UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

to maintain that the scientists and analysts, having rejected other triangulations on strict technical grounds would “forget” (or deliberately not account for) error margins, quite simply beggars belief. Yours is simply an unfounded and thus scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved when there are no plausible grounds for doing so.

Listen, I AM NOT claiming that they forgot to calculate those error margins. I just want to see them. Was the object 150km up or 110?, was it 30ft or 25ft wide. 20? It's not unreasonable that one would like to be able to verify the accuracy in such estimates. When it comes to such an extraordinary claim, a greater weight of evidence would be required. I thought we could agree on that anyway.

Read the summary report (above).

...so since you don't have an answer to my actual question you reply with nonsense. What were the error margins? 10%, 25%, 50%?

“Certainly information "is gained" when a number of qualified observers simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes. There is useful information even if a "proper triangulation" is not accomplished. And there is even more information gained if a proper triangulation is accomplished...and one was accomplished, only Eltermann didn't mention it!” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

Once again then. Enumerate the information about these objects that was gained at those other observations.

Station P10 provided a direction and an elevation, station M7 also provided a direction. Using basic trigonometry one can then calculate the altitude and from the film one can then estimate the size. Oh…and on four objects no less!

I'm sure you wuld like to show me how because honestly, I don't know. I was trying to find it online but failed.

 

[wollery]

I'm sure you wuld like to show me how because honestly, I don't know. I was trying to find it online but failed.

It's actually very easy. I'll whip up a few diagrams over the weekend if I have time.



(assuming that you're talking about triangulation)

 

[Rramjet]

No, we know that a lot of observations were made, but only one triangulation was possible.

You’re splitting hairs. Nevertheless “lots of observations” means information was obtained, yet Elterman (in his final report) claimed there was no information obtained!

You describe being able to tell whether or not the observations from two different stations are of the same object as "impossibly strict"? I describe it as a basic requirement of triangulation. Oh well, each to their own.

You have simply misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that given the usual occupation of the engineers, scientists and analysts – that of obtaining data on rocket tests – the criteria used to gather and analyse that data would of necessity have been virtually “impossibly strict”. There is no reason to suppose that such quality would not have been applied in their research in tracking the UFOs.

Yes, they did the right thing in rejecting most of the data.

You have simply misinterpreted what the analysts did. They rejected for the purpose of triangulation all observational data except on one occasion where they accepted the data as sufficiently accurate for triangulation purposes. The analysts (as far as we know) did not reject anything else for any other purpose.

Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.

Then why do you persist in claiming that they would not have accounted for “error” in producing their summary report?

I think you need to read what I said again. I'll give you a hint, it's a double negative.

This is merely splitting hairs. Such attempts do nothing to negate the substance of the case.

Most of the data was useless for triangulation, as demonstrated by the fact that they rejected all but one measurement.

Now you are getting closer to a correct assessment (but there were actually four successful triangulations – see the very bottom of this post).

And you seem to miss the trees for the forest. Technical points are almost never irrelevant, particularly when they cast doubt on the result.

But there you go again. The “technical point” actually speaks to the quality of the evidence - in that the analysts rejected much data for the purposes of triangulation and only felt confident enough to actually report on just a single occasion where successful triangulation was acheived.

Again, describing the most basic necessity of triangulation as "almost impossibly strict criteria".

Sure, less strict criteria might have seen more triangulations reported.

And "all the information we do have" is one triangulation with no associated error.

You seem to be all over the place on this one. Remember you stated above: “Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.”?

I have never maintained that they didn't account for errors, in fact quite the opposite. All I have said is that we do not know what the errors were. We lack information and so are unable to assess how accurate the triangulation was.

You really don’t see any inconsistency between that statement and this statement of yours: “Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.”?

Perhaps a statement of my own might help:

“… given the usual occupation of the engineers, scientists and analysts…” (in other words “professionals”) “…– that of obtaining data on rocket tests – the criteria used to gather and analyse that data would of necessity have been virtually “impossibly strict”. There is no reason to suppose that such quality would not have been applied in their research in tracking the UFOs.”

In other words if you believe that “it makes sense” that a professional error analysis was conducted, then what’s your real objection to the reported data?

Again, I have never attacked their qualifications, I merely point out the blatantly obvious - that we don't have all the information. This is an incredibly important point, and to dismiss it as you do is unscientific and appears extremely biased.

I think “incredibly important” is somewhat hyperbolic under the circumstances because clearly we have the reported data to work with and you yourself admit that it was produced by “professionals” and where “it makes sense” that they would have conducted an error analysis. So I ask again: What is your real objection to the data?

And so, once again, we're basically back to your assertion that they were professionals, so they had to be right.

Actually you supported that assessment... Remember your admission: “Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.”?

So now simply asking what the error was is a "scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved"? It really sounds like you're getting desperate Rramjet. It's a simple question.

How large were the error margins?

(For those of you playing along at home, the answer is, of course, "We have no idea.")

At this point I can only keep repeating your own admission: “Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.”?

