UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Yes, that is correct. If an object is located at a particular position on both radar and visually then it would constitute evidence that there is actually a physical object there. Maybe you could point me to a particular sighting where this is the case? As far as I remember from when we were discussing these cases you mention, that kind of evidence could not be confirmed to exist?

"About 2 minutes later the plane was about 7 miles north of Christchurch it entered a thin layer of cloud. Shortly after that it climbed through the top of the cloud at about 3,000 ft. Immediately the air crew and Crockett could see a very bright light ahead and about 30o to the right, i.e., northeast of them (see Figure 6). Actually, they saw two lights, one above the other, the upper being brighter. (The lower may have been a reflection in cloud or the ocean.) 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." (A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978 - document can be accessed under NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS at http://brumac.8k.com/​

But this is not the only radar/visual case... there are many more of those... rather, it is the only radar/visual/photographic case (because the light was also filmed by a news crew aboard the plane)! For example:

"For the next 10 minutes the plane flew in a straight line, continually climbing. According to Startup, who had the best view of the radar screen (which was at his left), the radar target initially moved radially inward (i.e. at a constant angle of about 30o to the right) to a distance on the order of 8 to 10 nm. Startup’s observation indicates that the object was traveling a bit faster than the aircraft. Then it slowly dropped back to the right, finally leaving the radar screen at the limit of its sweep (about 60o to the right). The exact time that it disappeared at the right of the radar is not known. However, it was probably at about 0225. At about 0226 (estimated time) Fogarty recorded the following statement: “We must be about 30 miles out of Christchurch ...according to Bill Startup, it came as close as 10 miles to us.” At about the same time (point 25 in Figure 6) Bob Guard reported to Wellington that the plane was about 32 nm from Christchurch at about 11,500 ft and that there was “a great big target sitting at 3:00 to us position about 12 nm away.”

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" (same reference as above)​

 

[Jocce]

"About 2 minutes later the plane was about 7 miles north of Christchurch it entered a thin layer of cloud. ..​

I wish that you for once could provide a first hand source or at least a propertly referenced description of events. This is a retelling of events and I have no clue where he got the data from. Please try again.

 

[Rramjet]

I wish that you for once could provide a first hand source or at least a propertly referenced description of events. This is a retelling of events and I have no clue where he got the data from. Please try again.

Seriously? ...this was all gone through extensively at the time the case was discussed.

First:

“WITNESSES: William Startup, Captain (Pilot), former president of the New Zealand Pilot's Association Robert Guard (copilot) Quentin Fogarty (a TV station reporter; from Melbourne, Australia; used the tape recorded to describe, occasionally, what was happening) Dennis Grant (the second reporter; from Christchurch, NZ; he made pencil notes on paper as events unfolded) David Crockett (cameraman; Bolex electric camera with 100 and 240 mm focal length lenses; 16 mm, color reversal movie film run at 10 frames/sec) Wellington Air Route Traffic Control Center (recorded conversations between the airplane and the Control Center, thus providing information on the timing of events) “ (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)​

Second: There was extensive news coverage on both TV and in newspapers carrying first hand interview accounts by all the witnesses, beginning from the very next day (in fact the same day! – 1st Jan 1979).

Third: There were first hand account books and magazine articles (eg: (Startup and Illingworth, 1980; Fogarty, 1982).

Fourth: (and critically) Guard provided a formal taped interview testimony 4 days after the event and Dr. Maccabee (the author of the article I quoted from in my previous post) personally interviewed Startup less than a week later.

In summary there is absolutely no shortage of first-hand witness accounts in this case – including tape recorded, film recorded, hand-written notes, and personal interview testimony (much of this recorded either at the time of the event or within a very few days shortly thereafter).

Might I suggest you are barking up completely the wrong tree if you think you can dismiss this case on the grounds of second hand retelling of the story.

You stated:
“If an object is located at a particular position on both radar and visually then it would constitute evidence that there is actually a physical object there. Maybe you could point me to a particular sighting where this is the case?”

I provided you precisely the information (evidence) you requested in my previous post here:

(…)

Will you now admit that I have provided you with a case where there is well documented, first hand evidence of a radar/visual sighting?
Perhaps you can even go further? The NZ case was not only a radar/visual sighting, the NZ case was actually a radar/visual/photographic (film) sighting!

 

[Jocce]

Seriously? ...this was all gone through extensively at the time the case was discussed.

First:

“WITNESSES: William Startup, Captain (Pilot), former president of the New Zealand Pilot's Association Robert Guard (copilot) Quentin Fogarty (a TV station reporter; from Melbourne, Australia; used the tape recorded to describe, occasionally, what was happening) Dennis Grant (the second reporter; from Christchurch, NZ; he made pencil notes on paper as events unfolded) David Crockett (cameraman; Bolex electric camera with 100 and 240 mm focal length lenses; 16 mm, color reversal movie film run at 10 frames/sec) Wellington Air Route Traffic Control Center (recorded conversations between the airplane and the Control Center, thus providing information on the timing of events) “ (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)​

I'm happy to hear that there is such extensive material to go through. Then maybe, you could post a link to the actual witness statements and word by word transcription of pencil notes rather than a webpage claiming that such things exist? Surely you must understand that a claim as important as this require a greater weight of evidence no?

