UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here. I've already referenced the Battelle Memorial Institute study of thousands of cases, a percentage of which were already determined by investigators with more training and credentials than me ( and probably anyone else here ) to be "unknown" ... cases in which hoaxes and misperceptions were not considered to be the cause. And apart from the ones that government agencies have investigated, there are thousands more from civilians. Lastly, by looking through enough of these cases for yourself you can come to your own conclusions. You won't need me or anyone else to tell you that hoaxes and misperceptions are a poor explanation for all cases classed as "unknown". All that being said, documentation and case studies still don't provide conclusive evidence for alien visitation. But it does provide sufficient information to take the possibility seriously enough to continue investigation and study, which is part of what we ufologists do.

Just an honest "no, sorry, I can't" would have done.

 

[tsig]

An entertaining, but false analogy. Apart from the fact that we're not talking about strawberries, The USAF investigations for a certain number of sightings were able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that misperceptions, hoaxes and such were not the cause. So this part, "The witnesses may be lying or just misperceived events so bad that we can not resolve the remaining cases." doesn't apply to those cases. The reason, if any that continued investigation hasn't produced any material evidence is because the craft are so much further advanced that they have complete impunity, and given this state of affairs, even if one were captured by some freak of circumstance ( like a crash ) the secretive nature of the DoD and advanced weaponry would never facilitate public scrutiny. All we would have are rumors, and as you know they abound.

No.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here.

Besides the fact that there aren't any.

I've already referenced the Battelle Memorial Institute study of thousands of cases, a percentage of which were already determined by investigators with more training and credentials than me ( and probably anyone else here ) to be "unknown" ... cases in which hoaxes and misperceptions were not considered to be the cause.

None of which were determined to be Alien Space Ships, despite your attempt to Rredefine them into existence.

And apart from the ones that government agencies have investigated, there are thousands more from civilians. Lastly, by looking through enough of these cases for yourself you can come to your own conclusions.

A sane, rational conclusion is that none has been shown to be an Alien Space Ship. UFOs ( witches ), on the other hand, we know exist. Do you believe in UFOs ( witches )?

You won't need me or anyone else to tell you that hoaxes and misperceptions are a poor explanation for all cases classed as "unknown".

HOAX is a great explanation for the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax. We have sufficient evidence that it is.

All that being said, documentation and case studies still don't provide conclusive evidence for alien visitation. But it does provide sufficient information to take the possibility seriously enough to continue investigation and study, which is part of what we ufologists do.

No, they don't provide any evidence for alien visitation. Your religion simply makes you believe.

 

[EHocking]

More misrepresentation above. I'm not trying trying to "convince everyone that the word 'unknown' means 'extraterrestrial.'" If you actually read my posts I've consistently said that alien does not necessitate ET. By continuing to spout misinformation you are only undermining your cause.

Rubbish, your repeated attempts to dissemble your true attitude can be found from your own web page:

However more complete dictionaries define UFOs as objects that defy conventional explanation or are believed to be craft of extraterrestrial origin.

.... Therefore in common usage, the word is not meant to be applied to objects that are simply unidentified, but to objects that appear to be extraordinary or out of this world.
​

 

[Stray Cat]

.... Therefore in common usage, the word is not meant to be applied to objects that are simply unidentified, but to objects that appear to be extraordinary sufficient or out of this world.

ftfy

 

[John Albert]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here.

Excuses, excuses.

That website of yours doesn't require that much effort. Websites tend to "maintain" themselves actually. I personally maintain half a dozen websites just as complex as yours (some even more so) in my spare time. It's not like you have a blog, discussion forum, or any other feature that demands constant attention. I don't believe you're so inundated with orders for woo-woo UFO books that you can't bother to answer a few reasonable questions on an Internet forum.

I've already referenced the Battelle Memorial Institute study of thousands of cases, a percentage of which were already determined by investigators with more training and credentials than me ( and probably anyone else here ) to be "unknown" ... cases in which hoaxes and misperceptions were not considered to be the cause.

A study that concluded:

Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

—p. 94, Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, a.k.a. the "Battelle Study"

So, what else you got?

And apart from the ones that government agencies have investigated, there are thousands more from civilians. Lastly, by looking through enough of these cases for yourself you can come to your own conclusions.

My own conclusion is "inconclusive," pending falsification of the J. Randall Murphy null hypothesis:

All UFOs have mundane explanations.​

Because that's how "science" (a.k.a. "the learning of knowledge") actually works.