It just says "approximately".

It was a summary report wollery… to see that actual figures with error margins we would need access to the full report – and unfortunately that we do not have. We do not have access to the films either and once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…

Yes, but what information, and how useful?

I can only repeat: We do not have access to the films either and once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…

What information, and how useful is it?

We don’t know how useful the information might be because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…

And we have no idea why. As you pointed out in your previous post any speculation is unfounded.

Certainly we don’t know why Elterman (in his final report) either lied or otherwise misrepresented the truth. Speculation about that is best left to the reader. I have declined to comment before and I do so again.

How large was the error?

You stated:
“Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.” and I followed up with:

“… given the usual occupation of the engineers, scientists and analysts…” (in other words “professionals”) “…– that of obtaining data on rocket tests – the criteria used to gather and analyse that data would of necessity have been virtually “impossibly strict”. There is no reason to suppose that such quality would not have been applied in their research in tracking the UFOs.”

And I could also add: We don’t know the specific error margins because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…

This is a very convoluted way of admitting that multiple triangulations were not made. So then we agree that we have one partial triangulation?

There is a clear and simple statement that goes directly to the truth of the situation. It is this: Enough accurate data was obtained to allow a successful triangulation (four of them no less).

When you say "account for error margins" what do you mean? Wollery is asking for the actual error margin, as in a number. We haven't seen such a number yet.

My reply to you is the same as to wollery: “We don’t know the specific error margins because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…”

One of the differences lies in the fact that when doing what they were trained to do they knew exactly where and when a rocket would appear and could prepare beforehand. That is not the case when you're waiting for something that might show up at some time in any direction.

Exactly! That is probably a reason why only four successful triangulations were considered by the analysts (using their professionally strict criteria) to have been successfully achieved.

You claim that a lot of informatioj was gained, then I'm sure you would like to list the information that was gathered. Speed, altitude, size, colour, material and what else you might have.

I’ll rephrase then: “We don’t know the specific information because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…”

There are technical points that affects the accuracy of the size- and altitude estimations. I know you don't want to admit that and prefer to pretend that the error margins are insignificant. But, you don't know that because we don't have any error calculations.

I think it has been established that:

“Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.” and I followed up with:

“… given the usual occupation of the engineers, scientists and analysts…” (in other words “professionals”) “…– that of obtaining data on rocket tests – the criteria used to gather and analyse that data would of necessity have been virtually “impossibly strict”. There is no reason to suppose that such quality would not have been applied in their research in tracking the UFOs.”

And I could also add: We don’t know the specific error margins because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…​

A true scientist would want to see those error calculations and not assume that they are negligable when matching against manmade objects. You're not a true scientist now. You're just guessing that it's a cover up.

First: We don’t know the specific error margins because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…

Second:

“Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.” and I followed up with:

“… given the usual occupation of the engineers, scientists and analysts…” (in other words “professionals”) “…– that of obtaining data on rocket tests – the criteria used to gather and analyse that data would of necessity have been virtually “impossibly strict”. There is no reason to suppose that such quality would not have been applied in their research in tracking the UFOs.”​

Third: I will leave it to the reader to judge precisely who is involved in a “cover up” in this case.

Listen, I AM NOT claiming that they forgot to calculate those error margins. I just want to see them. Was the object 150km up or 110?, was it 30ft or 25ft wide. 20? It's not unreasonable that one would like to be able to verify the accuracy in such estimates.

“Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.” and I followed up with:

“… given the usual occupation of the engineers, scientists and analysts…” (in other words “professionals”) “…– that of obtaining data on rocket tests – the criteria used to gather and analyse that data would of necessity have been virtually “impossibly strict”. There is no reason to suppose that such quality would not have been applied in their research in tracking the UFOs.”

And I could also add: We don’t know the specific error margins because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain. One has to ask why that is a recurrent theme in UFO cases…​

When it comes to such an extraordinary claim, a greater weight of evidence would be required. I thought we could agree on that anyway.

What “extraordinary claim”? I fail to see where any “extraordinary claim” has been made.

...so since you don't have an answer to my actual question you reply with nonsense. What were the error margins? 10%, 25%, 50%?

You can keep asking this and my reply will always be the same. Perhaps you might be better employed to address yourself to my reply?

Once again then. Enumerate the information about these objects that was gained at those other observations.

You can keep stating this and my reply will always be the same. Perhaps you might be better employed to address yourself to my reply?

I'm sure you wuld like to show me how because honestly, I don't know. I was trying to find it online but failed.

Here it is:

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.

2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.

3.From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c).The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsP...andsProof.html)​

It's actually very easy. I'll whip up a few diagrams over the weekend if I have time.

(assuming that you're talking about triangulation)

I think Jocce was actually talking about my reference to a triangulation being achieved on “four” separate objects – meaning of course (though I did not state it at the time) four successful triangulations were achieved!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.

2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.

3.From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c).The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsP...andsProof.html)​

If an object is unidentified, HOW can it BE a particular thing?

Are you saying that these objects are some particular thing, Rramjet?

