A Critical Examination of Randi’s Encyclopedia entry on UFOs [Archive]

Rramjet

6th December 2008, 03:11 PM

Randi’s article on UFOs is confused in purpose and misrepresents the nature and presentation of the phenomenon. First, the media did not “misinterpret” businessman/pilot Kenneth Arnold’s 25th June 1947 UFO sighting at all. Arnold variously stated that the objects he saw were “shaped like saucers”, saucer-like”, “shaped like a pie plate”, “like a big flat disk” and so on (quotes from late June 1947 newspaper reports). The media then simply coined the phrase “flying saucer” as a distillation of Arnold’s various descriptions – hardly the “misinterpretation” Randi claims. Arnold did however claim he had been misquoted in relation to the term “flying saucer” or “flying disk”, because he never used the terms himself (reference link disallowed).

Randi’s UFO entry continues “Since that time, endless reports of UFOs have come in…” - as if reports of UFOs began with Arnold’s sighting. This is disingenuous. UFO reports have been made since mankind was able to represent them – some more than 29000 years old (reference link disallowed) but reports certainly have proliferated since the earlier “Foo-fighters” of WWII.

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

Randi goes on “In most cases, sizes and distances have been given … It is an illusion most people have that they can tell the size and/or the distance of an object…” but remember that 61.6% of the “unknown” rated sightings were classified by the USAF as good or excellent. Randi is again spouting opinion from the top of his head with no substantiation in fact. Further, the estimated size or distance from the observer is often completely irrelevant, reported UFO encounters are by definition within the limits of human perception – otherwise they would not be reported at all! Randi is simply throwing in a red herring to discredit by association. A trick often used by those who have no evidence to support their own position.

Next we have Randi stating “The viewing of an unknown object or image in the sky has almost automatically brought in suggestions of extraterrestrial origins.” This is completely disingenuous. In fact very few UFO reports actually ascribe “extraterrestrial origins”. The reports themselves simply describe objects with unusual attributes. “Extraterrestrial” is a post hoc interpretation made for various reasons by various people and often it is people like Randi himself who ascribes such origins, using such ascriptions as a straw-man argument.

Almost to his credit (almost) Randi does then state that in essence UFOs are exactly as their name implies UNIDENTIFIED flying objects – however there is a whiff of the disingenuous even here because often the UFO phenomenon presents as if it does have an extraterrestrial origin, thus lending support to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (nevertheless noting that mere presentation is not proof of extraterrestrial origin).

Next Randi launches into a diatribe about alien abductions with “The current favorite UFO claim…”. Two points need to be made immediately. First, there is no compelling evidence that alien abductions are related to UFOs and second most certainly it is NOT a “favourite claim” made by UFO researchers at all. Randi really has no idea of what he is writing. The two fields are separate research topics (although not mutually exclusive). Randi scurrilously links the two in an effort to denigrate UFO reports and UFO reporters and researchers by association with what has become in the general public’s eye a completely unbelievable claim. Randi reinforces the ridiculous air surrounding alien abductions by a light hearted description of patent falsehoods. However it is an utter falsehood to claim that “abductees” report to the media or “delight to dwell” on certain aspects of the experience. In fact the whole experience most often proves so traumatic to the victim that most do not report the experience at all – even to close friends. It must be stressed here that to most “alien abductees” the experience is SEVERELY traumatic (reference link disallowed). For some it simply ruins their lives, for many it makes their lives very difficult to carry on normally. Like many victims of severe trauma they can become withdrawn and isolated, losing their jobs and relationships. To visit ridicule on these people on top of their trauma constitutes cruel and unusual treatment – in other words torture. Something undeniably traumatic is happening to these people, for which we have no current explanation, and it is other people like Randi who prevent these people gaining the obvious help they need in explaining and coming to terms with their experiences. We need research, not ridicule. For visiting ridicule Randi should be utterly ashamed of himself – but of course contrition or human empathy seems decidedly lacking from his dogma.

Penultimately, and again completely off the topic of UFOs, Randi ridicules two researchers who have put forward the hypothesis that “alien abductions” are in fact exactly that – alien abductions - and the purpose is to produce children. Of course Randi seems not to have the wit to propose his own counter-hypotheses for the phenomenon, choosing instead to believe that the abduction phenomenon might find explanation in an exposition about the Tooth Fairy. Randi’s descent into the ridiculous is becoming farcical.

Finally, in a throw-away concluding line, Randi states “many persons who believe they are abductees also believe they have lived former lives and can recall them.” This is a complete and utter falsehood (reference link disallowed ) and if I believed Randi actually knew better I would call him a LIAR at this point. However, I cannot because it is possible (even probable) Randi is completely ignorant of the facts. Whichever, either a LIAR or IGNORANT of the facts, Randi is evidently someone who we should not take notice of on (at least) the topic of UFOs and the abduction phenomenon.

Rodney

6th December 2008, 07:36 PM

Excellent review, Rramjet. One troubling thing about Randi is how often he manages to misstate simple facts. For example, his Encyclopedia entry on Edgar Cayce informs the reader of the "more than thirty thousand readings he did that are on file at the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia." And yet, if he had taken the time to go to the A.R.E. website, he would find: "Members of Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.), the nonprofit founded by Cayce in 1931, have access to the entire set of 14,306 readings in a database residing in the member-only section of our Web site." See http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgar_cayce/edgarcayce.aspx?id=206

Gord_in_Toronto

6th December 2008, 07:56 PM

Randi’s article on UFOs is confused in purpose and misrepresents the nature and presentation of the phenomenon. First, the media did not “misinterpret” businessman/pilot Kenneth Arnold’s 25th June 1947 UFO sighting at all. Arnold variously stated that the objects he saw were “shaped like saucers”, saucer-like”, “shaped like a pie plate”, “like a big flat disk” and so on (quotes from late June 1947 newspaper reports). The media then simply coined the phrase “flying saucer” as a distillation of Arnold’s various descriptions – hardly the “misinterpretation” Randi claims. Arnold did however claim he had been misquoted in relation to the term “flying saucer” or “flying disk”, because he never used the terms himself (reference link disallowed).

Arnold saw pelicans. This has been known for close to a decade.
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/9ba941e5b779ee2a/7f6677791eac9b1a?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=easton#7f6677791eac9b1a

Deal with it.

Randi’s UFO entry continues “Since that time, endless reports of UFOs have come in…” - as if reports of UFOs began with Arnold’s sighting. This is disingenuous. UFO reports have been made since mankind was able to represent them – some more than 29000 years old (reference link disallowed) but reports certainly have proliferated since the earlier “Foo-fighters” of WWII.

People see things in the sky. So?

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

And yet. And yet. No one has come up with an incontrovertible case with multiple photos from different directions in daylight.

Randi goes on “In most cases, sizes and distances have been given … It is an illusion most people have that they can tell the size and/or the distance of an object…” but remember that 61.6% of the “unknown” rated sightings were classified by the USAF as good or excellent. Randi is again spouting opinion from the top of his head with no substantiation in fact. Further, the estimated size or distance from the observer is often completely irrelevant, reported UFO encounters are by definition within the limits of human perception – otherwise they would not be reported at all! Randi is simply throwing in a red herring to discredit by association. A trick often used by those who have no evidence to support their own position.

There are hundreds of reports of completely and utterly debunked "UFO" reports where it can be shown that misunderstanding of distance is an important, but not sole, criteria in providing a mundane explanation.

Next we have Randi stating “The viewing of an unknown object or image in the sky has almost automatically brought in suggestions of extraterrestrial origins.” This is completely disingenuous. In fact very few UFO reports actually ascribe “extraterrestrial origins”. The reports themselves simply describe objects with unusual attributes. “Extraterrestrial” is a post hoc interpretation made for various reasons by various people and often it is people like Randi himself who ascribes such origins, using such ascriptions as a straw-man argument.

UFO has become a synonym for "alien space craft". This not Randi's fault.

Almost to his credit (almost) Randi does then state that in essence UFOs are exactly as their name implies UNIDENTIFIED flying objects – however there is a whiff of the disingenuous even here because often the UFO phenomenon presents as if it does have an extraterrestrial origin, thus lending support to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (nevertheless noting that mere presentation is not proof of extraterrestrial origin).

Err. Yes. At least as far as your conclusion goes.