Second: There was extensive news coverage on both TV and in newspapers carrying first hand interview accounts by all the witnesses, beginning from the very next day (in fact the same day! – 1st Jan 1979).

And do we have access to unedited material from such interviews? Please post in that case.

Third: There were first hand account books and magazine articles (eg: (Startup and Illingworth, 1980; Fogarty, 1982).

I don't have access to those so mabe you can quote the relevant passages.

Fourth: (and critically) Guard provided a formal taped interview testimony 4 days after the event and Dr. Maccabee (the author of the article I quoted from in my previous post) personally interviewed Startup less than a week later.

Great, but why don't you quote those interviews? I'm not interested in Dr. Mcabbees summaries of interviews, I want the interviews raw, unbiased, and might I add, not done after a week.

In summary there is absolutely no shortage of first-hand witness accounts in this case – including tape recorded, film recorded, hand-written notes, and personal interview testimony (much of this recorded either at the time of the event or within a very few days shortly thereafter).

And yet you don't post it but choose to post links to Dr. Mcabees summaries.

Might I suggest you are barking up completely the wrong tree if you think you can dismiss this case on the grounds of second hand retelling of the story.

Might I suggest that you learn the difference between the evidence itself and summaries/interpretations of evidence?

Will you now admit that I have provided you with a case where there is well documented, first hand evidence of a radar/visual sighting?
Perhaps you can even go further? The NZ case was not only a radar/visual sighting, the NZ case was actually a radar/visual/photographic (film) sighting!

You have provided a case which certain people claim is well documented. Yet you fail to provide the actual documentation. I'm sure you think I'm being overly obtuse but seriously, you have failed to produce anything but summaries and interpretations of first hand documents by Dr. Mcabee and that's not enough.

 

[Jocce]

I provided you precisely the information (evidence) you requested in my previous post here:

Just to be clear Rramjet. What I'm looking for is repeatability, a well known prerequisite in science that both you and Dr. Mcabee should be well aware of. I want to be able to look at the raw data, draw my conclusions and see if I agree with your and Dr. Mcabees conclusions. That can not be too much to ask for right? He holds a Ph.d. and you say you're a scientist so you should both be familiar with this concept.

 

[Access Denied]

"Actually, they saw two lights, one above the other, the upper being brighter. (The lower may have been a reflection in cloud or the ocean.) 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."​

Define “in the direction of” and how do we know the upper light wasn’t an aircraft or celestial object and the lower light wasn’t a boat and which, if any, of these two lights was picked up on the weather radar?

Will you now admit that I have provided you with a case where there is well documented, first hand evidence of a radar/visual sighting?

Of what?

 

[Jocce]

Incorrect. I obtained the object centre by zooming each image to 1600%. This provided a clear view if the number of pixels covered by each “object” under analysis. In finding the central point I accounted for “pixilation” and did not simply pick the “brightest” as my data point - in fact more often than not the data was not obtained from the brightest pixel – nor indeed from the central point (your “centroid”) of any particular pixel at all – rather I assed the extent of the whole image and accounting for pixilation obtained the data point. In most cases the image of the object was clearly enough defined as to make this quite an accurate process.

You can be as accurate as you wish in the process of measuring but the video you are measuring on is compressed and such a compression introduces artifacts such as antialiased pixels around the object. You severely overestimate the accuracy in this clip.

Sure, the process of propagation of errors in this way is as you describe it. Which is a reason I have not commented further or drawn any conclusions from the raw data I presented. The process as you describe is time consuming and requires patience and dedication and I have simply not had the time to conduct such analysis as you describe.

Not to mention, we need original photo to remove compression errors from the plot. So basically, there is now no point in discussing the trajectory of the object because it can't be defined in such a degree as is necessary.

I downloaded the video and used a media player that is able to pause the video precisely on the second. Yes there is a margin of error here too. But it is on the order of +/- 0.2 sec. (at most!). Once again you make more of the error margins than is warranted.

What's the frame rate of the video? Can you step back and forth frame by frame? Would digitalization and compression introduce timing errors?

Thus your assessment here is utterly erroneous.

And you try to pretend that a youtube video is far more exact than it is with regards to time, size, shape and position of objects in it.

I stated:
“ …coordinate measurement (in cm).”
And
“One pixel = 0.04x 0.04…”

You can't convert pixels to centimeters and there is no point in even trying to. That conversion depends completely on the resolution of the media you're measuring on (to get to cm).

Third, I have drawn no specific conclusions at this point, just some general observations that need no precision measurement to confirm.

Since we're arguing about very small deviations from a "perfectly" curved track here, precision measurements are necessary. However, using a youtube video to take those is not possible.

Fourth, and most critically, it is clear, even from a casual observation of the video in situ ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) that your error margins are too large by far.

No. Anyone who has some knowledge about how video is digitized and compressed knows this.

I think what you need to do Wollery is take a step back to an unbiased position and begin your assessment again.