Also, this may be a better thread to bring this up:

You have said before that you have eliminated all mundane things and were asked what process you use to eliminated all of them. You instead came up with a list of seven things you had eliminated. Let's try a different approach. I'm thinking of a mundane explanation for these things. You tell me all mundane explanations you've eliminated and I'll stop you when you come to the one I'm thinking of. Does that sound fair?

 

[tomi71]

Majestic 12 papers

Just a quick question for all participants in this fascinating debate: Has there been a consensus conserning majestic 12 papers? I mean the sceptics argues that the typewriter "font" was invented later than those MJ papers appear to been written but there is an argument that the font used in MJ papers is a different font that actually was in use at that time (the papers were written).

Is there any new info about this?

 

[Rramjet]

Just a quick question for all participants in this fascinating debate: Has there been a consensus conserning majestic 12 papers? I mean the sceptics argues that the typewriter "font" was invented later than those MJ papers appear to been written but there is an argument that the font used in MJ papers is a different font that actually was in use at that time (the papers were written).

Is there any new info about this?

The consensus is that MJ12 is a disinformation exercise. There are obvious factual and procedural errors in it. I think at this point the only proponent of any real standing is Stanton Freidman - who has invested so much of himself in the veracity of MJ12 that he feels he can no longer back down without losing credibility for what in the main is a solid body of work on the topic of UFOs in general.

 

[Rramjet]

Are you saying that these objects are some particular thing, Rramjet?

Not at all, they are UFOs whose characteristics defy plausible mundane explanation.

Also, this may be a better thread to bring this up:

You have said before that you have eliminated all mundane things and were asked what process you use to eliminated all of them.

I have not said that (or if I did I was in error – perhaps you can show me the quote…). As far as I know I have always maintained something like my statement above that UFOs have characteristics that defy plausible mundane explanation.

You instead came up with a list of seven things you had eliminated.

I was describing the process of elimination to you (and others) by listing things that the characteristics of UFOs could plausibly rule out (like page 345 of War and Peace, my great Aunt Mary, a pumpkin, a flying car, a 747, a meteor, etc and so on)

Let's try a different approach. I'm thinking of a mundane explanation for these things. You tell me all mundane explanations you've eliminated and I'll stop you when you come to the one I'm thinking of. Does that sound fair?

Using the process of elimination as applied to the White Sands case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html) then we can plausibly rule out all the usual suspects (like rockets, meteors and the Russians). What we might have left is some unknown natural phenomenon, but it is pointless “explaining” one unknown in terms of another unknown – so we are left with ostensibly solid objects in the order of 30ft in diameter, flying at around 150000ft at great speed – repeatedly observed. Why, what mundane explanation are you thinking of?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not at all, they are UFOs whose characteristics defy plausible mundane explanation.

If they are unknown, how can they possibly defy all mundane explanation? Do you see the problem with your assertion?

I have not said that (or if I did I was in error – perhaps you can show me the quote…). As far as I know I have always maintained something like my statement above that UFOs have characteristics that defy plausible mundane explanation.

These are mere weasel words. What is the effective difference between you saying you've eliminated all mundane explanations and saying the UFOs defy mundane explanations?

I was describing the process of elimination to you (and others) by listing things that the characteristics of UFOs could plausibly rule out (like page 345 of War and Peace, my great Aunt Mary, a pumpkin, a flying car, a 747, a meteor, etc and so on)

That's the problem. Listing a few characteristics does NOT describe your process of elimination. If you can't describe the process, you'll need to list every mundane thing you've thought of. None of those were the munadane explanation I was thinking of, by the way, so you have some ways to go.

Using the process of elimination as applied to the White Sands case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html) then we can plausibly rule out all the usual suspects (like rockets, meteors and the Russians). What we might have left is some unknown natural phenomenon, but it is pointless “explaining” one unknown in terms of another unknown – so we are left with ostensibly solid objects in the order of 30ft in diameter, flying at around 150000ft at great speed – repeatedly observed.

There is no process, unless you count saying "Nup, it's outside my experience, I can't think what it might be." You've only eliminated the Rramjet Seven then?

Why, what mundane explanation are you thinking of?

Naughty, naughty. No sneaky switching the burden of proof now! Keep trying.

 

[Rramjet]

If they are unknown, how can they possibly defy all mundane explanation? Do you see the problem with your assertion?

What they (UFOs) are is unknown. Many of their characteristics are however known. It is those characteristics that defy mundane explanation. For example being a group of small round objects flying at 15,000ft in 1950. That defies mundane explanation right there.

These are mere weasel words.

“Weasel words”? Oh of course, I was forgetting, your are an adherent to "The mere statement of an unfounded (and in this case derogatory) assertion somehow magically makes it true" school of philosophy (you know, that’s the school that reverses our common understanding of burden of proof)?

I stated:
“As far as I know I have always maintained something like my statement above that UFOs have characteristics that defy plausible mundane explanation.”

What is the effective difference between you saying you've eliminated all mundane explanations and saying the UFOs defy mundane explanations?