Now, how about addressing the substance of my last post:

You saw an apparent moving light in the sky and just assumed it was an alien spacecraft because of the way it apparently moved. But the fact is, it was just as likely to have been a flying witch, a fairy, a will 'o' the wisp, a portal to Hell or anything else that has never been proven to exist. Or it might have been some strange, unidentified atmospheric phenomenon (perhaps some kind of plasma effect, "ball-lightning" or whatnot). But most likely, it was simply a mundane earthly object, phenomenon, and/or optical illusion that you mistook for a flying object and assumed to be something extraterrestrial.

Seeing something which you cannot identify does not constitute evidence that you've seen an alien spacecraft, no matter how much obtuse wordplay you try to perform. Without any physical evidence for scientists to examine for clues as to its origin, you simply have no way of knowing what the "thing" you saw was. Your insistence that it was "alien" all comes down to your own credulity and nothing else.

So you don't know you've seen an alien craft. You just think you know, in the same way that a Christian might think he knows that Jesus is his "Personal Lord and Savior." In other words, you don't really know; you simply believe. Your belief is unshakable, and is not supported by a single shred of evidence, therefore it's taken on faith. You have faith that what you saw was extraterrestrial craft, based solely on personal experience, the word of popular folklore, and your own subjective feelings on the matter.

 

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by ehocking
.... Therefore in common usage, the word is not meant to be applied to objects that are simply unidentified, but to objects that appear to be extraordinary sufficient or out of this world.

ftfy

In Ufology's case - self sufficient, since it only applies to him.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rubbish, your repeated attempts to dissemble your true attitude can be found from your own web page:

However more complete dictionaries define UFOs as objects that defy conventional explanation or are believed to be craft of extraterrestrial origin.

.... Therefore in common usage, the word is not meant to be applied to objects that are simply unidentified, but to objects that appear to be extraordinary or out of this world.
​

ufology uses the word "extraordinary"? The level of dishonesty he displays is truly awe-inspiring.

 

[abaddon]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here.

How about you pick one case then?

This is a thread called "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence", is it not?

 

[Stray Cat]

In Ufology's case - self sufficient, since it only applies to him.

And it has a ring of 'The Good Life' about it... Only Mr Uf is more funnierer.

 

[John Albert]

ufology uses the word "extraordinary"? The level of dishonesty he displays is truly awe-inspiring.

So according to this:

Therefore in common usage, the word is not meant to be applied to objects that are simply unidentified, but to objects that appear to be extraordinary or out of this world.
​

J. Randall Murphy considers the word "extraordinary" at least roughly synonymous with the phrase, "out of this world."

So let's try ECREE this way:

"Out of this world claims require out of this world evidence."​

Does that make it any easier for UFOlogists to understand?

 

[GeeMack]

An entertaining, but false analogy. Apart from the fact that we're not talking about strawberries, The USAF investigations for a certain number of sightings were able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that misperceptions, hoaxes and such were not the cause.

That is absolutely not true, a wholly dishonest... and failed... deceptive argument. Only in the LaLa Land of the pseudoscience of "ufology" does unidentified mean all possible mundane explanations have been eliminated. The USAF doesn't claim that, not anywhere, not in any language, not in any report.

So this part, "The witnesses may be lying or just misperceived events so bad that we can not resolve the remaining cases." doesn't apply to those cases. The reason, if any that continued investigation hasn't produced any material evidence is because the craft are so much further advanced that they have complete impunity, and given this state of affairs, even if one were captured by some freak of circumstance ( like a crash ) the secretive nature of the DoD and advanced weaponry would never facilitate public scrutiny. All we would have are rumors, and as you know they abound.

There goes that irrational pseudoscience paranoid conspiracy nonsense again. Does anyone really wonder why "ufology" has earned all the mockery and ridicule it receives? It's as if the arguments its faithful followers make aren't stupid enough on their own, so they have to pile stupid on top of the stupid.

 

[GeeMack]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here. I've already referenced the Battelle Memorial Institute study of thousands of cases, a percentage of which were already determined by investigators with more training and credentials than me ( and probably anyone else here ) to be "unknown" ... cases in which hoaxes and misperceptions were not considered to be the cause. And apart from the ones that government agencies have investigated, there are thousands more from civilians. Lastly, by looking through enough of these cases for yourself you can come to your own conclusions. You won't need me or anyone else to tell you that hoaxes and misperceptions are a poor explanation for all cases classed as "unknown". All that being said, documentation and case studies still don't provide conclusive evidence for alien visitation. Nobody, including "ufologists", has any objective evidence to suggest that "UFOs = alien craft", or even that alien craft exist. But it's so much more exciting to indulge in the fantasy.