I think you need to step back to an unbiased position and start using validated data with enough resolution that it is even fruitful to take measures on.

There are some interesting things to note about that raw data – and YES – error margins must be accounted for – but you are illegitimately trying to make the most out of those margins - probably labouring under the assumption that the data will not support your hypotheses if you do not do this.

No. Wollery, as opposed to you, knows that the video quality is not good enough to draw any conclusions from.

You yourself have indicated that you do not have access to the actual video – only the snapshots I sent you. I think this places you in a difficult position in regard to assessing error margins because you cannot see the video run as a whole to assess where various objects are moving and what their relative positions are frame by frame. But even so, you should be able to zoom in on those snapshots I have provided to see if you can determine whether the measurements I have taken are as prone to error as you are suggesting – and if you don’t have access to software that enables you to do this, then you are merely conducting speculative exercises in the absence of any real data to support those speculations.

We don't have any real data to measure. We have a youtube video.

 

[Rramjet]

I'm happy to hear that there is such extensive material to go through. Then maybe, you could post a link to the actual witness statements and word by word transcription of pencil notes rather than a webpage claiming that such things exist? Surely you must understand that a claim as important as this require a greater weight of evidence no?

While your intent is obviously vexatious (Dr. Maccabee’s (and other’s) witness and transcript quotes are not seriously in question) I cannot argue with the veracity of your claim that it is important to be able to examine unedited transcripts etc.

It will obviously take some time to research and obtain those things which you ask for. I can however reference a few things for you.

The two books are:
Startup, W. and Illingworth, N. (1980). The Kaikoura UFOs. Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton.
Fogarty, Q. (1982). Let’s Hope They’re Friendly. Australia: Angus and Robertson.

The newspaper article that I have is:
Guthrie-Jones, D. (02/01/1979) Airforce put on UFO alert. The Melbourne Sun/Herald.

There is also a 1979 Australian Playboy article by Quentin Fogerty (the reporter on the flight – I don’t have the precise reference at hand)

Some of the original film footage can be seen at:
(http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/11668/The_Kaikoura_Lights__New_Zealand_UFO_Footage__1978/)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3iq4R8MgM)

There are also the works by Maccabee (some peer review published):

Maccabee, B. (1979a). What Really Happened in New Zealand. Mutual UFO Journal, May and June.
Maccabee, B. (1979b) Technical analysis of the New Zealand Film. (unpublished)
Maccabee, B.(1979c). Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen off the Coast of New Zealand. Appl. Optics, 18, 2527; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)
Maccabee, B. (1980). Photometric Properties of an Unidentified Bright Object Seen off the Coast of New Zealand: Author's Reply to Comments. Appl. Optics, 19, 1745; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)
Maccabee, B. (1987). Analysis and Discussion of the Images of a Cluster of Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed off the Coast of New Zealand. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1, 149; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
Maccabee, B. (1999). Atmosphere or UFO. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13, 421; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)

It must also be noted that the arch sceptics in this case (Ireland and Andrews) who wrote replies to Maccabee in the Journal of Applied Optics accepted Maccabee’s transcript quotes without question (they obviously had access to the same material as Dr Maccabee), they only quibbled with the interpretation of what the meaning of it all was. Nevertheless, I respect the fact that we do not at present have access to the transcripts.

A web search turns up a plethora of articles, many with first hand quotes and further reference material.
(http://www.3news.co.nz/The-Kaikoura...ars-on/tabid/412/articleID/76505/Default.aspx)
(http://www.ufocusnz.org.nz/kaikoura.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights)

Sorry, there’s more and I’ll get back to you on this ASAP (as with my reply to your other posts and points you raise).

 

[Rramjet]

Why is the UFO thread so full of anecdotes then? Why do you continue to refuse to answer that simple question?

I stated:

"I would then merely ask you the same question as RoboT refuses to answer:

What do you make of the radar, expert testimonial, photographic (and film), official documentation, properly constituted and published peer reviewed research, and physical trace evidence (and often a conjunction of those types of evidence surrounding particular cases)?"​

In other words, in many cases it is precisely these types of evidence I have presented. For example:

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)

Does that answer your question?

Then in answer to my question (above …that I have asked him on half a dozen occasions without reply) RoboT states:

Ah, here's why. Rramjet in (deleted to preserve the modesty of the moderators Rr.) mode to try to distract from the questions he refuses to answer about his agenda. What do you make of FLIR data backed up by multiple witnesses (trained military observers)?

As to Campeche and the FLIR. Let me reiterate (and I have simply lost track of the number of times I have explained this to you...):

The FLIR (in my opinion) is plausibly explained by oil-well fires. The (allegedly) mistaken conception of the pilots and crew were caused by UFO activity caught on radar before (and after) the FLIR incident, and so the pilots and crew were positively looking for some indication outside the plane as to what they were picking up on radar. When they spotted the (alleged) oil well fires, they simply applied a little confirmation bias and assumed these had something to do with what they were picking up on their radar - UFOs. It is all perfectly well articulated in the document accessed from here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) and I have explained this to you on many, many occasions – so what is your point?