Next Randi launches into a diatribe about alien abductions with “The current favorite UFO claim…”. Two points need to be made immediately. First, there is no compelling evidence that alien abductions are related to UFOs and second most certainly it is NOT a “favourite claim” made by UFO researchers at all. Randi really has no idea of what he is writing. The two fields are separate research topics (although not mutually exclusive). Randi scurrilously links the two in an effort to denigrate UFO reports and UFO reporters and researchers by association with what has become in the general public’s eye a completely unbelievable claim. Randi reinforces the ridiculous air surrounding alien abductions by a light hearted description of patent falsehoods. However it is an utter falsehood to claim that “abductees” report to the media or “delight to dwell” on certain aspects of the experience. In fact the whole experience most often proves so traumatic to the victim that most do not report the experience at all – even to close friends. It must be stressed here that to most “alien abductees” the experience is SEVERELY traumatic (reference link disallowed). For some it simply ruins their lives, for many it makes their lives very difficult to carry on normally. Like many victims of severe trauma they can become withdrawn and isolated, losing their jobs and relationships. To visit ridicule on these people on top of their trauma constitutes cruel and unusual treatment – in other words torture. Something undeniably traumatic is happening to these people, for which we have no current explanation, and it is other people like Randi who prevent these people gaining the obvious help they need in explaining and coming to terms with their experiences. We need research, not ridicule. For visiting ridicule Randi should be utterly ashamed of himself – but of course contrition or human empathy seems decidedly lacking from his dogma.

Randi tends to lump all woo together. It's an occupational hazard.

If the poor people who get brainwashed into believing they were abducted, whet instead to a Regression Therapy Therapist they would all believe they were mistreated as children. They are wrong in both cases. Just even a tiny bit of supporting evidence would be nice.

Penultimately, and again completely off the topic of UFOs, Randi ridicules two researchers who have put forward the hypothesis that “alien abductions” are in fact exactly that – alien abductions - and the purpose is to produce children. Of course Randi seems not to have the wit to propose his own counter-hypotheses for the phenomenon, choosing instead to believe that the abduction phenomenon might find explanation in an exposition about the Tooth Fairy. Randi’s descent into the ridiculous is becoming farcical.

Given we are the product of a few billion years of evolution on this planet, the chances that a human being could be bred with an a non Terran being are close to zero. The Tooth Fairy is at least believed to have been born here.

Finally, in a throw-away concluding line, Randi states “many persons who believe they are abductees also believe they have lived former lives and can recall them.” This is a complete and utter falsehood (reference link disallowed ) and if I believed Randi actually knew better I would call him a LIAR at this point. However, I cannot because it is possible (even probable) Randi is completely ignorant of the facts. Whichever, either a LIAR or IGNORANT of the facts, Randi is evidently someone who we should not take notice of on (at least) the topic of UFOs and the abduction phenomenon.

Sorry all I can say at this point is, "HA. HA".

Oh, and here are some flying pigs for you. :D

[marque]
:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly[marque]

Ernie M

6th December 2008, 08:19 PM

Rramjet
Can you please clarify what you mean when you state "(reference link disallowed)." If you are trying to include a link to an external Webpage and aren't able to make an active link because you don't have enough posts, you can always indicate the site by using a format similar to:

www dot randi dot org / site

And, you can ask another JREF Forum member if they might be willing to make an active link like:

http://www.randi.org/site/

Rodney
Just a suggestion, if you notice what may be inaccurate information, such as the number of Edgar Cayce's readings in the Encylcopedia, you could always send an e-mail to James Randi or call the JREF so they can verify this and make appropriate updates.

Rramjet

6th December 2008, 11:14 PM

CFLarsen

7th December 2008, 01:36 AM

How can the media not have misinterpreted Arnold, when they misquoted him wrt the term he used?

What records do we have of UFOs that are 29000 years old? Cave paintings? We know extremely little of their world, and we certainly can't take the painting to accurately depict reality. Otherwise, cavemen had really big schlongs!

Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. There is a clear distinction between earlier reports and Arnold's and subsequent reports, inasmuch as the latter were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.

It is very accurate to say that most of the UFO sightings were mundane and relatively mundane events. Balloons, astronomical, aircraft and misc. make up the majority of sightings.

Additionally, it wasn't 21.5% which were classified as unknown, but about 6 percent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book)

The unknowns are classified as such precisely because there isn't enough information. An example:

Sept. 3, 1947; Oswego, Oregon. 12:15 p.m. PDT. Witness: housewife Mrs. Raymond Dupui. Watched for unknown length of time as 12-15 round, silver objects flew an unstated pattern.

What to make of that? She doesn't know for how long she watched, she is not sure of the number of objects, and she didn't know in which pattern they were flying. We don't know in which direction she was looking, we don't know what the weather was like, we don't know how far away the objects were. We know virtually nothing. To me, that spells one hell of a bad witness.

It is absolutely correct that people are not very good at telling the size and/or distance of an object, especially if they have no frame of reference.

How big is the sphere in each of these three examples?

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/ufo03.jpg http://www.skepticreport.com/images/ufo02.jpg http://www.skepticreport.com/images/ufo04.jpg

It depends on what we compare it to. In the first example, the sphere seems pretty small, where the second sphere could be huge and far away - or very small and very close. It is impossible to determine the size of the third sphere.

The size and distance is by definition crucial to determining what people saw.

Klass' UFOlogical Principles (http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/klass10ufo.htm)

People have been so conditioned by popular culture that they will think of alien spaceships when they see some object in the sky they don't understand the nature of. The post WWII UFO craze received a lot of media attention and the eager public lapped it up. And why not? It was one hell of a story: Aliens visit us! WOW!

First, UFOs make up a considerable part of a lot of the alien abduction stories. The most famous one, Betty and Barney Hill (http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/bbhill.htm), sparked the abduction craze, just as Arnold's report sparked the UFO craze.

In fact, the CUFOS Definition of an Abductee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction) clearly states that:

The beings must take the person to:
* An enclosed place.
* Not terrestrial in appearance.
* Assumed or known to be an alien spacecraft by the witness.

Those abductees who go to the press definitely delight to dwell on certain aspects of the experience. They get attention, and that's a really nice thing to have. That some don't realize how much impact media attention can have on their lives is no fault of Randi's.

We do have explanations of alien abduction: Dreaming, fantasy, false memory syndrome, etc. Since nobody has ever managed to bring back any physical evidence of their abduction, there is no reason to think that there aren't perfectly natural explanations.

Randi's comment:

The opinion of Mack and Jacobs on the Tooth Fairy was not revealed.

is absolutely spot-on: If they don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, why not? There are also reports on the Toot Fairy, in very much the same manner as alien abduction stories are told: At night, strange creatures, etc. The thing that distinguishes the Tooth Fairy is that she actually leaves evidence: A coin for each tooth. We see no such evidence when it comes to alien abductions.

There is nothing in Randi's entry that is false or inaccurate.

Rramjet

7th December 2008, 07:10 AM

How can the media not have misinterpreted Arnold, when they misquoted him wrt the term he used?

CFLarsen, it constantly amazes me that people who purport to “pay attention” so misunderstand the meaning of words and sentences.

To clarify: Misrepresent means to represent wrongly or give a false account of. In this context the term “flying saucer” or “flying disc” are not misrepresentations of Arnold’s descriptions, clearly they are descriptors which sum Arnold’s various descriptive quotes neatly and cleverly. Arnold however claimed he was “misquoted” apparently because he felt some reports had him stating the terms himself as quotes – this is incorrect. All the reports (as far as I can tell) actually quoted Arnold correctly – It was the headlines that contained the disputed terms.

What records do we have ... Cave paintings? We ... certainly can't take the painting to accurately depict reality. Otherwise, cavemen had really big schlongs!

We do not need the cave paintings, hieroglyphs, etc to provide a precise, accurate rendering of reality to understand what they are depicting. To descend to your level of crudeness (I find both yours and Randi’s obsession with genitalia curious…) it is not the size of the “schlong” that matters, it is the fact that it IS a “schlong” that we understand.

Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. ... Arnold's and subsequent reports, ... were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.

Two points about the beginning of the popularisation of UFO reporting. First the term “flying saucer” was coined by a farmer named Martin half a century before 1947, but was not popularised until Arnold’s 1947 sighting (1978, A. J. Hyneck. The Hynek UFO Report, p.12). The second is that there was a considerable 1897-98 UFO “flap” in the US, there were the foo-fighters of WWII over Europe and there was the Scandinavian “ghost rockets of 1946, all popularised in the press of the times, before Arnold’s 1947 sighting and subsequent events.

Both the nuclear age and the cold war began in 1945, a full two years before Arnold’s sighting. Not quite so “nicely tied” as you make out.

Additionally, it wasn't 21.5% which were classified as unknown, but about 6 percent.

Blue Book Special Report No. 14 , commissioned by the USAF to be an entirely independent study of some of the best (those that came primarily through military channels) Blue Book UFO reports, did indeed find 21.5% unknowns. It remains the largest such study even to this date. You are confusing subsequent analyses of Blue Book reports by private enterprises when citing the 6% figure. In fact A J Hynek conducted an analysis of 10,675 Blue Book cases (of the original 13,134 that had sufficient information) and concluded that 5.8% “remain unidentified” (1978, p. 264) – that's some 640 cases.

The unknowns are classified as such precisely because there isn't enough information. An example:

The unknowns were classified precisely because there WAS sufficient information – remember in Special Report No. 14 AND Hyneks CUFOS study, the “insufficient information” reports were separated out as a category unto themselves. Indeed Hynek asks “And how many cases which are classified ‘insufficient information’ might actually have been placed in the ‘Unidentified’ category had further investigation been made?” (1978, p. 264).