"Ufologese" to English. Again, you're welcome for the helpful cooperation of the skeptics.

But it does provide sufficient information to take the possibility seriously enough to continue investigation and study, which is part of what we ufologists do.

That is patently untrue. "Ufologists" don't really do anything productive at all. "Ufologists" dishonestly repeat often debunked anecdotes as if they're meaningful, rationalize, evade, avoid, ignore, toss around logical fallacies, engage in gibberish, blather on with semantic and other nonsensical arguments, dishonestly redefine terms, and blame skeptics for the failure to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. Skeptics do the work. Skeptics do the research, provide the evidence, analyze the evidence, and try to straighten out the lies, fallacies, and failures of the "ufologists". "Ufologists" have faith, they believe, strongly, unwaveringly, uncritically and unskeptically. But, no, "ufologists" don't do anything constructive when it comes to furthering our understanding of unidentified flying objects.

 

[Astrophotographer]

An entertaining, but false analogy. Apart from the fact that we're not talking about strawberries,

You completely miss the point of my analogy. I wasn't comparing strawberries to UFOs but I was comparing Captain Queeg's desire to look for that elusive "duplicate key" (advanced technology intelligently controlled craft) than looking at the more likely scenario that the mess boys ate the strawberries and did not want to tell anyone (misperceptions, hoaxes, fantasies, etc.). Additionally, his dismissal of evidence that suggests his theory is wrong seems equally applicable.

The USAF investigations for a certain number of sightings were able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that misperceptions, hoaxes and such were not the cause. So this part, "The witnesses may be lying or just misperceived events so bad that we can not resolve the remaining cases." doesn't apply to those cases. The reason, if any that continued investigation hasn't produced any material evidence is because the craft are so much further advanced that they have complete impunity, and given this state of affairs, even if one were captured by some freak of circumstance ( like a crash ) the secretive nature of the DoD and advanced weaponry would never facilitate public scrutiny. All we would have are rumors, and as you know they abound

Really? Can you point towards a single case where the USAF CONCLUDED that it was IMPOSSIBLE that the witnesses were lying or they misperceived the events so badly that they could not be solved?

Look at your Battelle study. In the final 12 cases listed, several had reasonable explanations presented in later years. My favorite was the Chiles-Whitted sighting. Scientists in the Condon study concluded it was probably a meteor. This means one of the twelve BEST cases in the early 1950s could be solved if more data had been available. It only made the top 12 because they assumed the witnesses were reliable and could not have misperceived such an event. Zond IV showed that such a misperception was possible.

You also completely ignore the work of people like Allan Hendry, who was the investigator for CUFOS in the 1970s. He stated the following in his UFO Handbook:

After examining 1,300 UFO reports firsthand on a case-by-case basis, I am STILL no closer to the nature o this complex beast than when I started. After all I have weeded out the "easy" IFOs and 10 per cent of the reports remain as "worthy" UFOs, I still can not confidently draw the distinction between a "real" physical phenomenon and a complex misperception, a "real" physical CEIII event and a sophisticated fantasy, a "real" physical-trace case and a false match of IFO and unrelated artifact. This is true despite the fact that I have tried to exploit every device, system, or tool to which I can gain access....The "U" in UFO presently means "unapproachable" and "unresearchable" just as it means "unidentified".
Even with the very best UFO incidents to which I gained access in a year and a half, I was unable to establish anything better than a probability figure that hte event actually took place in the extraordinary manner described, or that the source of the report was something TRULY anomalous, not already understood. IF I simply go on collecting a string of 50-50 probabilities for cases which are flawed in some fundamental way, I will NOT have improved the chances of any of them being more genuinely anomalous thant it is. It seems like a given UFO account, no matter how sensational the claims or how sincere the witnesses, always has the option of falling through as an IFO....but never does the evidence suddenly allow a burst of approval for even one UFO!
...when stars and satellites can rush off along the witnesses' line of sight, when the crescent moon can drain the lights of a parking lot, when ad planes are almost always "domed discs" thanks to an emotional climate where people DESIRE to see "flying saucers," how can I be sure if my remaining "UFOs" aren't simply IFOs misperceived (sincerely) to the point of fantasy? The emotional climate about the subject (as revealed by the IFOs) appears to be adequate to support such a hypothesis for a great many UFO situations, if not all. (Sphere edition pages 283-284)

An honest UFO investigator would recognize that there is always the possibility that misperception and other factors could play a role in a UFO report.

