UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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.

List one case similar to the 1952 Washington DC case so that we may see that you aren't engaging in the fallacy of special pleading.

 

[ufology]

This has now become an outright lie on your part.


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

Your accusations of lies are prejudicial and unfounded. I've posted independent dictionary definitions for both "unknown" and "alien" within the proper context of this dicussion along with the primary synonyms for each; each word has the other as a synonym, and the word "alien" does not necessitate ET. So enough of your slander and bad mouthing. Keep your comments civil and in context.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your accusations of lies are prejudicial and unfounded. I've posted independent dictionary definitions for both "unknown" and "alien" within the proper context of this dicussion along with the primary synonyms for each; each word has the other as a synonym, and the word "alien" does not necessitate ET. So enough of your slander and bad mouthing. Keep your comments civil and in context.

There was no slander involved, as you well know. Keep your comments honest and truthful. You may start now.

Do you believe in UFOs ( witches )? Why or why not?

List a case similar to the 1952 Washington DC one so that we may see that you aren't engaging in the fallacy of special pleading.

Since you've said that "sufficient" is objective, do you now also admit that there is sufficient evidence that you perpetrated the J Randal Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

 

[John Albert]

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.

And how do you propose they managed to prove that?

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.

Ah, I see.

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.

I've done quite enough of "the work" in a professional capacity to recognize the number of man-hours needed to accomplish a given project.

If that USI website, as it appears online right now, really takes more than a few minutes a day to merely "maintain" (including the editing and adding of content), then you must be doing it wrong.

Now, how about addressing the substance of my previous 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 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.

 

[AdMan]

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.

It is patently obvious that you continue to redefine words in order to reach your predetermined conclusion that UFOs = alien craft.

Nobody is buying your BS arguments, though. Unknown does not mean alien in the way you are using it, so "unknown objects in the sky" does not mean "alien craft"--never has and never will, despite the fact you keep repeating it over and over. It is still nonsense.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

You don't need to, as just one will do for the purposes of discussing the title of this thread.

Approximately 3 hours ago you wrote:

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, you must have a list of these "certain number of sightings" in order to be so sure that they exist, so all you need to do is pick one from your list. Simples.

And, can I again request a link to where I can read a USAF member of staff describing these cases as "beyond reasonable doubt".

Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this matter.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Goodness, a quote without a citation so people can't see the context in which this was written. For those not familiar with the document he is describing, it was a memo written by General Schulgen in October of 1947. The purpose of the memo was to determine the current intelligence requirements in the field of Flying Saucer type aircraft.

The quote is one part of a section that starts with:


Commonly reported features that are very significant and which may aid in the investigation are as follows:

Note the "reported features" and not proven facts. They are just the reported observations, which are subject to error. Additionally, the section quoted has the following after it:

Under certain power conditions, the craft seems to have the ability to cut a clear path through clouds -- width of path estimated to be approximately one-half mile. Only one incident indicated this phenomenon.

Note the bolding.

The section most pertinent in this memo is this:

This strange object, or phenomenon, may be considered, in view of certain observations, as long-range aircraft capable of a high rate of climb, high cruising speed (possibly sub-sonic at all times) and highly maneuverable and capable of being flown in very tight formation. For the purpose of analysis and evaluation of the so-called "flying saucer" phenomenon, the object sighted is being assumed to be a manned aircraft, of Russian origin, and based on the perspective thinking and actual accomplishments of the Germans.

You can read this all yourself here:

http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/Schulgen.htm

As one can see, in 1947, the intelligence community was concerned the observations were of actual craft from the Soviet Union invading US Air space. This was duplicated in another intelligence document under the title of Air Intelligence study #203 Analysis of flying objects incidents in the US which was written in late 1948 (10 December 1948 even though the document states 1952 and 1949, the original was published then).

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1948air.htm

This is a top secret document and should mention alien spaceships if they actually believed the reports were of these. There is no mention of spaceships in this document. However, there is mention that the reports may be simple misperceptions of existing known craft and phenomenon.

Remember that it was only 6-7 years after Pearl Harbor and 2-3 after the war had ended. The cold war was starting and the USAF was concerned that these reports might mean the soviets were developing something that was superior to their own aircraft. They were not going to dismiss these reports away as misperceptions without some serious analysis of the reports. It was assumed they were somebody's aircraft but it did not mean they were actual craft.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Even by your sloppy standard of Rredefinition you then go on to claim that as interstellar travel is physically plausible, that the "crafts" come from somewhere else in the universe. Which actually does necessitate them being extraterrestrial.

Also, it has been determined by USAF investigation and study that some of these alien objects are craft,

No it hasn't, stop telling lies.

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.

Again your dishonest misreporting of what is being said shows either that your research is really sloppy or that you are telling lies.