Moreover - Anyone can find a UFO report with insufficient information to be properly classified – but that kind of report is NOT what we are talking about here, often the UFO reports classified as “Unidentified” run to pages of very precise information. You are simply being mischievous (I try to be polite:)) by presenting the UFO report you did – especially with no reference to state whether it came from a reputable source or not.

It is absolutely correct that people are not very good at telling the size and/or distance of an object, especially if they have no frame of reference.
...The size and distance is by definition crucial to determining what people saw.

Your depiction of the silver sphere does not need a size or a distance for me to know it is not an astronomical object, nor a meteorite, airplane or any other “mundane” thing. It could be (and looks for all the world like) either a photo of a steel ball that has been “Photoshopped” into position in the three pictures OR a ball entirely manufactured in Photoshop. I did not need either size or distance information to recognise it for what it is and what it is not. Size and distance are therefore not particularly crucial determinants (although such information is good to have when reliably available!)

Klass' UFOlogical Principles...

The fallacies in Klass’ so called “UFO principles” should be patently obvious to any critical thinker or student of logic and should not need pointing out to any sceptic worth the label. If you however you do not understand critical thinking or logic I will happily oblige to point out the fallacies for you – just ask – but I am sure you can work them out for yourself…

“Abduction craze”? “UFO craze”? “Hell of a story”? etc… Do you read back and cringe at your own use of language sometimes - or are you so permanently biased against critical thinking and the powers of logic and evidence that you must use denigrating language rather than real argument and properly constituted evidence to make your points?

We do have explanations of alien abduction: Dreaming, fantasy, false memory syndrome, etc.

Perhaps, but none of them have been tested in a scientific setting. Would you agree that these hypotheses should be tested before making pronouncements as to their veracity or applicability to the subject – or do you just take a leap of faith and not worry about science, evidence or critical thinking?

Randi's comment:... is absolutely spot-on: ... The thing that distinguishes the Tooth Fairy is that she actually leaves evidence: A coin for each tooth. We see no such evidence when it comes to alien abductions.

Have you ever personally seen a Tooth fairy or know of anyone who has reported seeing one or any reliable source containing a serious report of the Tooth Fairy? No? I did not think so. Perhaps you should think about things for a little bit before committing your fallacious thinking to print.

There is nothing in Randi's entry that is false or inaccurate.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. :)

Gord_in_Toronto

7th December 2008, 12:57 PM

Thank you Rodney. :)

Gord in Toronto…Arnold saw “pelicans”? Hmmm… I must inform you that actually you did not see my post. You really saw some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that I randomly placed on a JREF webpage. You must have interpreted them to mean something they actually do not, no doubt a psychological response to some mindset or other you have. I am sorry you have this problem… but I suppose you must deal with it as best you can though.

So you did not read the post at the url I posted did you?

Go here:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.skeptic/msg/1b43f91e0f909398?hl=en&&q=%22Voyager+Newsletter%22
and read the entire thread.

Arnold's description of what he saw matches exactly the profile American White Pelicans in flight. The main thing Arnold was wrong on was their distance. He thought they flew behind a mountain because the "disappeared" behind it. In actual fact they "disappeared" because they flew into the mountain's shadow and ceased to be lit from the sunlight relecting from the snow below.

Mock me as you will. I have evidence and truth on my side.

“People see things in the sky.”
Yes Gord, that is the whole point - and they tend to record them as accurately as they can - and along with the birds and meteors and other celestial and planetary bodies there are recorded… UFOs… literally UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. That is, we CANNOT identify them using our current state of knowledge. Perhaps if we were allowed to conduct a little research…? But no, how silly of me, we must maintain our heads firmly in the sand lest perhaps we find something that does not fit our conception of reality – something that may contradict our faith perhaps?

Most, probably all, of the Objects that Cannot be Identified are unidentifiable because the evidence provided is insufficient to draw a conclusion. In the cases where there is enough evidence, the explanations are mundane.

I don't know about "we" conducting research but no one has stopped MUFON from doing such for close to 40 years.

“…incontrovertible …photos…”
Hmmm, there are PLENTY of photos – including official USAF RADAR imaging – but I suspect no photos will satisfy you (considering the advent PhotoShop and all…). Moreover, it is a common trick of the dogmatists to require standards of evidence practically impossible to meet and yet not required of the rest of science.There are no photos in sufficient number, of sufficient quality, with accurate locations and time, taken in daylight that have been produced that prove anything abnormal. If you think you have such a case, let's see it.

“There are hundreds of reports of completely and utterly debunked…”
Of course there are. There are also hundreds not able to be “debunked”, as you put it, so where does that leave your objection Gord?Because the others have insufficient independent evidence. If I say I saw a "light in the sky" last night that I cannot explain, that gets added to the list of UFOs. Without time, direction, colour, apparent speed, apparent height, the height of the clouds, the clouds cover of the sky, the upper air temperatures (for the possibility of an inversion), etc how is anyone to figure out I saw, say, Skylab?

“UFO has become a synonym for "alien space craft". This not Randi’s fault.”
I agree, it may not be Randi’s fault, but he is at least a co-conspirator in maintaining the link. Any critical thinker, given the UFO reports as a starting point, would immediately realise the error of this “alien” attribution. Perhaps neither you nor Randi are critical thinkers?It's still not Randi's fault or mine. As to whether Randi is a critical thinker, I'll leave that for others to decide.

“Randi tends to lump all woo together.”
This is hardly a sound defence of Randi’s methodology. I suspect even Randi himself would shy away from publicly using this as a defence of his sceptical methodology and would probably not appreciate others using it on his behalf… (although muddying the waters with irrelevancies does seem to be somewhat a specialty of his…)Randi has a long long history of being correct. And you have?

“Given we are the product of a few billion years of evolution on this planet, the chances that a human being could be bred with an a non Terran being are close to zero. The Tooth Fairy is at least believed to have been born here.”
Ah… now Gord we have your Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything - But how do you know that we were not actually bred by the aliens originally and are thus designed to be eminently compatible? Until we are allowed to investigate and falsify such theories about so called alien intervention, this theory has just as much weight as your own. …and as for the Tooth Fairy… what is it exactly you are implying here? That you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Go and read some basic biology. And then apply Occam's Razor. I believe the Tooth Fairy arrived in a Flying Saucer and lives under Mount Shasta. Can you debunk that?

“HA HA”?
Well, there is a cogent argument if I ever saw one. I wish all people could argue as intelligently as that Gord. There would be no annoying debate at all to distract us from our respective faiths…
HA. Ha.

…and flying pigs? Are you implying you have IDENTIFIED UFOs as flying pigs? Perhaps you should write a paper and publish it in a peer reviewed journal, the world will be relieved to find out they have been viewing a new genus in the family Suidae (looks related to the Sus genus?).You don't like flying pigs? How about a free trip to Tralfamadore then?

:alien011:

CFLarsen

7th December 2008, 02:36 PM

Arnold was definitely misrepresented. His own words were:

"flat like a pie pan and so shiny they reflected the sun in a mirror"

"like speedboats on rough water"

"they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water"

Arnold speaks in analogies: He clearly doesn't understand what he is seeing, so he tries to explain it by referring to something that he and other people will understand.

The press, however, took his "like a saucer" and presented it as if he said they were saucers.

We can't know exactly how cave men thought: We can't take paintings and interpret them with our eyes. E.g., we know very little about their mythology or their symbolism.

Hieroglyphs are not 29000 years old. They started as depictions of what they were explaining, but soon developed into a highly stylized and symbolized writing system.

I have never had an obsession with genitalia, nor have I noticed one such with Randi. I mentioned it once - and once does not an obsession make.

It makes all the difference in the world if the size matters: They may have depicted a sphere in the sky, but there is a huge difference if they depicted a sphere the size of a bright planet, or the size of the moon.

UFOs - as in the "unidentified flying object" sense - have been reported in all of mankind's history. It is however with Arnold's account that the UFO-as-alien-spaceships mythology begins to take off in earnest.

Two years time is not a long time, considering that mass media was nowhere as quick as we have become accustomed to today.

It is telling that both 5.8% and 21% are described as unknowns. Of course, unknown does not equate alien spaceships.

There is an important point about the unidentified cases: If all but 6% of observations are later identified, it speaks clearly of how poor people's perception is. We can not rely on what people say.

The depiction of the silver sphere in the three photos was not made using Photoshop, but a 3D graphics program. That it can be interpreted as a photo of a steel ball is further evidence that people's perception is not the correct one.

The three photos make it crystal clear that size and distance are absolutely crucial determinants. Either the sphere is huge or small.

It should be noted that the UFO principles from Klass has been dismissed, but without any explanation. That is a true sign of believer behavior.