Please do try to actually read all of my words in any given statement I make if you are going to comment on those staements - because here you seem to have mislead yourself into an erroneous statement by missing a critical word. That is:

“As far as I know I have always maintained (…) that UFOs have characteristics that defy plausible mundane explanation.”

(You may notice I have included the word that you obviously missed the first time around in bold typeface so that you should be unlikely to miss it this time around)

That's the problem. Listing a few characteristics does NOT describe your process of elimination.

You are right. Listing the characteristics describes the UFO, not the process of elimination! The process of elimination comes after that description when those characteristics are compared with the characteristics of known (mundane) objects. If no matches with the characteristics of any known, mundane object can be found, then it is legitimate to state that the characteristics of the UFO defy mundane explanation. Often the “characteristics” are then dropped so that many people actually use the shorter “UFOs defy mundane explanation” - and you are thus correct to point out the problems with that formulation.

Nevertheless, please let me know if you have any further trouble understanding the process of elimination or the application of the word “characteristics” in that context and I will see if I can provide further clarification for you.

If you can't describe the process, you'll need to list every mundane thing you've thought of.

I just did describe the process above.

None of those were the munadane explanation I was thinking of, by the way, so you have some ways to go.

You really should support with evidence your repeated claim that you are thinking of a mundane explanation. If you cannot do so, even after repeated requests from me that you should do so (and you subsequently following those requests with mere repetition of the claim, sans evidence) then I am entitled to assume that you actually cannot think of a mundane explanation and therefore your repeated claim to be doing so is an untruth.

There is no process, unless you count saying "Nup, it's outside my experience, I can't think what it might be." You've only eliminated the Rramjet Seven then?

Perhaps the process of elimination as applied to UFO cases will bear a rephrased reiteration for you then:

The process of elimination involves a comparison of the characteristics of the UFO(s) in question with the characteristics of known (mundane) objects. If no matches with the characteristics of any known, mundane object can be found, then it is legitimate to state that the characteristics of the UFO defy mundane explanation.​

If you do not understand this explanation could you please indicate which words or phrases you are having trouble with I and will be only too happy to help clarify them for you.

You claimed:

I'm thinking of a mundane explanation for these things. You tell me all mundane explanations you've eliminated and I'll stop you when you come to the one I'm thinking of. Does that sound fair?

I then generoulsy provided you the mundane explanations I had eliminated (which by the way should not have been taken as entering into any sort of bargain with you - especially the patently "unfair" bargain you proposed - but merely a generous expedition - on my part - of the process of debate):

Using the process of elimination as applied to the White Sands case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html) then we can plausibly rule out all the usual suspects (like rockets, meteors and the Russians). What we might have left is some unknown natural phenomenon, but it is pointless “explaining” one unknown in terms of another unknown – so we are left with ostensibly solid objects in the order of 30ft in diameter, flying at around 150000ft at great speed – repeatedly observed. Why, what mundane explanation are you thinking of?

You merely replied:

Naughty, naughty. No sneaky switching the burden of proof now! Keep trying.

Not only was this reply from you insulting of my generosity in even attempting to fulfil your patently unfair bargain, but also - does it mean that my assertion (that your repeated claims to be thinking of a mundane explanation is untrue) was correct?

Finally, I think you may require a little explanation concerning the burden of proof. It is quite simple. If you make a claim, it is expected you support that claim with evidence. You claimed to be thinking of a mundane explanation. Can you supply the evidence?

If you do not understand how the burden of proof applies to your claim in this regard please indicate so and I will attempt to help you out with some further clarification.

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, you continue to miss the point of why it's important that we don't know what the errors were in the White Sands case.

So let me furnish you with an example or two to help.

In my work I regularly assess and report errors for the data I analyse and publish. These errors are typically about 10%, but can be as much as 25%. These are rigorously calculated errors, and fairly normal for my field of research.

Until a few years ago the best estimate of the Hubble Constant was about 75+/-25 km/s/Mpc. That's an error of more than 33%!

The point is that just because an error is rigorously assessed by a professional that does not mean that it is necessarily a low error.

Without knowing how large the error was, we have no way to assess the accuracy of the reported values of altitude and size. Was the error 1%, 5%, 10% or 50%? We simply do not know.

Furthermore, you continue to misread or misinterpret my statement, "I doubt that they would not have performed an error analysis". Again, I say, it's a double negative. "I doubt that they would not have" means that I'm fairly sure that they did.

So let me repeat, as clearly as possible, and hopefully finally:

I am fairly certain that they would have performed an error analysis, but we do not have access to that error analysis, which means that we have no way to assess their results properly.

 

[tomi71]

Maybe the UFOs are unknown since they do not have an explanation (mundane explanation).

I think it´s easy to understand and logical.

There are also UFO sightings that are not simply unknown. They are unknown in the sense that mundane explanations have been excluded.

So there is a difference even with unknown and unknown.

When talking about UFOs the terminology should be very well chosen because of this kind of unknown vs. unknown situations.