So, will you now answer my questions to you?

 

[Rramjet]

For me, if I'm going to believe in aliens (from other planets or other dimensions) then I must believe:

1. They were smart enough to find their way here.

2. But, they are so stupid, they can't prove to us they are here.

or

3. They are so stupid, they can't hide their presence from us.

(*You could say they are teasing us, but teasing us with ordinary (anecdotal/hearsay/fuzzy or unclear observation) evidence is no tease at all, and will never prove anything. Are they so dumb they don't know that? And then you would have to prove a reason why they are just teasing us and on and on, and all because there is no real (hard/extraordinary) evidence. So I would prefer just to forget it until such time.*)

That kind of smart and stupid are inconsistent with each other, and so I don't believe in them.

To do so - to believe such an extraordinary claim - I would require “Hard evidence, rigorously and skeptically examined" or extraordinary evidence, as opposed to anecdotes, hearsay, and fuzzy/unclear observations, or ordinary evidence.

Hmm, maybe I can come up with a catch phrase for what I require; I've got it, how about-

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

oh wait, that's already been done.

First to pre-suppose that we “know the mind of the alien” - and in doing so ascribe human motivations to “them” - would seem to me to be the height of folly.

Perhaps though they don’t want (or need) to “prove” anything to us – perhaps they are just not that insecure. Or perhaps they view us in the same light as we do insects – not worth the effort at communication.

And I don’t think that they are actually “hiding" from us – after all UFO reports come in every day from somewhere in the world. Strange way of “hiding” that…

And “teasing”? Nooo, that’s simply a projection of what we (humans) might consider (at least the petty minded of us that is…)…

But along those lines there is a sense that they are “playing” with us. No matter how hard we try, it seems we cannot get close to understanding them (whatever phenomena “they” might represent). It’s like every time we get closer, they move that much further away – as if they are drawing us onward, like saying “Look here! There’s something else! But you have to figure it out for yourselves. All we can do is show you that there is something else, not what that something else is…”

And so I come back to you with the same question I asked RoboT:

What do you make of the radar, expert testimonial, photographic (and film), official documentation, properly constituted and published peer reviewed research, and physical trace evidence (and often a conjunction of those types of evidence surrounding particular cases)?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I stated:

"I would then merely ask you the same question as RoboT refuses to answer:

What do you make of the radar, expert testimonial, photographic (and film), official documentation, properly constituted and published peer reviewed research, and physical trace evidence (and often a conjunction of those types of evidence surrounding particular cases)?"​

In other words, in many cases it is precisely these types of evidence I have presented. For example:

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)

Does that answer your question?

Obviously, you know it doesn't. You're avoiding answering the actual question and substituting your own. In your OP and throughout this thread you've listed dozens of cases. However, I will answer your question about those three: (it will be from memory, I'm not going back to find them).
Zamora - the physical evidence was a bent antenna, some damage to a police cruiser, and indentations in the ground. Aside from Zamora's anecdotal testimony of an egg shaped craft and beings(?), isn't it also his anecdotal testimony how the physical evidence occurred?
Tehran - one I didn't follow closely since I wasn't familiar with it. I remember Puddle Duck and others actually knowing about the rearward facing radar. I don't remember any posts where you proved it to be alien or a UFAO. Point to one if you did and I missed it.
Kaikoura - another one I wasn't familiar with previously so wasn't following the discussion too much. I looked at a couple of web sites about it and it hasn't been explained so I guess it remains a UFO. Unless you have information proving that it is definitely some particular thing.
There, I let you shift the burden of proof a little bit but now it's back to you. Can you link to a post or a website where any of these have been shown to be some particular thing? Or do they simply remain unidentified, or UFOs?

You still need to answer the question, "Why is the UFO thread so full of anecdotal cases when it is the lowest type of evidence?"

Then in answer to my question (above …that I have asked him on half a dozen occasions without reply) RoboT states:

As to Campeche and the FLIR. Let me reiterate (and I have simply lost track of the number of times I have explained this to you...):

The FLIR (in my opinion) is plausibly explained by oil-well fires. The (allegedly) mistaken conception of the pilots and crew were caused by UFO activity caught on radar before (and after) the FLIR incident, and so the pilots and crew were positively looking for some indication outside the plane as to what they were picking up on radar. When they spotted the (alleged) oil well fires, they simply applied a little confirmation bias and assumed these had something to do with what they were picking up on their radar - UFOs. It is all perfectly well articulated in the document accessed from here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) and I have explained this to you on many, many occasions – so what is your point?

So, will you now answer my questions to you?

Exactly! We now strongly suspect that the Campeche incident is the result of oil well fires. What do you think the implications of that are for you?

Also, do you think that every anomalous radar blip is aliens? How about if an anomalous radar return is accompanied by someone seeing something in the sky in the same general direction?

 

[Rramjet]

Obviously, you know it doesn't. You're avoiding answering the actual question and substituting your own. In your OP and throughout this thread you've listed dozens of cases. However, I will answer your question about those three: (it will be from memory, I'm not going back to find them).