It should also be noted that both myself and Randi was accused of having an "obsession with genitalia" - an obvious attempt of using denigrating language to discredit persons - and not arguments.

Dreaming, fantasy, and false memory syndrome have absolutely been tested in a scientific setting. E.g. False Memory Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome) has been studied by people like Elizabeth Loftus.

Many people have reported seeing the Tooth Fairy, and certainly a lot more have found evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy: Namely, by the coin left in place of the tooth.

That is far above anything else than any alien abductee or UFO-as-in-alien-spaceship has ever been able to.

Rramjet

7th December 2008, 04:41 PM

So you did not read the post at the url I posted did you?
Oh dear Gord – don’t you understand irony? I did visit the site(s) you pointed me toward and found it (them – actually the same site) so full of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and misquotes I thought it not worth following up. I see now that was my mistake. You clearly have not researched what Arnold ACTUALLY said about his experience in interviews at the time AND in his books otherwise you would have known what a spurious load of old crock both these articles are.

I’ll provide an example. The very first paragraph in the second sci.skeptic article should have had your alarm bells ringing immediately (that is of course had you bothered to research the basic facts). James Easton states of Arnold “…he never actually described 'saucer' shaped objects at all…” But Gord, What part of Arnold’s descriptive “shaped like saucers” does not depict a “saucer shaped” object?

Here is a clear case of “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up” dogmatism if I ever saw it. After such an false and inauspicious beginning are you really suggesting we take the rest of the article on faith (Easton provides no references, page numbers etc for his supposed quotes). C’mon Gord, if you want to play in the sandbox you’ll have to do better than that.

Not to be phased, Easton has a SECOND attempt at “debunking Arnold’s claims in a separate article (but the same website – the first link you provided) …then curiously, while the article carries Easton’s name at its head, further down the article we find that this piece was NOT actually written by Easton but by someone quoting Easton… notwithstanding, the article continues by speculating at length what Arnold saw was pelicans.

Presumably this explanation came to mind because Arnold himself considered the bird hypothesis BUT RULED IT OUT. However, Arnold’s descriptions of the objects were precise enough to conclude that he saw them from a distance of some 23-25 miles, that they were some 140-280 feet in size and travelling at between 1200-1700 mph. Pelicans? (Perhaps along with your new genus of pigs we can add “Super Pelican?)

On Arnold himself we have “Arnold had the makings of a reliable witness. He was a respected businessman and experienced pilot ... and seemed to be neither exaggerating what he had seen, nor adding sensational details to his report. He also gave the impression of being a careful observer ... These details impressed the newspapermen who interviewed him and lent credibility to his report.” (en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Kenneth _ Arnold)

Further, there were independent corroborations of Arnold’s sighting (en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Kenneth _ Arnold).

It is easy to SPECULATE on what others saw and to try and fit their descriptions into your preconceived notions - but the simple facts in the case seem to rule out birds of any description, let alone pelicans. Simply to state Arnold was mistaken in his observations and it MUST have been something else that he saw is pure speculation. Then to hold this speculation out as somehow proven fact is intellectually dishonest.

Of course, in the field of UFO research, any individual case can be picked to bits by simply stating the observer was mistaken. This is an old trick, which is why I originally provided my “hieroglyph” example for you (the point of which you missed altogether). No, it is the WEIGHT of evidence that must be accounted for. If Arnold’s was the ONLY UFO sighting case, then the debunkers might be onto something, unfortunately for them (and you Gord) it is NOT the only case.

Mock me as you will. I have evidence and truth on my side
But Gord, it is you who is mocking me, not the other way ‘round. (remember your “Deal with it”, your “HA HA”, and your flying pigs…etc) This is an old politician’s trick, accuse the other fellow of what you yourself are doing. You need to lift your game if you want to play with the big boys in the real world Gord.

Most, probably all, of the Objects that Cannot be Identified are unidentifiable because the evidence provided is insufficient to draw a conclusion.
You don’t seem to comprehend written English very well Gord. In the examples I posted (Special Project No. 14 and Hynek’s CUFOS study), the “Insufficient information” cases were discarded BEFORE attempting to classify the rest. The “Unknown” classified cases did contain a wealth of descriptive (and other) information. How many times must I repeat this information?

I don't know about "we" conducting research but no one has stopped MUFON from doing such for close to 40 years.
Don’t be obtuse Gord. I am talking about seriously funded, peer reviewed, scientific research. You know full well that the efforts of the “debunkers” have muddied the waters to such an extent that serious UFO research cannot attract proper funding.

There are no photos in sufficient number, of sufficient quality, with accurate locations and time, taken in daylight that have been produced that prove anything abnormal. If you think you have such a case, let's see it.
You want photos? Try www . ufoevidence . org / photographs / photohome . asp. (you will have to remove the spaces before attempting to access the link)

If I say I saw a "light in the sky" last night that I cannot explain, that gets added to the list of UFOs. Without time, direction, colour, apparent speed, apparent height, the height of the clouds, the clouds cover of the sky, the upper air temperatures (for the possibility of an inversion), etc how is anyone to figure out I saw, say, Skylab?

Geez Gord. “I saw a light in the sky” IS a case where there is insufficient evidence to form a conclusion. If you added all the other descriptors and STILL could not understand what you saw then it would be classified as Unidentified. Please stop being so obtuse Gord. It is becoming boring.

It's still not Randi's fault or mine.
Ughhh… (frustration). I stated that Randi was a “co-conspirator” in maintaining the “alien” attribution to UFO sightings. That makes him at least partially at fault. An unbiased investigator, using the tools of critical thinking, formal logic and the scientific method, taking the UFO reports as initial conditions, would NOT attribute “aliens” without proper investigation. They MIGHT put it forward as an untested hypothesis, but they would also put forward hallucination, and mistaken identity etc.

Randi has a long long history of being correct. And you have?
What has this got to do with the argument? Another trick of those bereft of critical thinking and logic skills is to change the subject and attack the person rather than the argument. Poor form Gord. Poor form.

Go and read some basic biology. And then apply Occam's Razor. I believe the Tooth Fairy arrived in a Flying Saucer and lives under Mount Shasta. Can you debunk that?

What IS it with you and the Tooth fairy? I can also guarantee that my qualifications in genetics are impeccable and would probably surprise you. As to Occam’s razor … it is merely an aphorism, not a hard and fast rule of scientific methodology.

And (to paraphrase Gord) finally I present my concluding statements…

“HA. Ha” and “You don't like flying pigs? How about a free trip to Tralfamadore then?”

Oh, such very persuasive, critically thought out and logically cohesive arguments Gord. You must have studied long and hard to reach such lofty levels of discourse.

This post started as a critique of Randi’s UFO entry in his encyclopedia. It was not my intention to defend Kenneth Arnold’s claim, merely to point out where Randi was incorrect in what he wrote about it. I merely have an interest in the FACTS. I pointed out that Randi was mistaken in his representation of the FACTS in his UFO article. If you can show me that Randi was NOT mistaken, then you will have refuted my position and I would have to retract my arguments. You seem however to be bent on distracting the argument away from its fundamental premise that Randi is either a liar or ignorant of the facts concerning UFOs and alien abductions. I have stated my case and have yet to see any cogent argument in rebuttal.

calebprime

7th December 2008, 05:19 PM

Gord_in_Toronto

7th December 2008, 06:49 PM

<snip>

Mr Ramjet. You do think an awful lot of yourself; don't you?

You are not the Roger Ramjet I once knew:
Roger Ramjet, he's our man
Hero of our nation
For his adventures just be sure
And stay tuned to this station As Arnold said:
Another characteristic of these craft that made a tremendous impression on me was how they fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their surfaces. At the time I did not get the impression that these flashes were emitted by them, but rather that it was the sun's reflection from the extremely highly polished surface of their wings.See 'wings"? The description matches pelicans in flight. It does not match saucers. Arnold did not call them saucers. He said:
They looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear.You should really read the wiki site you reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold#Corroboration
Years later, Arnold claimed he told Bill Bequette that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." Arnold felt that he had been misquoted since the description referred to the objects' motion rather than their shape. Thus Bequette has often been credited with first using "flying saucer" and supposedly misquoting Arnold, but the term does not appear in Bequette's early articles. Instead, his first article of June 25 says only, "He said he sighted nine saucer-like aircraft flying in formation..."
The next day in a much more detailed article, Bequette wrote, "He clung to his story of shiny, flat objects racing over the Cascade mountains with a peculiar weaving motion ‘like the tail of a Chinese kite.' ...He also described the objects as 'saucer-like' and their motion 'like fish flipping in the sun.' ...[Arnold] described the objects as 'flat like a pie-pan and somewhat bat-shaped'." It wasn't until June 28 that Bequette first used the term "flying disc" (but not "flying saucer").
The so called independent confirmation of what Arnold saw is all post facto (As Randi has shown, you can get such "confirmation" of just about any nonsense that you report). What part of the observation from the only actually known present witness in the area at the time do you not understand?
However, a pilot of a DC-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-4) some 10 to 15 miles north of Arnold en route to Seattle reported seeing nothing unusual. (This was the same DC-4 seen by Arnold and which he used for size comparison.)As far as http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp
is concerned. I went through a few dozen of the "Best Photographs" and there is nothing there that is convincing. More details and independent observations of the same event are required to draw any conclusions at all. You know like we have with the "Phoenix Lights".