If I see a strangely moving starlike object it is unknown for me since I don´t know what it is and if I see a metallic spaceship with strange hieroglyphs flying over my head it is still unknown.

So unknown can mean two very different things.

 

[TjW]

Without actually knowing what particular kind of thing the UFO is, how can you know that a mundane explanation for it has been excluded?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What they (UFOs) are is unknown. Many of their characteristics are however known. It is those characteristics that defy mundane explanation. For example being a group of small round objects flying at 15,000ft in 1950. That defies mundane explanation right there.

Are you saying it was impossible for any objects to be 150,000 ft above the surface of the earth in 1950?

“Weasel words”? Oh of course, I was forgetting, your are an adherent to "The mere statement of an unfounded (and in this case derogatory) assertion somehow magically makes it true" school of philosophy (you know, that’s the school that reverses our common understanding of burden of proof)?

I stated:
“As far as I know I have always maintained something like my statement above that UFOs have characteristics that defy plausible mundane explanation.”

Please do try to actually read all of my words in any given statement I make if you are going to comment on those staements - because here you seem to have mislead yourself into an erroneous statement by missing a critical word. That is:

“As far as I know I have always maintained (…) that UFOs have characteristics that defy plausible mundane explanation.”

(You may notice I have included the word that you obviously missed the first time around in bold typeface so that you should be unlikely to miss it this time around)

Then you are now admitting that the objects themselves do NOT defy mundane explanation. Good, glad you can realize that. Since that is now the case, I will withdraw the comment about your weasel words and we can move on to a case where you claim the object itself defies mundane explanation. As you say, in this one the objects do not defy mundane explanation.

You are right. Listing the characteristics describes the UFO, not the process of elimination! The process of elimination comes after that description when those characteristics are compared with the characteristics of known (mundane) objects. If no matches with the characteristics of any known, mundane object can be found, then it is legitimate to state that the characteristics of the UFO defy mundane explanation. Often the “characteristics” are then dropped so that many people actually use the shorter “UFOs defy mundane explanation” - and you are thus correct to point out the problems with that formulation.

Nevertheless, please let me know if you have any further trouble understanding the process of elimination or the application of the word “characteristics” in that context and I will see if I can provide further clarification for you.

And thus you prove my point. Your unfounded assertion that you use a process to eliminate all mundane explanations is now shown to be fatally flawed. You haven't eliminated the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

I just did describe the process above.

Which has now been proven to you to be fatally flawed.

You really should support with evidence your repeated claim that you are thinking of a mundane explanation. If you cannot do so, even after repeated requests from me that you should do so (and you subsequently following those requests with mere repetition of the claim, sans evidence) then I am entitled to assume that you actually cannot think of a mundane explanation and therefore your repeated claim to be doing so is an untruth.

Incorrect. You can see above that your fatally flawed approach doesn't work. Keep trying.

Perhaps the process of elimination as applied to UFO cases will bear a rephrased reiteration for you then:

The process of elimination involves a comparison of the characteristics of the UFO(s) in question with the characteristics of known (mundane) objects. If no matches with the characteristics of any known, mundane object can be found, then it is legitimate to state that the characteristics of the UFO defy mundane explanation.​

If you do not understand this explanation could you please indicate which words or phrases you are having trouble with I and will be only too happy to help clarify them for you.

And now that its fatal flaws have been shown to you, you may continue to think of specific mundane explanations until you come to the one I'm thinking of.

You claimed:


I then generoulsy provided you the mundane explanations I had eliminated (which by the way should not have been taken as entering into any sort of bargain with you - especially the patently "unfair" bargain you proposed - but merely a generous expedition - on my part - of the process of debate):

You merely replied:

Your task is to eliminate the mundane explanation I'm thinking of. You have claimed that you have a process to eliminate all of them and then you claimed to have described it. It didn't eliminate the one I was thinking of. Your process has been shown to be fatally flawed.

Not only was this reply from you insulting of my generosity in even attempting to fulfil your patently unfair bargain, but also - does it mean that my assertion (that your repeated claims to be thinking of a mundane explanation is untrue) was correct?

Nope, you're incorrect again. Keep trying.

Finally, I think you may require a little explanation concerning the burden of proof. It is quite simple. If you make a claim, it is expected you support that claim with evidence. You claimed to be thinking of a mundane explanation. Can you supply the evidence?

I've explained the burden of proof concept to you numerous times. You're making a claim. I'm not. You're making an extraordinary claim. You need extraordinary evidence to back it up according to Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You haven't provided it. Go back and reread the OP to see what it is that you're supposed to be providing evidence of. So far, you've provided evidence of blimps, oil well fires, Santa Claus, elves, fairies, and mundane explanations.

If you do not understand how the burden of proof applies to your claim in this regard please indicate so and I will attempt to help you out with some further clarification.

By all means, do so. Keep in mind that you haven't satisfied the burden of proof for your extraordinary claim first, though.

