by a ray of light. Grant, who was standing behind Startup, also had a good look at the radar screen. He said that in his mind there was no doubt that the direction to the radar target, as indicated by well defined angle lines on the radar screen, was the same as the direction to the lights.

(…)

During this time Crockett filmed this light using his 100 mm zoom lens. In order to be certain that he obtained images he slowed the frame rate from the normal 24 per second to 10 per second (this would more than double the exposure of each frame). Crockett started filming from his middle seat but, within a minute or so of first seeing the light Crockett got out of his seat and crouched behind the copilot. At one time, to document where the film was taken, he unzoomed to show both the UFO and a small, dimly lit meter that is under the right side window (Figure 12).” Maccabee, B. (2005) A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978. (http://brumac.8k.com/).​

 

[Rramjet]

And when you have an a priori confirmation bias toward circular disc, it looks like one.

No a priori bias... just an observation of the evidence. That is that the witnesses described and drew a circular object. You can only uphold "blimp" if you ignore that evidence - or have an a priori confirmation bias toward "blimp".

I work from the evidence. You work from... (opinion, belief, a priori assumption...)?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I most commonly use quotation marks around the term “alien”. This indicates that it is NOT meant to represent ET or any other particular hypothetical explanation that has been commonly attributed to UFOs. That is, it seems whenever people hear the word “alien”, they seem to automatically assume ET – and I am trying to avoid leaping to that conclusion. I actually mean “alien to our common conception of reality”. That is, UFOs are “alien” to us because we have no mundane explanation for them. I know this has lead to confusion and debate and this is because people simply cannot (or will not) see past ET as an explanation for UFOs. My contention is that while UFOs may not have mundane explanations, we cannot assume this automatically means ET.

We understand full well that when Rramjet uses the word "alien", he generally means blimps or squid boats or any other phenomenon that's alien to his uncommon misconception of reality.

In arguments to me they deliberately swap (without specification) between using “alien as ET” (an explanation) and my “alien as not mundane” (a definition) in the same argument, setting up a strawman so they can then claim I am confused. I originally used quotation marks around “alien” in the hope of forestalling that type of misrepresentation, but of course the UFO debunkers found a way to confuse the issue anyway. IMO it seems for UFO debunkers it is better for confusion to reign that clarifying definitions or investigation to emerge.

Rramjet's just upset because he hasn't yet figured out the implications of his own definitions, so he ends up arguing with himself.

I can't speak for the rest of this forum but in this thread, when I've used alien, I've meant it as not mundane, but not necessarily ET.

Mundanity is subjective. I have used the word "alien" to mean not mundane for Rramjet, while recognizing that what is alien to Rramjet may be mundane to someone with a broader understanding of reality.

You on the other hand, has repeatedly assumed I and others mean ET despite the fact that I've corrected you on that several times.

Ditto. I would also point out that many goddesses are believed to be terrestrial.