You have addressed nothing in my posts at all in any sensible manner. If you don't want to deal with me, then at least read what Mr Lawsen has to say.

Hindmost

7th December 2008, 07:21 PM

Rramjet, I will be happy to discuss this issue with you. However, all we have is your disagreement with Randi and "disallowed" links such as:

Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

Please post the links as previously stated and I will discuss each issue. Otherwise this will just get unnecessarily contentious without solid evidence.

For you to disagree with Randi so strongly, I am guessing that you must believe that the planet has been visited in the past. Although I am open to the possibility, I don't believe it has occured due to the evidence.

SETI has peered into the universe for quite sometime. Not a single EM wave that has any intelligence attached to it has been discovered. EM waves are a distinct sign of technology.

Examination of stars within 50 light years has found a few planets, but the distances to these close stars are still immense. The energy required to get between the stars is just incredible. The nearest star...proxima centuari is about 7000 times further away than Pluto. The energy requirements would fill planet earth.

Need to solve these issues with evidence first.

glenn

Rramjet

7th December 2008, 11:03 PM

Okay CFLarson – it is obvious we will never agree on this matter. You obviously have a closed mind and the facts will never penetrate it. I will simply point you to some of the original sources.

1. Arnold tells the story in his own words to the AF (12th July 1947)
www . project 1947 . com/fig/ka . htm
2. Arnold’s interview with Ed Murrow (broadcast 7th April 1950)
www . project1947 . com/fig/kamurrow . htm
3. Arnold’s assessment by Frank Brown S/A CIC 4TH AF, the officer in charge regarding the 12th July 1947 interview.
www . project1947 . com/fig/kabrown . htm
4. Arnold’s first radio interview (25th June 1947) – see Appendix 1 - and a complete analysis of the whole story.
Brumac . 8k . com/KARNOLD/KARNOLD . html

Anyone interested should study these documents and make up their own minds, as they are transcripts etc from ORIGINAL source material, something even Wikipedia cannot claim to present (LOL).

“We can't take paintings and interpret them with our eyes”
You had no problems identifying the “schlong” though…

“I have never had an obsession with genitalia” (and later) “It should also be noted that both myself and Randi was accused of having an "obsession with genitalia" - an obvious attempt of using denigrating language to discredit persons - and not arguments.”
How does it feel to be on the receiving end of Randi’s own methodology?

“Hieroglyphs are not 29000 years old”
I never stated they were. Perhaps you utilise the Straw man argument so often that it has become second nature to you?

“If all but 6% of observations are later identified, it speaks clearly of how poor people's perception is. We can not rely on what people say.”
You are utterly confused about what a UFO report is. It consists of people’s descriptions about what they saw. That 94% of those descriptions in Blue Book were accurate enough to enable investigators to ascribe mundane explanations (balloons, airplanes, etc) speaks of the indelible ACCURACY of how people describe what they see.

“The depiction of the silver sphere in the three photos was not made using Photoshop, but a 3D graphics program. That it can be interpreted as a photo of a steel ball is further evidence that people's perception is not the correct one.”
But I correctly labeled it as a steel ball having likely been created in a graphics program… and I am certainly no expert, not even having such a program on my computer and never having used one I still came to the conclusion that it was likely done this way… people are in fact very good at observing and describing what they see. There are of course some well known perceptual biases, but as long as we understand and account for these, we can generally be confident that whatever has our attention, we can describe in quite accurate detail. It is a giant red herring that the dogmatic debunkers put out that humans are on the verge of hallucinating every time we look at something. It is just plain wrong and leads to a misperception about what we as humans are actually quite good at. It is frustrating that people who claim to uphold the principles of scientific methodology and critical thinking use such fallacies to indoctrinate ever more people into believing a falsehood.

“It should be noted that the UFO principles from Klass has been dismissed, but without any explanation”
Oh dear, are you really that ignorant of logic, critical thinking and scientific methodology that you cannot see where Klass’ fallacies lie? Okay, just for you I can see I will have to begin a new thread to tackle that issue. I will have it ready in a day or so…

Elizabeth Loftus? She originally worked with false memories in abused children. I think it would be wise for you to actually read the articles she has published on what false memories actually are and how they are created. (faculty dot Washington dot edu/eloftus/) It is QUITE obvious you have not done so, otherwise you would not mention it in this context. This is SO annoying - People who think that they can know about something without studying the facts! You and Randi seem to be peas in a pod in this respect. Wikipedia is NOT a good source for accurate information when in this type of argument. You MUST go to the original. Get your facts straight before committing pen to paper (or text to websites) – if you do not, sooner or later you WILL be found out and undone. I HAVE actually read many of Loftus’ articles. YOU need to do the same and THEN come back and tell me how they relate to UFO sightings.

Regarding the Tooth fairy I asked you some very specific questions. That you did not answer them tells me that you have conceded my point. Yet even while doing so you cannot help yourself but to try and pile more nonsense about it onto the page. This is also a favourite trick of you types (dogmatists) – just keep on piling on the nonsense - in the face of all the evidence that you are spouting utter BS just keep applying it – even if it has NOTHING to do with the subject under discussion. Forget rational argument. Forget the facts. Forget logic and critical thinking. Forget scientific methodology. Just pile on the BS and keep piling it on until everyone is buried under a mountain of it. Yes, THAT is the way toward an enlightened society. Huh! You should be ashamed.

I originally came to this forum expecting some open minded, intelligent, critical thinking in response to my assertions. I can see now that I was severely mistaken. The people here do not seem to care for logic, critical thinking or scientific methodology. Rather they seem to be involved in a faith based cult of some sort where the rules of evidence do not apply. It is disappointing to say the least.

Hindmost… I will post all the links you ask for ASAP but for now I have to fly - but FYI - I have NO opinion on whether we are, or have been, visited by “aliens” - NONE whatsoever. I DO think SETI is an absolute waste of time and money. And (unlike you) I DO NOT think that physics is a DEAD subject with no new discoveries to come. I have not the time to explain all that now. Later…

CFLarsen

8th December 2008, 01:25 AM

I am very aware of the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience. Not merely websites, but also books, articles, interviews, etc.

The point of the schlong was to show that we cannot take their images for the meaning we give them. Did they actually have that long schlongs, were they wearing phalli - or maybe the depictions are of aliens with long schlongs? Why even assume they are humans from Earth?

"He did it first" is an inane and immature approach.

Why bring up hieroglyphs in the same breath as cave paintings? Those types of illustrations are millennia apart, with huge leaps in technology and development.

A UFO report is of what people thought they saw. Not what they really saw. As evidenced, people just aren't very good at identifying what they see.

The ball depicted in the three images is not a steel ball. In fact, the texture is mother of pearl. The lighting makes it look like it is steel. Yet another example of just how bad people are at describing what they see - even if they have all the time in the world.

There are many examples of photo hoaxes of UFOs. To the uninformed layman, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference. People have to see a lot of these photos in order to realize which depict a real phenomenon and which do not.

Very early on, those dabbling with the new technology of photography realized that they could produce images of things that just couldn't be. E.g., this photo of a giant grasshopper fooled many people (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/whopper_hopper/).

Even today, with Jurassic Park-type computer graphics, lots of people are fooled by the simplest hoaxes. Snowball the Giant Cat (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blgiantcat2.htm) is a recent example. That photo was sent to millions of people, and a large portion of those believed it was really that big.

We don't see what is there. We see what we want to be there.

I will eagerly await a new thread on just what is wrong with Klass' principles. I know them back and forth, and know all the arguments against them. A walk in the park is always nice.

I have indeed read a lot of Loftus' work. Merely saying that I haven't, without explaining why I haven't, does not cut it. Nor does a blanket dismissal of the Tooth Fairy example.

So far, five skeptics - plus a believer - has responded in this thread. To extrapolate that into encompassing all of the thousands of people here is just more evidence that we are being presented with dogma - and not evidence.

People who come to this forum should not expect to convince skeptics by arrogant declarations of dogma. Here, only evidence, rationality and sound arguments count.

Rramjet

8th December 2008, 08:34 AM

I am very aware of the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience. Not merely websites, but also books, articles, interviews, etc.

I'll take your word for it but have you critically examined them?

And on the subject of direct questions - why do you not ever answer any of mine to you? Is it because you simply cannot without exposing the fallacies in your arguments?

The point of the schlong was to show that we cannot take their images for the meaning we give them. Did they actually have that long schlongs, were they wearing phalli - or maybe the depictions are of aliens with long schlongs? Why even assume they are humans from Earth?