 

[tomi71]

Without actually knowing what particular kind of thing the UFO is, how can you know that a mundane explanation for it has been excluded?

At least some ufo investigations have come to this conclusion. Can´t remember better now but I remember that wikipedia had an article about this.

Rramjet probably remembers better than me. Rramjet can you help me with this?

 

[Rramjet]

At least some ufo investigations have come to this conclusion. Can´t remember better now but I remember that wikipedia had an article about this.

Rramjet probably remembers better than me. Rramjet can you help me with this?

Tomi, look here (there’s a great deal more, but this is as good a start as any...).
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
(http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-government-documents-that-take-ufos-seriously/)

I’ll reply to other posts ASAP (rather busy just now, sorry) but I just thought the following might interest you all in the meanwhile.

Why a genuine unknown flying object will never be investigated or taken seriously.

Look! There’s a UFO.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
What do you mean?
It’s not an alien.
I never said it was… it’s a UFO, I don’t know what it is.
Perhaps you’re hoaxing it then.
Hey, I just saw a UFO. It’s a UFO because I don’t know what it is. Don’t you believe UFOs exist?
Sure, UFOs exist. What’s your problem?
Then let’s find out what it is.
We don’t have to.
Why?
Because its probably mundane.
Perhaps …but don’t you want to know what it is (It might be something we can learn something from…)
I know what it is.
Huh?
It’s a UFO.
Yeah… and I just saw it (whatever it was). I want to know what it is.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
I saw it I tell you.
Prove it.
Look here’s a picture I took.
Photoshop!
Here’s another person who also saw it. They are expert in making such observations.
They could be as mistaken or delusional as you are.
It was captured on radar.
Radar is not infallible.
It left physical traces on the ground (indentations, broken branches, disturbed animals…)
Anything could have done that.
But all these things were concurrent (multiple witnesses took a photo while the local airport had it on radar and it left physical traces).
It’s probably mundane.
Do you know that?
Hey, the odds are on my side, I don’t have to know.
But aren’t you even curious to find out what it was?
Curious about mundane objects? Not in the least.
But do you know what it was?
It was a UFO, you said so.
So let’s find out what it was.
Studies so far suggest, along with most other people, you are mistaken… or delusional.
Not in all cases. What about those cases where no explanation can be found? Perhaps this is one of them.
We don’t have enough information to undertake research.
But remember, multiple witnesses took a photo while the local airport had it on radar and it left physical traces. Seems to be plenty to go on with…
Most probably (according to research) misinterpretations, Photoshop hoaxes, radar anomalies and wild animals.
But do you know that?
Research is on my side.
Look, I saw a UFO, you acknowledge UFOs exist, so let’s find out more about them.
Don’t need to.
Why?
Most probably misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes.
So UFOs don’t exist?
I said probably. What’s wrong with you?
So UFOs do exist.
Yes, of course they do.
Then let’s do some research to find out more about them.
Can’t do that.
Why?
Scientific research needs a falsifiable hypothesis and repeatability to successfully operate.
(Apart from the fact that the phenomena is amenable in just that way) Then let’s just gather and catalogue the data.
Pointless.
Why?
Any potential genuine data will be overwhelmed by misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes and you won’t know the difference.
Look, I saw a UFO and I want to know what it is. That’s all.
So you say.
The characteristics of that object defy mundane explanation.
Prove it.
I don’t need to “prove it”, the characteristics defy mundane explanation. That’s a fact, not a hypothesis.
Have you ruled out every mundane object?
The characteristics of the UFO do not match any known mundane object.
Perhaps you have not done enough research or there is not enough information, or you
are delusional, or hoaxing…
I’ve done the research, there is plenty of information, UFOs are real and we don’t know what they are (or what phenomena or phenomenon they represent).
I thought you said we needed more research?
Yes, to find out what they are.
Probably misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes.
What if they are not?
They are.
How can you be so sure?
Probability is on my side.
That does not make it certain.
Good enough for me.
Is there anything I can say that will make you change your mind?
No.

 

[wollery]

Tomi, look here (there’s a great deal more, but this is as good a start as any...).
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
(http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-government-documents-that-take-ufos-seriously/)

I’ll reply to other posts ASAP (rather busy just now, sorry) but I just thought the following might interest you all in the meanwhile.

Why a genuine unknown flying object will never be investigated or taken seriously.