An alleged "Flying Saucer" type aircraft or object in flight, approximating the shape of a disc, has been reported by many observers from widely scattered places, such as the United States, Alaska, Canada, Hungary, the Island of Guam, and Japan. This object has been reported by many competent observers, including USAF rated officers. Sightings have been made from the ground as well as from the air.

All that is being described is what has allegedly been reported.
Your quote has no provenance and does not imply that the person who wrote it agrees with or has even seen anything of the sort.

ETA: I see Astrophotographer beat me to that memo info.

 

[GeeMack]

I've done quite enough of "the work" in a professional capacity to recognize the number of man-hours needed to accomplish a given project.

If that USI website, as it appears online right now, really takes more than a few minutes a day to merely "maintain" (including the editing and adding of content), then you must be doing it wrong.

In general, and as an experienced web site designer/maintainer, I'd agree. But the term "work" obviously has a different meaning to those who claim to be engaged in "ufology" (as do so many other terms most people would use in common, well understood ways). It can't be much work copying and pasting decades old material, debunked many times over, and presenting it as if it's meaningful to the "UFOs = alien craft" claim. And as we've seen so many times here, no actual research gets done and no evidence is gathered or analyzed in the pseudoscience of "ufology". But... and this is the big but... clearly "ufology" entails manufacturing rationalizations and lies, developing logical fallacies into long paragraphs of drivel, deflecting the burden of proof, and other such dishonest tactics to keep the fantasy alive, so it might just seem alike a lot of work to "ufologists".

 

[GeeMack]

So, you must have a list of these "certain number of sightings" in order to be so sure that they exist, so all you need to do is pick one from your list. Simples.

Not so simple The phrase you quoted, "a certain number", is vague, non-quantitative, and from an objective point of view, wholly meaningless. In the pseudoscience of "ufology" phrases like that are allowed, even encouraged. What you're asking for on the other hand, is "one". And one is an actual number, quantitative, with a mathematical relationship to other numbers. From our observation of "ufology", its adherents don't do numbers, particularly huge, hard to fathom numbers like... well... one.

 

[ufology]

Response to SUNlite on Special Report 14

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

Astro,

Thanks for the above. Again I have to compliment you on the production of SUNlite. It's some of the the best presented skeptical input around. My comments are as follows: Let's start by desensationalizing the piece. I don't hold Special Report 14 to be a holy grail. Certainly there are evaluations as are mentioned in SUNlite associated with Special Report 14 and other studies, however that does not minimize the results because they knew all that going into the study in the first place. We are also dealing with probabilities, not concrete proof. In other words, knowing the above at the start, they still ended up with the statistical results as I stated. Then some after the fact efforts were made to try to eliminate all unknowns, and what these add up to is a reflection of how much they turned up their bias dial ( Bias: STATISTICS distortion of results: the distortion of a set of statistical results by a variable not considered in the calculation, or the variable itself ). Turn it up far enough and sure, all sightings could possibly be explained by something mundane.

But what we are really dealing with in plain terms is a margin of error. Some are of the opinion that the margin of error is sufficient to explain all the unknowns while other people of the opposite opinion, and I fall in the latter group because those who did the investigating at the time ( not the statisticians ) also took those factors into account at the time and were in a much better position because of their expertise to make the judgement calls. Do I think this means they were always right? No. I'm willing to conceed that there were probably some unknowns that weren't alien craft ... perhaps quite a few. But add to that all the civilian sightings and I still maintain that the probabilities that craft unknown to our technology and civilization or more succinctly alien craft, are a virtual certainty. However do I think that such probabilities quailfy as proof? No. A "holy grail" as the article puts it, wouldn't simply, "seem to indicate good good UFO reports are actual physical craft of some unknown origin." So far as I am concerned reports in and of themselves prove nothing material. The holy grail would be the craft backed by some hard lined verification regarding it's point of origin.

 

[ehcks]

So much waffley text I wish I had some maple syrup.

Unless your margin of error is greater than 100%, you only need to show 1 (one) [uno] singular alien spacecraft.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is a top secret document and should mention alien spaceships if they actually believed the reports were of these.

ufology, you dishonestly quote mined a document and then didn't cite it because you knew it didn't back up your lie. I advised you to post honestly and truthfully and you've chosen not to.

 

[GeeMack]

Thanks for the above. Again I have to compliment you on the production of SUNlite. It's some of the the best presented skeptical input around. My comments are as follows: Let's start by desensationalizing the piece. I don't hold Special Report 14 to be a holy grail. Certainly there are evaluations as are mentioned in SUNlite associated with Special Report 14 and other studies, however that does not minimize the results because they knew all that going into the study in the first place. We are also dealing with probabilities, not concrete proof. In other words, knowing the above at the start, they still ended up with the statistical results as I stated. Then some after the fact efforts were made to try to eliminate all unknowns, and what these add up to is a reflection of how much they turned up their bias dial ( Bias: STATISTICS distortion of results: the distortion of a set of statistical results by a variable not considered in the calculation, or the variable itself ). Turn it up far enough and sure, all sightings could possibly be explained by something mundane.