I'll give you this one with the caveat that if it looks like a duck...

"He did it first" is an inane and immature approach.

The question was "How does it feel to be subjected to Rand's methodology?" Your answer should have been "Randi does not use that methodology" but of course you know he DOES - so you cannot use THAT answer :)

Why bring up hieroglyphs in the same breath as cave paintings? Those types of illustrations are millennia apart, with huge leaps in technology and development.

Cave paintings, stone carvings, heiroglyphs, oil on canvas... all methods of recording the perceived world before the advent of writing, voice recorders, cameras, and videos... Just to show that UFO reporting did not BEGIN with Arnold's sighting.

A UFO report is of what people thought they saw. Not what they really saw. As evidenced, people just aren't very good at identifying what they see.

Look up a textbook on perception. People actually ARE good at describing what they see.

The ball depicted in the three images is not a steel ball. In fact, the texture is mother of pearl. The lighting makes it look like it is steel. Yet another example of just how bad people are at describing what they see - even if they have all the time in the world.
Next you will tell me it is not a ball at all but merely a patterned two dimensional representation of a disc that exists only as digital information presented in HTML. How do you know you are not simply a brain in a vat being fed "experiences" by a mad scientist? Where do you draw the line?

There are many examples of photo hoaxes of UFOs. To the uninformed layman, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference. People have to see a lot of these photos in order to realize which depict a real phenomenon and which do not.

Of course - since the advent of Photoshop - photos are no longer proof of anything. One can argue the veracity of certain photos taken before the digital age - but even here we run into Adamski et al. No, best not to bring in photos at all as proof. Again it is the weight of evidence that sways opinion, not individual cases.

We don't see what is there. We see what we want to be there.

Are you referring to your reading of my posts? :)

I will eagerly await a new thread on just what is wrong with Klass' principles. I know them back and forth, and know all the arguments against them. A walk in the park is always nice.

Ask and you shall receive :) Actually I have begun that thread and assessment but quickly became disheartened by the nonsense of Klass' pronouncements. I may take it up again when I regain my equilibrium.

I have indeed read a lot of Loftus' work. Merely saying that I haven't, without explaining why I haven't, does not cut it.

Actually my challenge to you (since YOU raised the topic) was to explain how Loftus' work relates to UFO reports. You have not provided this information.

So far, five skeptics - plus a believer - has responded in this thread. To extrapolate that into encompassing all of the thousands of people here is just more evidence that we are being presented with dogma - and not evidence.

You have me wrong. I am NOT a "believer". I merely like pointing out fallacious argument where I see it. I actually think that JREF performs an essential service, or WOULD do so if it were not somewhat of a laughing stock because of the fallacies in the arguments of (especially) Randi.

People who come to this forum should not expect to convince skeptics by arrogant declarations of dogma. Here, only evidence, rationality and sound arguments count.

Can you provide an example where I have posted "arrogant declarations of dogma"?

We are of course WAY off topic. Can you provide refutations of anything in my original post EXCEPT Kenneth Arnold?

Gord_in_Toronto

8th December 2008, 08:41 AM

Roger Ramjet, he's our man
Hero of our nation
For his adventures just be sure
And stay tuned to this station!

Except he has not learned to use the quote function.

Or to express it in terms he can understand -- Are you so stupidly obtuse and ill-educated that you cannot use this simple tool that makes following a thread so much easier? Unlike those of us here who have super large brains? :D

Rramjet

8th December 2008, 03:34 PM

Except he has not learned to use the quote function....Are you so stupidly obtuse and ill-educated that you cannot use this simple tool that makes following a thread so much easier? Unlike those of us here who have super large brains?

Hiya Gord :) Nice to see the reversion to type. Attack the man, not the argument... Are you sure you're not related to Randi?

...and besides... I CHOOSE not to use the quote function on occasion (I am not a slave to dogma) for MY convenience and I do not see how this disadvantages others who purport to have large brains...

Gord_in_Toronto

8th December 2008, 05:37 PM

Hiya Gord :) Nice to see the reversion to type. Attack the man, not the argument... Are you sure you're not related to Randi?

...and besides... I CHOOSE not to use the quote function on occasion (I am not a slave to dogma) for MY convenience and I do not see how this disadvantages others who purport to have large brains...

:i:

Well. Gee whiz. I chose not to take people who post nonsense about UFOs and "abductees" to skeptical forums.

You really take yourself very seriously? Don't you?

HA HA HA HA HA HA

CFLarsen

9th December 2008, 01:22 AM

I have critically examined the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience.

We also have depictions by cavemen that look - to some - as aliens. Do we take that at face value?

If Randi is criticized for ridiculing, it is an inane and immature approach to do the same.

I didn't say that UFO reporting began with Arnold's sighting:

Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. There is a clear distinction between earlier reports and Arnold's and subsequent reports, inasmuch as the latter were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.

Oops - was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation of what I said?

Not only do I know a great deal about perception from my work as a skeptic, I also know a great deal about it from my professional career: User interface design and usability. People suck at describing what they see.

It is a good question if it is a ball, since it was created in a 3D application. It certainly isn't a physical ball.

The "how do we know reality is not a dream" is so old and tired an argument that it has lost its appeal to everyone, except teenagers who think they have discovered some deep philosophical truth.

Photos have since the beginning of photography been used for hoaxes - Photoshop is not the start of that. UFO photos have certainly been hoaxed long before Photoshop.

The promised thread on what was wrong with Klass' principles is not forthcoming, then. Again, we see it is easy to claim something, but a lot harder to prove it.

I have indeed explained how Loftus' work relates to UFO reports:

Dreaming, fantasy, and false memory syndrome have absolutely been tested in a scientific setting. E.g. False Memory Syndrome has been studied by people like Elizabeth Loftus.

Again, was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation?

There has been no serious critique of Randi's arguments, claimed to be fallacious. There has only been talk about them being fallacious. That is arrogance.

9th December 2008, 02:25 PM

***sigh*** So many UFO's. So much "evidence". Not a single, solitary bit of it even slightly testable or verifiable, and every bit of it dependent completely on the perception of human beings.

Anyone who thinks that's solid proof needs to study the literature on the accuracy of eyewitnesses.

Rramjet

9th December 2008, 08:00 PM

I have critically examined the sources that pertain to Kenneth Arnold's experience.

You continue to make unfounded assertions Mr Larson. Please explain to me, an avowed sceptic, WHY I should believe you? I would accept some passages of text from you demonstrating that critical analysis…

We also have depictions by cavemen that look - to some - as aliens. Do we take that at face value?

Of course we do not Mr Larson. We must explore all theoretical explanations for what the depictions represent. If some theories are more supported than others we tend to subscribe to those theories – with the caveat of course that we MAY be mistaken. For example we know that ancient tribes-people liked to create and wear unusual headgear, so we contend that to be the more likely theoretical explanation for the depiction rather than a theoretical alien visitor. Of course we cannot rule OUT that it is a depiction of an alien visitor, rather we must work with a balance of probabilities. This latter point is crucial in the field of UFO research. The weight of evidence (the balance of probabilities) suggests an unknown phenomenon is occurring – UFOs are out there Mr Larson, and I for one would like an explanation as to what they are. As a sceptic I CANNOT formerly subscribe to the “alien” theory of UFOs. That would be illogical, uncritical and unscientific. I do however have opinions, but in a scientific setting I will not and should not expound upon them.

If Randi is criticized for ridiculing, it is an inane and immature approach to do the same.

Congratulations Mr Larson. I gave you an object lesson and you seemed to have learned it. Well done!

I didn't say that UFO reporting began with Arnold's sighting:
Quote:
Kenneth Arnold's account was definitely the one event that set off the modern day UFO craze. There is a clear distinction between earlier reports and Arnold's and subsequent reports, inasmuch as the latter were nicely tied in with the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginnings of cold war hysteria.
Oops - was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation of what I said?

I agree you did not say that UFO reporting began with Kenneth Arnold, NOR DID I SUGGEST that you DID! You are obviously misinterpreting Mr Larson :) I have neither misinterpreted nor misprepresented and it is scurrilous of you to suggest that I did ;) If however you CAN point to any statement of mine in any of my posts that suggests you stated that UFO reporting began with Kenneth Arnold I will issue you a formal apology.

However, THAT is the most common misinterpretation whenever a debunker makes this type of statement (that Arnold was the “beginning” of some “UFO” accompanied by an adjective) so I just thought I should make the point clearly that UFO reporting most definitely DID NOT begin with Arnold’s sighting. I see the point has been received.

Not only do I know a great deal about perception from my work as a skeptic, I also know a great deal about it from my professional career: User interface design and usability. People suck at describing what they see.

You are being obtuse Mr Larson. Being a skeptic does not confer expertise, if that were the case then there would be no need for University courses or doctoral degrees. Can you provide me with any examples that are relatable to UFO research from your “user interface design and usability” experience where users misinterpret what they see? I would bet my million dollar reputation that you cannot.