Look! There’s a UFO.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
What do you mean?
It’s not an alien.
I never said it was… it’s a UFO, I don’t know what it is.
Perhaps you’re hoaxing it then.
Hey, I just saw a UFO. It’s a UFO because I don’t know what it is. Don’t you believe UFOs exist?
Sure, UFOs exist. What’s your problem?
Then let’s find out what it is.
We don’t have to.
Why?
Because its probably mundane.
Perhaps …but don’t you want to know what it is (It might be something we can learn something from…)
I know what it is.
Huh?
It’s a UFO.
Yeah… and I just saw it (whatever it was). I want to know what it is.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
I saw it I tell you.
Prove it.
Look here’s a picture I took.
Photoshop!
Here’s another person who also saw it. They are expert in making such observations.
They could be as mistaken or delusional as you are.
It was captured on radar.
Radar is not infallible.
It left physical traces on the ground (indentations, broken branches, disturbed animals…)
Anything could have done that.
But all these things were concurrent (multiple witnesses took a photo while the local airport had it on radar and it left physical traces).
It’s probably mundane.
Do you know that?
Hey, the odds are on my side, I don’t have to know.
But aren’t you even curious to find out what it was?
Curious about mundane objects? Not in the least.
But do you know what it was?
It was a UFO, you said so.
So let’s find out what it was.
Studies so far suggest, along with most other people, you are mistaken… or delusional.
Not in all cases. What about those cases where no explanation can be found? Perhaps this is one of them.
We don’t have enough information to undertake research.
But remember, multiple witnesses took a photo while the local airport had it on radar and it left physical traces. Seems to be plenty to go on with…
Most probably (according to research) misinterpretations, Photoshop hoaxes, radar anomalies and wild animals.
But do you know that?
Research is on my side.
Look, I saw a UFO, you acknowledge UFOs exist, so let’s find out more about them.
Don’t need to.
Why?
Most probably misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes.
So UFOs don’t exist?
I said probably. What’s wrong with you?
So UFOs do exist.
Yes, of course they do.
Then let’s do some research to find out more about them.
Can’t do that.
Why?
Scientific research needs a falsifiable hypothesis and repeatability to successfully operate.
(Apart from the fact that the phenomena is amenable in just that way) Then let’s just gather and catalogue the data.
Pointless.
Why?
Any potential genuine data will be overwhelmed by misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes and you won’t know the difference.
Look, I saw a UFO and I want to know what it is. That’s all.
So you say.
The characteristics of that object defy mundane explanation.
Prove it.
I don’t need to “prove it”, the characteristics defy mundane explanation. That’s a fact, not a hypothesis.
Have you ruled out every mundane object?
The characteristics of the UFO do not match any known mundane object.
Perhaps you have not done enough research or there is not enough information, or you
are delusional, or hoaxing…
I’ve done the research, there is plenty of information, UFOs are real and we don’t know what they are (or what phenomena or phenomenon they represent).
I thought you said we needed more research?
Yes, to find out what they are.
Probably misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes.
What if they are not?
They are.
How can you be so sure?
Probability is on my side.
That does not make it certain.
Good enough for me.
Is there anything I can say that will make you change your mind?
No.

Next straw man please.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Look! There’s a UFO.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
...

We don’t have to.
Why?
Because its probably mundane.
Perhaps …but don’t you want to know what it is (It might be something we can learn something from…)
...

Is there anything I can say that will make you change your mind?
No.

Funny, coming from you, in this thread where people are constantly proposing mundane explanations for the observations you want explained so badly.
I mean, I hopped in at the MIR movie, because it is in my area of expertise (well, not since university, but still) and went through quite a bit of effort to demonstrate to you that these were not in fact inexplicable or strange, but ice particles.

The fact that you make every possible effort to refute any mundane explanations makes it appear as if you are trying see if the observations could be consistent with something non-mundane, whereas what you should be doing, is coming up with more mundane explanations.
And the thing to keep in mind there is that non-mundane explanations are by definition hugely unlikely, so that one can come up with pretty unlikely mundane explanations without having to discount those on grounds of their improbability. For vague, ambiguous, or rare observations, there is necessarily a huge number of possible mundane explanations that are more likely than explanations relying on things yet unknown to science.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tomi, look here (there’s a great deal more, but this is as good a start as any...).
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
(http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-government-documents-that-take-ufos-seriously/)

I’ll reply to other posts ASAP (rather busy just now, sorry) but I just thought the following might interest you all in the meanwhile.

Why a genuine unknown flying object will never be investigated or taken seriously.