..but you don’t have to go “back to find them”… I listed the links to the cases in the post …a simple click on the links would have presented you with the information you are obviously completely lacking (see below)

Zamora - the physical evidence was a bent antenna, some damage to a police cruiser, and indentations in the ground. Aside from Zamora's anecdotal testimony of an egg shaped craft and beings(?), isn't it also his anecdotal testimony how the physical evidence occurred?

You are conflating the following two cases (links listed for your ease of access to the correct information):

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)

Both of these cases contained physical trace evidence (that is “hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined”). Sure the eyewitness explanation of that “hard” evidence was anecdotal, but given what the witnesses saw (and that it is utterly implausible they were lying or making it up), then mundane explanations just don’t cut it.

…and just because we cannot explain what occurred to them in mundane terms, does not mean that the events did not occur as described.

Tehran - one I didn't follow closely since I wasn't familiar with it. I remember Puddle Duck and others actually knowing about the rearward facing radar. I don't remember any posts where you proved it to be alien or a UFAO. Point to one if you did and I missed it.

Tehran, Mehrab airport. (in truncated paraphrase) Civilians reported UFO activity to the airport contol tower. The airport control tower saw the UFOs, called the general in command, who then ordered two fighter jets (who took off separately at about a 10 minute interval) up after them. The jets (separately) had the UFOs “painted” on radar and chased the UFO (at up to mach 2) but could not catch them. Whenever the jets got within a few miles of the UFOs, their instrumentation and weapons systems failed (lost power and shut down). On breaking off the chase(s), the jets were followed and overflown by the UFO(s), in one instance the UFO seemed to “fire” something (a part of itself) at one of the jets”. Immediately after the event(s) the pilots were interviewed by both their own command and by an American commander. The American wrote a detailed official report based on that interview testimony and sent it through official channels back to the US where it was in turn officially analysed and it was concluded that it was one of the best evidenced cases they had.

No-one is claiming aliens. No-one has any mundane explanation either.

Kaikoura - another one I wasn't familiar with previously so wasn't following the discussion too much. I looked at a couple of web sites about it and it hasn't been explained so I guess it remains a UFO. Unless you have information proving that it is definitely some particular thing.

You seem to be doing a lot of talking about cases you have no information about… what then gives you the authority to comment on what sort of evidence those cases contained – and particularly to imply (and state directly) that the evidence in those cases is somehow not up to a particular standard of yours?

The Kaikoura case was demonstrably a case where there was a conjunction between eyewitness, radar and film evidence. Just because we don’t know what it was that was seen and concurrently captured on radar and film, does not mean that we can simply dismiss the case merely based on that fact.

These cases contain much more than the mere anecdotal evidence you imply is the only evidence we have.

There, I let you shift the burden of proof a little bit but now it's back to you. Can you link to a post or a website where any of these have been shown to be some particular thing? Or do they simply remain unidentified, or UFOs?

It is the characteristics of UFOs that make them indefinable in mundane terms.

What they are (or what phenomena they represent) remains unknown and of course speculation abounds. However, the evidence indicates the phenomena is real and thus it shows us that something is occurring in our world that we know nothing about. Humans are curious creatures (in both senses of the word) and where there is a mystery, we like to find out what that mystery can tell us about the world (and universe) we live in. Simply denying that we should do that in the case of UFOs seems to me to be a peculiarly “head in the sand” approach. Stating that we should not pursue investigation because the evidence is not sound enough to indicate there is anything worthwhile pursuing is also a peculiarly “head in the sand" approach and simply denies the evidence that we do have (of the types I have indicated – which is much more than the mere “anecdotal” you have indicated only exists).

You still need to answer the question, "Why is the UFO thread so full of anecdotal cases when it is the lowest type of evidence?"

Anecdotal evidence plus all the types I have indicated in my question to you RoboT:

“What do you make of the radar, expert testimonial, photographic (and film), official documentation, properly constituted and published peer reviewed research, and physical trace evidence (and often a conjunction of those types of evidence surrounding particular cases)?"​

Which, by the way, you have still not answered… Perhaps you will be so kind as to do so now? BTW, why do you suppose I should answer your questions if you will not answer mine?

Exactly! We now strongly suspect that the Campeche incident is the result of oil well fires. What do you think the implications of that are for you?

They are as I have stated to you many times now. The situation is fully explained here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/). Please go and do a little research to obtain the actual information on the case. You seem to be speculating in the absence of any accurate information. Perhaps though (since you raised the issue) you could inform us as to what implications you think the case has?

Also, do you think that every anomalous radar blip is aliens?

No. I have explained (again many, many times) that the ETH is only circumstantially supported and is thus speculative and not one that I can conclusively hold to be true. In other words, I cannot conclude aliens.

How about if an anomalous radar return is accompanied by someone seeing something in the sky in the same general direction?

Again, while seemingly compelling, the conclusions surrounding the ETH (in my opinion) reach too far.

 

[wollery]

Campeche is important because in case after case you insist that expert witnesses can't possibly be mistaken. Yet Campeche is a case where several expert witnesses were mistaken.