The "how do we know reality is not a dream" is so old and tired an argument that it has lost its appeal to everyone, except teenagers who think they have discovered some deep philosophical truth.

Oh but Mr Larson, do you not see – the “brain in a vat” example IS a representation of a deep philosophical truth concerning perception and epistemology. Your reduction of this deep truth to mere “dream” status shows you have not yet grasped even this “teenage” concept.

Photos have since the beginning of photography been used for hoaxes - Photoshop is not the start of that. UFO photos have certainly been hoaxed long before Photoshop.

What did I say? It must have impressed you that you repeat it in paraphrase. Thank you for this compliment Mr Larson. Imitation is the best form of flattery. :)

The promised thread on what was wrong with Klass' principles is not forthcoming, then. Again, we see it is easy to claim something, but a lot harder to prove it.

Oh the thread is there Mr Larson. You just have not bothered to look for it.

I have indeed explained how Loftus' work relates to UFO reports:
Quote:
Dreaming, fantasy, and false memory syndrome have absolutely been tested in a scientific setting. E.g. False Memory Syndrome has been studied by people like Elizabeth Loftus.
Again, was that a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation?

No Mr Larson, you miss the point altogether. You need to explain exactly HOW Loftus’ research can be related to UFO research. Mere unfounded assertions do NOT cut it in the sceptical world. Put up or shut up. My money is on “you cannot put up and will not shut up”.

There has been no serious critique of Randi's arguments, claimed to be fallacious. There has only been talk about them being fallacious. That is arrogance.

Arrogance? I assert Randi makes a false claims and then provide the evidence to support my assertions. How is that arrogance? FOR EXAMPLE:

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality

There is my claim and there is my evidence. What more do you want Mr Larson?

You are “shouting” instead of arguing Mr Larson. Repeat the lie over and over. Ignore reasoned argument to the contrary. Refuse to participate in legitimate debate. Those with the loudest voice and greatest amount of resources win. Science and reason are completely discounted. You simply talk over the top of people and ignore completely what they say. You are a bully Mr Larson who refuses to engage in a reasoned argument. Is this failure to engage on your part driven by a fear that you have neither the necessary tools nor the evidence to refute your opponent’s legitimate arguments? I would contend that this is exactly the reason Mr Larson.

Have a nice day.

Hindmost

9th December 2008, 08:28 PM

snip

Originally Posted by Rramjet http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4253027#post4253027)
Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality

There is my claim and there is my evidence. What more do you want Mr Larson?

What your posted is not evidence..It is just a bunch of unsupported numbers. Good or excellent does not provide any information as it is a subjective qualification. Something credible would be alien DNA. Any type material not of this planet. Evidence of an antimatter or fusion propusion system--which would be easy to detect.

Some people think they have good pictures of bigfoot.

http://www.tv.com/video/5039/104/2717/crytozoology?o=tv

glenn

Rramjet

9th December 2008, 08:56 PM

What your posted is not evidence..It is just a bunch of unsupported numbers. Good or excellent does not provide any information as it is a subjective qualification. Something credible would be alien DNA. Any type material not of this planet. Evidence of an antimatter or fusion propusion system--which would be easy to detect.

Some people think they have good pictures of bigfoot.

http://www.tv.com/video/5039/104/2717/crytozoology?o=tv

glenn

Hindmost (by the way I loved Larry Niven's Ringworld too - is there anything I do not know?;) Ha ha ) you seem to be discounting the bulk of scientific research here. What is science other than an expert evaluation of the observed evidence? The subjective qualifications you talk about ("good", "excellent" etc) were arrived at by examination and independent agreement by four independent experts in an effort to rule out rater bias. If all four did not agree, it was not given the rating.

Again you are also requiring stringent standards of evidence that are not required of other scientific disciplines. Holding to double standards is not particularly scientific.

I have already indicated that photos are not evidence of anything at all, why do you bring it up in this context?

You debunkers really cannot help yourselves can you? You would rather destroy logic, critical thinking and scientific methodology rather than admit that there may be more to the world than is perceived in your own little faith based belief systems AND you resort to strange tricks (like bringing in that bit about Bigfoot when it has absolutely no relevance to the current argument) instead of presenting sound arguments and solid evidence.

Disingenuous and hypocritical are aptly applicable terms that spring to mind. Intellectual Barbarians might be another (Hey! I like that! I might use that one more often :))

Gord_in_Toronto

9th December 2008, 09:08 PM

Rramjet

9th December 2008, 09:27 PM

Oh. Look. Roger R has discovered how to use the quote function has now lowered himself to using the quote function for use mortals. See this is evidence even one of the smartest most condescending brains on the surface of this planet can learn something.

A lesson for all of us. :jaw-dropp

Gee Gord, thanks. I am all overcome with embarrassment at your compliments:o

By the way, have you thought of any decent arguments against my critique of Randi's UFO entry in his "Encyclopedia" yet. No? Aren't you up to it? Pity. I love a good argument. What about you?

CFLarsen

10th December 2008, 01:12 AM

It is fascinating to see how different believers treat different things: When someone tells that they have seen a UFO (as alien spaceship), a believer will take that at face value. When a skeptic explains why UFOs (as alien spaceships) are not particularly credible and that Arnold's account is not convincing either, the believer will not accept that - at all.

Here is the thing about those unknown UFO observations: Let's say, for the ease and sake of conversation, that the distribution of explanations of UFO observations were as follows:

50%: Planes
20%: Satellites
15%: Venus
10%: Air balloons
4%: Hoaxes
1% Unknown

Does that mean that the 1% unknowns are something else? No: It simply means we haven't got enough information to determine what it was. It therefore makes sense to say that that 1% also has a distribution of planes, satellites, Venus, etc. That still leaves us with a 1% of 1% of unknowns, but it still means that there isn't enough information.

That is why physical evidence is so important.

When my argument is dismissed because UFO observations didn't start with Arnold, then my argument was either misinterpreted or misrepresented. By now, there have been so many "misinterpretations" that it is hard to believe that it isn't intentional. Thereby rendering them not misinterpretations, but misrepresentations. In other words, lies.

The brain in a vat idea has been discounted a long time ago - it's final death knell was sounded by the advent of the scientific method: We realized that we need objective, verifiable evidence, before we can say that something exists, also outside our brains.

At the end of the day, it is clear that the criticisms of Randi and Klass are unfounded. We are still left with some people's unverifiable accounts of UFOs (as alien spaceships).

That leaves us with just one question: What is considered the best evidence of UFOs as alien spaceships?

CFLarsen

10th December 2008, 02:43 AM

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw an object to the south west. The object was certainly no satellite or plane (I checked), but was blinking in some form of unsteady rhythm while it moved at an impossible speed across the sky. Other people have independently seen it, too.

Was that a credible UFO account?

Hindmost

10th December 2008, 05:29 AM

Hindmost (by the way I loved Larry Niven's Ringworld too - is there anything I do not know?;) Ha ha ) you seem to be discounting the bulk of scientific research here. What is science other than an expert evaluation of the observed evidence? The subjective qualifications you talk about ("good", "excellent" etc) were arrived at by examination and independent agreement by four independent experts in an effort to rule out rater bias. If all four did not agree, it was not given the rating.

Again you are also requiring stringent standards of evidence that are not required of other scientific disciplines. Holding to double standards is not particularly scientific.

I have already indicated that photos are not evidence of anything at all, why do you bring it up in this context?

You debunkers really cannot help yourselves can you? You would rather destroy logic, critical thinking and scientific methodology rather than admit that there may be more to the world than is perceived in your own little faith based belief systems AND you resort to strange tricks (like bringing in that bit about Bigfoot when it has absolutely no relevance to the current argument) instead of presenting sound arguments and solid evidence.

Disingenuous and hypocritical are aptly applicable terms that spring to mind. Intellectual Barbarians might be another (Hey! I like that! I might use that one more often :))

I asked for evidence and you give me an ad hom attack. You are too kind.

First, what were the experts evaluating??? You have given no evidence or link or anything of what was evaluated. Your claim, your evidence. Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable and it doesn't matter who the eyewitness is.

Solid evidence I would consider:

Alien DNA
Evidence of fusion or antimatter propulsion
Any repeatable EM emissions from another solar system or from UFOs.

You have offered none of this. As for bigfoot...it is directly on point. The same credulous people believe in bigfoot or chupacabras or any type of unsubstantiated claims with very weak evidence also lack the skills to evaluate UFOs. Please give us your evidence.

glenn

Almo

10th December 2008, 08:39 AM

Randi’s UFO entry continues “Since that time, endless reports of UFOs have come in…” - as if reports of UFOs began with Arnold’s sighting. This is disingenuous.

"Since" means that sightings have continued in the time span between now and then. It does not necessarily mean that they started then. Your comment is a disingenuous nitpick, and it's even incorrect.