Look! There’s a UFO.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
What do you mean?
It’s not an alien.
I never said it was… it’s a UFO, I don’t know what it is.
Perhaps you’re hoaxing it then.
Hey, I just saw a UFO. It’s a UFO because I don’t know what it is. Don’t you believe UFOs exist?
Sure, UFOs exist. What’s your problem?
Then let’s find out what it is.
We don’t have to.
Why?
Because its probably mundane.
Perhaps …but don’t you want to know what it is (It might be something we can learn something from…)
I know what it is.
Huh?
It’s a UFO.
Yeah… and I just saw it (whatever it was). I want to know what it is.
No, you’re mistaken… or delusional.
I saw it I tell you.
Prove it.
Look here’s a picture I took.
Photoshop!
Here’s another person who also saw it. They are expert in making such observations.
They could be as mistaken or delusional as you are.
It was captured on radar.
Radar is not infallible.
It left physical traces on the ground (indentations, broken branches, disturbed animals…)
Anything could have done that.
But all these things were concurrent (multiple witnesses took a photo while the local airport had it on radar and it left physical traces).
It’s probably mundane.
Do you know that?
Hey, the odds are on my side, I don’t have to know.
But aren’t you even curious to find out what it was?
Curious about mundane objects? Not in the least.
But do you know what it was?
It was a UFO, you said so.
So let’s find out what it was.
Studies so far suggest, along with most other people, you are mistaken… or delusional.
Not in all cases. What about those cases where no explanation can be found? Perhaps this is one of them.
We don’t have enough information to undertake research.
But remember, multiple witnesses took a photo while the local airport had it on radar and it left physical traces. Seems to be plenty to go on with…
Most probably (according to research) misinterpretations, Photoshop hoaxes, radar anomalies and wild animals.
But do you know that?
Research is on my side.
Look, I saw a UFO, you acknowledge UFOs exist, so let’s find out more about them.
Don’t need to.
Why?
Most probably misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes.
So UFOs don’t exist?
I said probably. What’s wrong with you?
So UFOs do exist.
Yes, of course they do.
Then let’s do some research to find out more about them.
Can’t do that.
Why?
Scientific research needs a falsifiable hypothesis and repeatability to successfully operate.
(Apart from the fact that the phenomena is amenable in just that way) Then let’s just gather and catalogue the data.
Pointless.
Why?
Any potential genuine data will be overwhelmed by misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes and you won’t know the difference.
Look, I saw a UFO and I want to know what it is. That’s all.
So you say.
The characteristics of that object defy mundane explanation.
Prove it.
I don’t need to “prove it”, the characteristics defy mundane explanation. That’s a fact, not a hypothesis.
Have you ruled out every mundane object?
The characteristics of the UFO do not match any known mundane object.
Perhaps you have not done enough research or there is not enough information, or you
are delusional, or hoaxing…
I’ve done the research, there is plenty of information, UFOs are real and we don’t know what they are (or what phenomena or phenomenon they represent).
I thought you said we needed more research?
Yes, to find out what they are.
Probably misperceived mundane objects, delusions or hoaxes.
What if they are not?
They are.
How can you be so sure?
Probability is on my side.
That does not make it certain.
Good enough for me.
Is there anything I can say that will make you change your mind?
No.

Why UFOlogists will never be taken seriously.

I saw a UFO!
Yes, they're seen all the time.
No, this was a genuine UFO!
A what?
A genuine UFO, one that I don't know what it is!
You mean, as opposed to a UFO that you don't know what it is?
Yes! I mean no! It's aliens!
Ok, run along and investigate it.
No, we have to talk about it on an internet forum!
To what end?
I can prove it was a genuine UFO!
Ok, do so.
Um... here's another guy who said he saw a UFO! And he's credible!
<Looks at watch> That's nice. Run along and play.
No, really! You... you... you're just mean debunkers! I have evidence!
Ok, let's see it.
Um... here's another guy who says he saw something he couldn't identify! And I can't think of anything it might be!
So it's a UFO then?



We interrupt this never ending cycle for a word from Proctor Gamble.

 

[Jocce]

Been away for a while so late reply.

We don’t know the specific error margins

Thank you, I'm glad you see that too. The reason why those are interesting is of course that we know for a fact that man made objects where flying at at least an altitude of 110 km at this time. Depending on the margin of error, these could be a possbility. That's why it is interesting to know.

because once again it seems here is a case where the information is being withheld from the public domain.

Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it's being withheld. Did you ask for it?

I’ll rephrase then: “We don’t know the specific information

You claim that information was gained but you don't know what information. So you're guessing then? That's fine, just be honest about it.

What “extraordinary claim”? I fail to see where any “extraordinary claim” has been made.

Oh, sorry. My mistake. I was sure that you posted this case as evidence of either UFO's ("alien"/nonmundane") or "aliens" since that is what this thread is about. If that's not the case then maybe we can move to another case that you believe contain such evidence?

I think Jocce was actually talking about my reference to a triangulation being achieved on “four” separate objects – meaning of course (though I did not state it at the time) four successful triangulations were achieved!

No, I was talking about the actual calculations. I have an idea about how it's done but I'm interested in seeing how this triangulation using partial data would affect the error margins on especially the altitude calculation.

There is no need to repeat the summary report, I have read it numerous times and have it easily accessible in case I need it again.

 

[aChosen1]

On the subject of UFO and Alien evidence, around 2002 or 2003 a picture was posted on Art Bells Coast2coastam website of an Alien in a glass casket. The claim was that after the man who picked up the debris from the Roswell UFO crash died, his son found the picture in his belongings and submitted it to them.
The man standing behind the casket was suppose to be his father. It was said by a number of media, that on his fathers death bed he admitted that it was a Flying Saucer he retrieved and there were 2 dead Aliens and 1 Alive. If I remember right, Art bell was taken to court for some of the content on his website. I wonder if he was forced to remove the picture and claim from his website.
I just recently found the picture back on the internet but this time with no writeup. It's hard to believe this picture could be faked, especially if you could see the original one which was twice as big and much clearer.

I haven't made enough posts here to post links yet, but you will find the picture at Top10ufo com.