Compare it to the Tehran case, where you said that a senior air force officer couldn't have been mistaken about what he saw, and wouldn't have lied, because, well, he was an experienced pilot and a senior officer. Never mind the fact that we can't even be certain that the guy who claims to have been the pilot in the Tehran case was actually flying the plane, Campeche shows that senior air force pilots can in fact be completely mistaken about what they see.

 

[RoboTimbo]

..but you don’t have to go “back to find them”… I listed the links to the cases in the post …a simple click on the links would have presented you with the information you are obviously completely lacking (see below)


You are conflating the following two cases (links listed for your ease of access to the correct information):

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)

Both of these cases contained physical trace evidence (that is “hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined”). Sure the eyewitness explanation of that “hard” evidence was anecdotal, but given what the witnesses saw (and that it is utterly implausible they were lying or making it up), then mundane explanations just don’t cut it.

Why is what the witnesses saw a "given"? Why do you equate implausible with impossible? In other words, it's totally anecdotal. This is why Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is still so pertinent if the creduloids would just apply it.

…and just because we cannot explain what occurred to them in mundane terms, does not mean that the events did not occur as described.

You want to believe in aliens and UFAOs based on it.

Tehran, Mehrab airport. (in truncated paraphrase) Civilians reported UFO activity to the airport contol tower. The airport control tower saw the UFOs, called the general in command, who then ordered two fighter jets (who took off separately at about a 10 minute interval) up after them. The jets (separately) had the UFOs “painted” on radar and chased the UFO (at up to mach 2) but could not catch them. Whenever the jets got within a few miles of the UFOs, their instrumentation and weapons systems failed (lost power and shut down). On breaking off the chase(s), the jets were followed and overflown by the UFO(s), in one instance the UFO seemed to “fire” something (a part of itself) at one of the jets”. Immediately after the event(s) the pilots were interviewed by both their own command and by an American commander. The American wrote a detailed official report based on that interview testimony and sent it through official channels back to the US where it was in turn officially analysed and it was concluded that it was one of the best evidenced cases they had.

Evidence of what? What particular thing is it evidence of?

No-one is claiming aliens. No-one has any mundane explanation either.

Does anyone have an extraordinary explanation? So that one is a UFO?

You seem to be doing a lot of talking about cases you have no information about… what then gives you the authority to comment on what sort of evidence those cases contained – and particularly to imply (and state directly) that the evidence in those cases is somehow not up to a particular standard of yours?

I have no idea why you had that little rant. You asked me about them. Why did you ask me about them if you didn't think they were the anecdotal cases I asked you about?

The Kaikoura case was demonstrably a case where there was a conjunction between eyewitness, radar and film evidence. Just because we don’t know what it was that was seen and concurrently captured on radar and film, does not mean that we can simply dismiss the case merely based on that fact.

These cases contain much more than the mere anecdotal evidence you imply is the only evidence we have.

No, you are incorrect. I made no mention of those cases until you asked me about them and I didn't say they were anecdotal. Where did you get the mistaken idea that I had?

The question for you was "Why did you have so many anecdotal claims in this thread if its implications mean so much to you?" Refer back to the ECREE thread if you've forgotten. I asked it of you about 10 times without an answer.

It is the characteristics of UFOs that make them indefinable in mundane terms.

No, it is your desire for aliens and UFAOs to exist that won't allow you to imagine mundane explanations.

What they are (or what phenomena they represent) remains unknown and of course speculation abounds. However, the evidence indicates the phenomena is real and thus it shows us that something is occurring in our world that we know nothing about. Humans are curious creatures (in both senses of the word) and where there is a mystery, we like to find out what that mystery can tell us about the world (and universe) we live in. Simply denying that we should do that in the case of UFOs seems to me to be a peculiarly “head in the sand” approach. Stating that we should not pursue investigation because the evidence is not sound enough to indicate there is anything worthwhile pursuing is also a peculiarly “head in the sand" approach and simply denies the evidence that we do have (of the types I have indicated – which is much more than the mere “anecdotal” you have indicated only exists).

I'm sure you'll be able to supply a link to any post of mine saying we should not pursue investigation.

Anecdotal evidence plus all the types I have indicated in my question to you RoboT:

“What do you make of the radar, expert testimonial, photographic (and film), official documentation, properly constituted and published peer reviewed research, and physical trace evidence (and often a conjunction of those types of evidence surrounding particular cases)?"​

Which, by the way, you have still not answered… Perhaps you will be so kind as to do so now? BTW, why do you suppose I should answer your questions if you will not answer mine?

I've answered many times. You refuse to see the answer. What do you think of FLIR data backed up by multiple eyewitnesses (trained military observers)?

They are as I have stated to you many times now. The situation is fully explained here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/). Please go and do a little research to obtain the actual information on the case. You seem to be speculating in the absence of any accurate information. Perhaps though (since you raised the issue) you could inform us as to what implications you think the case has?

The only "head in the sand" is the one that won't answer my question about the implications of Campeche.

No. I have explained (again many, many times) that the ETH is only circumstantially supported and is thus speculative and not one that I can conclusively hold to be true. In other words, I cannot conclude aliens.