But what we are really dealing with in plain terms is a margin of error. Some are of the opinion that the margin of error is sufficient to explain all the unknowns while other people of the opposite opinion, and I fall in the latter group because those who did the investigating at the time ( not the statisticians ) also took those factors into account at the time and were in a much better position because of their expertise to make the judgement calls. Do I think this means they were always right? No. I'm willing to conceed that there were probably some unknowns that weren't alien craft ... perhaps quite a few. Add to that all the civilian sightings and I still maintain that the probabilities that craft unknown to our technology and civilization or more succinctly alien craft, are a virtual certainty. However do I think that such probabilities quailfy as proof? No. A "holy grail" as the article puts it, wouldn't simply, "seem to indicate good good UFO reports are actual physical craft of some unknown origin." So far as I am concerned reports in and of themselves prove nothing material. The holy grail would be the craft backed by some hard lined verification regarding it's point of origin. Here's some nonsense presented in an effort to deceive people into believing it is meaningful. Bottom line: There is no quantitative or objective evidence to support the claim that some, or any, UFOs are alien craft.

That "ufologese" isn't so tough to translate when you know the strategy.

 

[ufology]

So much waffley text I wish I had some maple syrup.

Unless your margin of error is greater than 100%, you only need to show 1 (one) [uno] singular alien spacecraft.

ehcks,

Thanks for making an excellent point. There is no reasonable way to back the claim that given the number and quality of reports that have accumulated that the margin of error is equal to or greater than 100%. Therefore there must be, among the reports someplace, at least one that represents an alien craft. The problem is determining which ones those are on a case by case basis. That gets very difficult. One of the best I've seen so far is the 1952 DC RADAR/Visual intercept incident we've been discussing. I've heard more sesational accounts, but the DC case was so well publicized that claiming it didn't happen isn't reasonable, the specific incident within the larger flap was also well publicized and corroborated, it too is worth taking seriously. Still, even this incident isn't sufficient as proof ... only as evidence to take the claim of alien craft seriously enough to continue studying the various other reports, interviewing witnesses, watching the sky and so on.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Goodness, a quote without a citation so people can't see the context in which this was written. For those not familiar with the document he is describing, it was a memo written by General Schulgen in October of 1947. The purpose of the memo was to determine the current intelligence requirements in the field of Flying Saucer type aircraft.

The quote is one part of a section that starts with:


Commonly reported features that are very significant and which may aid in the investigation are as follows:

Note the "reported features" and not proven facts. They are just the reported observations, which are subject to error. Additionally, the section quoted has the following after it:

Under certain power conditions, the craft seems to have the ability to cut a clear path through clouds -- width of path estimated to be approximately one-half mile. Only one incident indicated this phenomenon.

Note the bolding.

The section most pertinent in this memo is this:

This strange object, or phenomenon, may be considered, in view of certain observations, as long-range aircraft capable of a high rate of climb, high cruising speed (possibly sub-sonic at all times) and highly maneuverable and capable of being flown in very tight formation. For the purpose of analysis and evaluation of the so-called "flying saucer" phenomenon, the object sighted is being assumed to be a manned aircraft, of Russian origin, and based on the perspective thinking and actual accomplishments of the Germans.

You can read this all yourself here:

http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/Schulgen.htm

As one can see, in 1947, the intelligence community was concerned the observations were of actual craft from the Soviet Union invading US Air space. This was duplicated in another intelligence document under the title of Air Intelligence study #203 Analysis of flying objects incidents in the US which was written in late 1948 (10 December 1948 even though the document states 1952 and 1949, the original was published then).

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1948air.htm

This is a top secret document and should mention alien spaceships if they actually believed the reports were of these. There is no mention of spaceships in this document. However, there is mention that the reports may be simple misperceptions of existing known craft and phenomenon.

Remember that it was only 6-7 years after Pearl Harbor and 2-3 after the war had ended. The cold war was starting and the USAF was concerned that these reports might mean the soviets were developing something that was superior to their own aircraft. They were not going to dismiss these reports away as misperceptions without some serious analysis of the reports. It was assumed they were somebody's aircraft but it did not mean they were actual craft.

Nice work again, sir.

Shame, Mr Ufology. Shame on you for attempting to deceive us.

 

[23_Tauri]

Astro,

Thanks for the above. Again I have to compliment you on the production of SUNlite. It's some of the the best presented skeptical input around.

Sycophancy will get you nowhere, Mr Uf. I have no idea what Astrophotographer thinks of your fawning, but to me it just looks pitiable.