 

[Astrophotographer]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here. I've already referenced the Battelle Memorial Institute study of thousands of cases, a percentage of which were already determined by investigators with more training and credentials than me ( and probably anyone else here ) to be "unknown" ... cases in which hoaxes and misperceptions were not considered to be the cause.

You have not read the entire report have you? You are repeating what others have stated. READ the actual report on pages 3 and 4 you will see the following statement:

the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rathre than of precise measurements. Furthermore, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased it s subjectivity. This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy...The danger lies in the possibility of forgetting the subjectivity of the data at the time that conclusions are drawn from the analysis. It must be emphasized, again and again, that the conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be.

They recognized the data was subjective and just because they could not identify the source does not mean it had no solution. You are misinterpreting the data and statistics.

I wrote a piece about this report in SUNlite 3-4. See pages 13-14.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf

 

[Sideroxylon]

When it comes to actual UFO research, Mr Ufology, Astrophotographer puts you and your Wikipedia links to shame, doesn't he.

 

[Jocce]

There are plenty of cases out there and I've got my own website to maintain so I'm not going to start posting them all here.

Don't. Just post one.

I've already referenced the Battelle Memorial Institute study of thousands of cases, a percentage of which were already determined by investigators with more training and credentials than me ( and probably anyone else here ) to be "unknown" ... cases in which hoaxes and misperceptions were not considered to be the cause.

By now I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying and that you wilfully avoid adressing the critique that has been made in relation to your lies about this study. No wonder that noone takes you seriously here anymore.

And apart from the ones that government agencies have investigated, there are thousands more from civilians. Lastly, by looking through enough of these cases for yourself you can come to your own conclusions. You won't need me or anyone else to tell you that hoaxes and misperceptions are a poor explanation for all cases classed as "unknown".

OMGAliens is an even worse explanation.

All that being said, documentation and case studies still don't provide conclusive evidence for alien visitation. But it does provide sufficient information to take the possibility seriously enough to continue investigation and study, which is part of what we ufologists do.

No, you don't investigate anything with an open mind. This whole thread is full of evidence for that.

 

[ufology]

No, you are being completely dishonest.
You first claim that when you say "alien" you mean "unknown" and then go on to state that as these "craft" (what craft I've no idea as non have ever been proven to be crafts) have capablities beyond our knowledge, and that as physics doesn't rule out interstellar travel that they come from somewhere else in the universe... So extraterrestrial then?

Everything above, except for the "dishonest part" is almost true. Allow me to rephrase:

The word "unknown" is synoymous with "alien" as in alien to our knowledge and civilization but does not necessitate ET. Also, it has been determined by USAF investigation and study that some of these alien objects are craft, and are sometimes called craft, e.g. "Under certain power conditions, the craft seems to have the ability to cut a clear path through clouds -- " ( From a formerly SECRET 1947 Intelligence document ), not that it takes a rocket scientist to understand that objects shaped like discs and appearing to be metallic that can outrun Air Force jets are some kind of craft.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Everything above, except for the "dishonest part" is almost true. Allow me to rephrase:

The word "unknown" is synoymous with "alien" as in alien to our knowledge and civilization but does not necessitate ET.

This has now become an outright lie on your part.

Also, it has been determined by USAF investigation and study that some of these alien objects are craft, and are sometimes called craft, e.g. "Under certain power conditions, the craft seems to have the ability to cut a clear path through clouds -- " ( From a formerly SECRET 1947 Intelligence document ), not that it takes a rocket scientist to understand that objects shaped like discs and appearing to be metallic that can outrun Air Force jets are some kind of craft.

You didn't link to the document and nobody can believe your word.

 

[ufology]

Excuses, excuses.

That website of yours doesn't require that much effort.

If I were going to start posting multiple case studies it would be on my own website and I'd link from here to them. And if you really knew what you were talking about with respect to how the USI site works, you wouldn't have made the comments you did. But I suppose such comments are to be expected from someone who hasn't actually done the work and finds satisfaction in minimizing other people's efforts.