It is as much circumstantial evidence for pixies and fairies, why do you limit it to aliens?

Again, while seemingly compelling, the conclusions surrounding the ETH (in my opinion) reach too far.

I know you've explained many times about ETH. The place is postively stinking with the smell of red herrings. I've been using your definition of aliens. Why did you substitute ETH for aliens when the question was about aliens? Is that a red herring or a non sequitur or a bait and switch?

 

[Rramjet]

Campeche is important because in case after case you insist that expert witnesses can't possibly be mistaken.

I have repeatedly stated that eyewitnesses can be mistaken (and many posts in this thread over many, many pages were devoted to such a discussion on that point – as you are well aware) – not only that but I also went further, in stating that we can also learn something about the individual cases by analysing the mistakes made by the witnesses (that is also generalisable).

Yet Campeche is a case where several expert witnesses were mistaken.

Yes, and it is informative to note how confirmation bias lead to an alleged error of judgement in that case. We can learn something valuable from that and make an accounting of it when we examine other cases to see if similar condition might apply (I might also quibble with your use of “expert”, but such an argument is not necessary here).

Compare it to the Tehran case, where you said that a senior air force officer couldn't have been mistaken about what he saw, and wouldn't have lied, because, well, he was an experienced pilot and a senior officer. Never mind the fact that we can't even be certain that the guy who claims to have been the pilot in the Tehran case was actually flying the plane, Campeche shows that senior air force pilots can in fact be completely mistaken about what they see.

I have never “said” any such thing. I have contended that it is implausible to imagine that so many people who were involved (including civilians and airforce personnel – both Iranian and American) simply created the whole incident out of thin air. Clearly fighter jets chased a UFO and the UFO reacted to their presence by physically changing the environment - and it is all in the official reports. We know who (at least) one of the pilots was and he has come forward to tell his story publicly. The Tehran case is a very solid case… here is the evidence:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

 

[wollery]

I have repeatedly stated that eyewitnesses can be mistaken (and many posts in this thread over many, many pages were devoted to such a discussion on that point – as you are well aware) – not only that but I also went further, in stating that we can also learn something about the individual cases by analysing the mistakes made by the witnesses (that is also generalisable).

Yes, you do say that, but almost always (as in this post) qualify it with the implausibility of mistakes given x, y and z factors, one of your most commonly used factors being "expertness". I'm not going to go searching back through the thread, so I'll paraphrase, but you have said on several occasions that it is "implausible to suppose that such an expert witness would have made a mistake." Firstly, implausible is not the same as impossible, so it's impossible to reject something as a potential explanation on the grounds of implausibility, and secondly, in most cases you have no idea of possible confounding psychological factors.

Yes, and it is informative to note how confirmation bias lead to an alleged error of judgement in that case. We can learn something valuable from that and make an accounting of it when we examine other cases to see if similar condition might apply (I might also quibble with your use of “expert”, but such an argument is not necessary here).

Alleged? So you no longer ascribe to the oil well explanation? Also, each case is different, and what may cause error in one case may not do so in another, so just because the exact same factors are absent does not necessarily mean that no mistakes can occur.

I have never “said” any such thing. I have contended that it is implausible to imagine that so many people who were involved (including civilians and airforce personnel – both Iranian and American) simply created the whole incident out of thin air. Clearly fighter jets chased a UFO and the UFO reacted to their presence by physically changing the environment - and it is all in the official reports. We know who (at least) one of the pilots was and he has come forward to tell his story publicly. The Tehran case is a very solid case… here is the evidence:

Who said anyone created anything out of thin air? Of course something happened that night. However, the only thing that is clear is that the jets chased what they thought was a UFO and it seemed to physically change the environment. The fact that it is an official report tells us nothing. It is simply an account of what happened from the perspectives of the witnesses. They were interviewed and their words recorded. I will admit that since there were a large number of people involved it reduces the probability of mistakes, but it doesn't remove all possibility. That's why you keep using the word implausible, because you know this as well as the rest of us.

 

[Jocce]

What do you make of the radar, expert testimonial, photographic (and film), official documentation, properly constituted and published peer reviewed research, and physical trace evidence (and often a conjunction of those types of evidence surrounding particular cases)?"[/INDENT]
In other words, in many cases it is precisely these types of evidence I have presented. For example:

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Ok, I have looked throught these pages and also all the links contained in the first. They contain Zamoras own claim about what he saw as well as claims that there were imprints on the ground where he claims to have seen a UFO. However, I have seen no photos of such imprints, nor have I seen any other tangiable evidence. So yeah, these are anectdotes/claims. You need to do better than this.

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

For this case we have one official source, summarizing what happened (the routing slip). We have gone through that before and I then extracted and posted the factual descriptions of what witnesses reported. Nowhere in that document is there anything that says that this could not have been a man made object. You then go on and post your interpretations of such raw data which of course is your right. However, your interpretations are claims and not evidence and totally irrelevant when they can't be backed up by factual data.

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)

We have photos of smeared lights. We also have claims that visual sightings were confirmed with radar. I have continously asked you to provide at least, complete, unedited and uninterpreted witness statements but you have failed to do so. Yet you keep claiming that the evidence is compelling.