 

[ehcks]

ehcks,

Thanks for making an excellent point. There is no reasonable way to back the claim that given the number and quality of reports that have accumulated that the margin of error is equal to or greater than 100%. Therefore there must be, among the reports someplace, at least one that represents an alien craft. <snip>

Whaaaaaaaat?

I do believe this is called a non sequitur, at best.

No. There is no "must be." It is absolutely not reasonable to assume that there must be an alien craft among a stack of thousands to millions of hoaxes and misidentifications.

And that's not what I was talking about anyway. All you need to do is show one alien spacecraft and you'll have everyone here cheering you on as you win a Nobel prize. If you can't show one, it is not reasonable to simply assume it must be here anyway.

 

[GeeMack]

Thanks for making an excellent point. There is no reasonable way to back the claim that given the number and quality of reports that have accumulated that the margin of error is equal to or greater than 100%. Therefore there must be, among the reports someplace, at least one that represents an alien craft. The problem is determining which ones those are on a case by case basis. That gets very difficult. One of the best I've seen so far is the 1952 DC RADAR/Visual intercept incident we've been discussing. I've heard more sesational accounts, but the DC case was so well publicized that claiming it didn't happen isn't reasonable, the specific incident within the larger flap was also well publicized and corroborated, it too is worth taking seriously. Still, even this incident isn't sufficient as proof ... only as evidence to take the claim of alien craft seriously enough to continue studying the various other reports, interviewing witnesses, watching the sky and so on.

Anita? Anita Ikonen? Is that you?

 

[John Albert]

There is no reasonable way to back the claim that given the number and quality of reports that have accumulated that the margin of error is equal to or greater than 100%. Therefore there must be, among the reports someplace, at least one that represents an alien craft.

The above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


Hey J. Randall Murphy, when are you going to address the substance of my previous posts?

The thing is, you don't know that you've seen an alien craft; you just believe you did. You saw what you saw—whatever it was—and assumed it was an alien spacecraft, when the simple fact is you have no possible way of knowing that whatever you saw was alien, or even a "craft" as such.

For all you know, it only appeared to be the size of two Volkswagens, and only appeared to perform the "extraordinary maneuvers" that you think you saw it perform, on the scale you believe it was. In reality, it might have actually been much smaller and closer than you think it was, and it might have even been a number of different objects that you unconsciously conflated into a single one. Your perception of the experience might have been erroneous, and of course your memory might also be completely distorted by countless re-tellings and mental revisions of the story over the past 40-some odd years.

Lots of posters in this thread are content to forward the (gently mocking) assumption that whatever you saw was a firefly, but I won't even go that far. While a firefly might certainly be a reasonable explanation under some circumstances, we have no way of knowing it was a firefly, any more than any other mundane phenomenon. There's simply not enough information to know for sure, and there certainly is no evidence to support the conclusion of anything extraordinary.

Even if indeed you saw exactly what you claim to have seen, then the best opinion you can offer about its identity with any degree of certainty is that it is unknown. And I don't mean "unknown" as in "something alien from another planet," nor "unknown" as in "something of non-human manufacture." I'm saying "unknown" in the classic English definition that you quite simply "don't know what the hell it was." You cannot make any such determination with any confidence because there's absolutely no evidence to support that determination. The total and complete lack of evidence that your "sighting" was an alien craft is roughly equivalent to the lack of evidence that it was a flying witch on a broomstick, a will 'o' the wisp, an angel, a portal to Hell, or anything else that has likewise never been shown to exist.

Of course, nothing's stopping you from making the assumption, or proverbial WAG ("wild-ass guess") that what you saw was an alien craft (or a witch, will 'o' the wisp, etc. for that matter), but you should at least have the forthrightness to admit that your conclusion is a "wild-ass guess" and not a certain fact. You should at the very least be able to acknowledge that neither you nor anyone else has any actual evidence on which to claim the existence of extraterrestrial life (let alone ET intelligence or technology). You should at least be honest enough to refrain from asserting this nonsense about "firsthand knowledge," and "scientific evidence" versus "anecdotal evidence." Evidence is evidence. Anecdotes do not constitute evidence. Anecdotes are claims, and claims do not represent evidence for themselves, no matter who's telling them. Evidence is the stuff that is required to validate claims.

The kind of analysis, logical weighing of evidence, and intellectual honesty that I just described is the fundamental procedure of critical thinking. It is the exact opposite of making determinations of unproven things without any evidence. It's also the basis of Dr. Sagan's ECREE quote, which is not, as you claim, a biased assumption, but the logical extent of critical analysis when applied to so-called "extraordinary" claims, ie. claims of the existence of things which have never been proven to exist.

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.

When are you going to respond to the charges that your claim about the Battelle study proving that some UFOs are alien craft is a bald-faced lie?

"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"

http://www.scribd.com/bren_burton/d...ion-The-Investigation-of-UFO-s-22nd-Sept-1993​