In summary, when you pick out the actual facts from your links and wall'o'texts there is nothing tangiable in any of your cases. We need a greater weight of evidence than this to believe that "alien" craft has been visiting earth.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, you do say that, but almost always (as in this post) qualify it with the implausibility of mistakes given x, y and z factors, one of your most commonly used factors being "expertness". I'm not going to go searching back through the thread, so I'll paraphrase…

Again, I simply do not qualify my contentions that eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Never have, never will. Please get your facts straight. There is far to much misquoting and “paraphrased” misinterpretation of my statements in ignorance of what I actually say (and have said) on the matter. You yourself admit you are in ignorance of what I actually did have to say on the matter… yet you carry on regardless:

…but you have said on several occasions that it is "implausible to suppose that such an expert witness would have made a mistake."

Never have said that – never would or will say that. I have however contended that it is implausible to suppose a (particular) witness simply made it up, was lying or hoaxing. That’s not the same thing as your misinterpretation of my statements.

Firstly, implausible is not the same as impossible, so it's impossible to reject something as a potential explanation on the grounds of implausibility, and secondly, in most cases you have no idea of possible confounding psychological factors.

Somehow the first part of your sentence does not seem to make much sense… but as for psychological factors I spent a great deal of time arguing about them with Astrophotographer, so one again … PLEASE get your facts straight before erroneously commenting again.

Alleged? So you no longer ascribe to the oil well explanation?

I was just being even handed. After all, the evidence on both sides is circumstantial. However, at this moment in time I think the oil well explanation is a plausible explanation.

Also, each case is different, and what may cause error in one case may not do so in another, so just because the exact same factors are absent does not necessarily mean that no mistakes can occur.

Did you not read my previous post about what we can learn from eyewitness error and how generalise that to other cases?

If the same contextual factors that lead to a particular form of eyewitness error are absent in another case, then we can say that particular error is most likely not a contributing factor. Other factors might be at play, but that is why we need to examine all UFO cases (and especially “debunked” cases in this context) to determine what other psychological and contextual factors might play a contributing role.

Who said anyone created anything out of thin air?

It was just a turn of phrase – nothing to get too excited over.

Of course something happened that night. However, the only thing that is clear is that the jets chased what they thought was a UFO and it seemed to physically change the environment.

Oh no, it definitely was a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object), there can be no argument about that much.

The fact that it is an official report tells us nothing.

Have you actually read the official reports? There are extremely informative.

It is simply an account of what happened from the perspectives of the witnesses.

The official reports are much more than that! Read them if you don’t believe me (links in my previous post).

They were interviewed and their words recorded. I will admit that since there were a large number of people involved it reduces the probability of mistakes, but it doesn't remove all possibility.

Anything is possible in an infinite universe.

That's why you keep using the word implausible, because you know this as well as the rest of us.

Yes indeed, I cannot be categorical. The evidence is simply not that strong (but then what evidence ever is).

 

[Jocce]

We also have claims that visual sightings were confirmed with radar.

Let me be a little bit more clear with this. Dr. Mcabee writes:

"An unusual radar target was detected by the Wellington Air Traffic Control (WATCC) search radar in the apparent vicinity of the visually sighted cluster of lights."
Source: http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html​

So, not even Dr. Mcabee claims that there was radar comfirmation of a visual observation. You are the only one claiming that.

 

[wollery]

Oh look, here you are stating that it's irrational to think that "highly trained and eminently reliable observers" using the right equipment could be mistaken.

Umm, didn't you say that was something you never said? I forget.

So now you are saying that highly trained and eminently reliable observers using precise technical equipment in precisely the manner they were trained for and the equipment was meant to be used… suddenly cannot identify meteors or rockets?

You have gone beyond the bounds of rationality.

Hang on, what's this? Oh, you claim that a particular pilot couldn't possibly have done something silly with his plane because he was an experienced pilot. Sounds to me like dismissing a suggested occurrence on the basis of someone's expertise.

B. You really are the “red herring” expert aren’t you! “Wildly manoeuvring his plane”! Ha! This is of course yet another claim of incompetence on behalf of the pilots! But we KNOW Jafari at least was a Major and a squadron leader…in other words an experienced pilot. Now if you had gone with flying with Puddle Duck and “inverted” your plane in the face of avionics malfunction… then I might be inclined to believe you, but there WERE NO “wild manoeuvres” from the F-4s at the time! Your assertion is just plain incorrect!

And here you are contending that military observers and analysts can't possibly be wrong because of their high level of training, i.e., they can't be wrong because they're experts.

What we DO have is a group of highly qualified observers and analysts conducting research by applying the specific skills of their training to a problem and then reporting the results.

If you contend those results to be somehow unreliable, then you directly deny the skills of those observers and analysts to do the job they were trained for. I am sure the military would be startled to learn from you that all their expensive training is useless. That the observers and analysts they employ can not be relied upon to do their jobs.

I could probably find more examples if I searched for more than the 3 minutes it took to find these, but I think the point is made, and I don't want to waste any more time.