Gord_in_Toronto

10th December 2008, 12:01 PM

Gee Gord, thanks. I am all overcome with embarrassment at your compliments:o

By the way, have you thought of any decent arguments against my critique of Randi's UFO entry in his "Encyclopedia" yet. No? Aren't you up to it? Pity. I love a good argument. What about you?

How about post #2 in this thread? You could try and address the issue that Arnold really saw pelicans not flying saucers.

On your "Klass is an evil, uneducated liar" thread I see the big guns have joined in. I think I'll just settle back and see you get your ass whipped. :train

arthwollipot

10th December 2008, 09:45 PM

I went to http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.aspto check on the quality of their photos. Their front page is adorned with a large photo of a fuzzy blob.

Now, I can't imagine someone putting this photo on the front page of the website unless they consider it to be a pretty good specimen. But it's still a fuzzy blob.

Inside, I found more photos of fuzzy blobs, and quite a few obvious photoshops. This (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo401.htm), for example. This one (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo358.htm) is clearly three helicopters flying in formation, out of focus. Here's (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo276.htm) an in-camera reflection of a streetlight. Here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo224.htm), a weather reconnaisance baloon. CGI (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo224.htm).

Nothing more to see here, folks. All the usual suspects. And I got all of these from the most recent (since 2000) gallery.

Here's a question. Why aren't any UFOs reported by astronomers? They spend an awful lot of time looking up. Yet they never seem to report UFOs.

Klimax

11th December 2008, 12:40 AM

arthwollipot

11th December 2008, 12:47 AM

Last link (CGI) is same as the previous one (weather r. baloon).Whoops, sorry. It was supposed to be this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm).

Klimax

11th December 2008, 02:51 AM

Whoops, sorry. It was supposed to be this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm).

Interesting. It looks strange,but sadly photo is not of high quality... (somewhat more widespread then I thought.)

Any good sites on "How to debunk UFOs"? I'd like to be more prepared...
(And google search not helpfull so far)

MattC

11th December 2008, 01:12 PM

Next Randi states “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” This is an utterly false statement. The largest official study ever conducted was Blue Book Special Report No. 14 in which over 3200 sightings were systematically and expertly evaluated by the US Air Force. They concluded that 14% were balloons, 25.5% were Astronomical, 20.1% were aircraft, 8% were miscellaneous, 1.5% had psychological ramifications, 9.3% had insufficient information to classify and 21.5% were UNKNOWN (note that the unknowns were NOT cases for which there was insufficient information and that crackpot sightings accounted for a mere 1.5%). Moreover, a full 61.6% of the unknown sightings were classified as “good” or “excellent” in quality (reference link disallowed).

My friend,

It seems as though you are being slightly misled by the figures you present, specifically it seems to me that you are taking this "61.6%" figure to mean far more than it does. Certainly 61.6% is not a small percentage, but as it is a percentage it must be evaluated in light both of the number of cases represented by the percentage and the method through which it has been derived.

I took the liberty of working out the amount of cases relative to each percentage you stated, and came to the following conclusions (assuming they actually surveyed 3200 cases, reports on how many cases they surveyed in this study vary):

(3200 * .14) = 448 cases of balloons
(3200 * .255) = 816 cases of astronomical explanations
(3200 * .201) = 643.2 cases of aircraft
(3200 * .08) = 256 cases of miscellaneous
(3200 * .015) = 48 cases of psychological origins
(3200 * .093) = 297.6 cases of not enough information
(3200 * .215) = 688 cases of unknown origin
furthermore, (688 * .616) = 423.808 "good" or "excellent"

These don't all add up perfectly so I'm fairly sure that 3200 cases was a ballpark estimate, but it's close enough to where the estimate seems a solid one for purposes of theorizing.

Out of 3200 cases, then, (3200-688) = 2512 cases that had ready explanations for them. (2512/3200) * 100 = 78.5% of total cases that were readily explainable. Mr. Randi does not seem to be far off, therefore, in stating that “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” The numbers above suggest that these mundane explanations were correct in 78.5% of the cases reported in the data of this Blue Book study as you presented it, certainly not a small number and easily within the scope of the term "most".

~ Matt

(ps: arth, is that a Batman symbol on the bottom of that thing?)

Rramjet

11th December 2008, 04:44 PM

Let's say, for the ease and sake of conversation, that the distribution of explanations of UFO observations were as follows:

No let’s NOT “say”. If you want to use data, use REAL data please. Anyone can MAKE UP data. Here for example is some REAL DATA taken from Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, the largest UFO study ever done for the US Air Force. (http colon //www .ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1247.htm)

TABLE I
Category # %
Balloon 450 14.0%
Astronomical 817 25.5%
Aircraft 642 20.1%
Miscellaneous 257 8.0%
Psychological 48 1.5%
Insufficient Information 298 9.3%
UNKNOWNS 689 21.5%

Totals 3,201 100%

TABLE II
Quality evaluation of 3,201 UFO sightings, Blue Book Special Report #14
Quality # % of Total # of UNKNOWNS UNKNOWNS as % of Group
Excellent 308 9.6% 108 35.1%
Good 1,070 33.4% 282 26.4%
Doubtful 1,298 40.5% 203 15.6%
Poor 525 16.4% 96 18.3%

Total 3,201 100% 689 21.5%

To insert some balance into the argument, here is a table of IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) from Blue Book itself:

Type of IFO Number Percentage
Astronomical* 3421 26.0%
Aircraft 2237 17.0%
Balloons 1223 9.3%
Radar Phenomena** 152 1.2%
Psychological*** 63 0.5%
Hoax 116 0.9%
Meteorological**** 44 0.3%
Birds 85 0.6%
Insufficient information 2409 18.3%
Other 2807 21.4%

Totals 12557 100%
* of which meteors made up 56%, or 9.5% of the total number of Blue book cases
** such as anomalous propagation, weather returns, malfunctions
*** also includes unreliable reports
**** clouds, light phenomena, sundogs, etc.
(Hynek, A., J. (1978) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books Limited, New York. p. 259)

Apologies, I will have to learn how to make Tables in HTML obviously! but nevertheless, interesting, no? The point is however that it is disingenuous of you Mr Larson to “make up” data to suit your own purposes. Highly unscientific (some would say fraudulent). Use real data please or none at all.

When my argument is dismissed because UFO observations didn't start with Arnold, then my argument was either misinterpreted or misrepresented…

If you can find ANYWHERE in my comments Mr Larson where I stated that your argument was “dismissed because UFO observations didn’t start with Arnold” I will issue you an unreserved public apology for calling you an obtuse dogmatist with an education level obviously not up to the task of comprehending written English to a standard required to post cogently to this thread. YOU misrepresent ME Mr Larson and should apologise for doing so – although I won’t hold my breath… :)

The brain in a vat idea has been discounted a long time ago ...

Obviously you have NEVER had any philosophical training at all Mr Larson otherwise you would NOT dismiss the “brain in the vat” conundrum as “discounted”. The paradox is used in all modern philosophy courses to illustrate a very REAL point and it has real ramifications concerning how we conceive reality. You really should try and get yourself an education Mr Larson before writing of things about which you seem to know precisely NOTHING.

At the end of the day, it is clear that the criticisms of Randi and Klass are unfounded.

Just because you SAY so Mr Larson does not MAKE it so. I challenge you directly to refute my points about Randi’s article by speaking directly to my points and NOT dragging in erroneous and irrelevant assertions with no supporting evidence.

We are still left with some people's unverifiable accounts of UFOs (as alien spaceships).

There are a couple of points I would like to express in relation to this assertion

The first is that the term “UFO” has become, in the mind of the general public (and many commentators), synonymous with “extraterrestrial” or “alien” spacecraft. This is entirely unfortunate because of course the acronym actually means nothing of the sort. The acronym “UFO” simply means “Unidentified Flying Object”, with the emphasis being on the “Unidentified”, because even the terms “Flying” and “Object” may not be applicable. This is why for example the British Ministry of Defence, in its various reports on the subject, has utilised the term “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” (UAP – see http colon //www . mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefencereg ion.htm) as a more strictly scientific reference.

The second point to make is that the existence of UFOs (or UAP if you prefer) is undeniable. Of immediate interest by way of supporting reference here is the Introduction to the Executive Summary of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region report (2000: which can be accessed at the abovementioned site), compiled by British Defence Intelligence Analysis Staff, states unequivocally: “That UAP exist is indisputable” (p.4). This is not the only official report to so positively declare the indisputable existence of UFOs. Another relatively recent example was the French COMETA Report which outlines the results of a study conducted by the Institute of Higher Studies for National Defence whose members include a long list of high ranking defence officers and civil and defence scientists including astronomers and weapons specialists (http colon //www . ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf). Of interest is the quote in the section titled “Concrete problems are raised that call for a response in terms of action”:

“Without a doubt, the phenomenon remains, and the number of sightings, which are completely unexplained despite the abundance and quality of data from them, is growing throughout the world. On the ground, some sightings, like the Trans-en-Provence sighting in 1981, have been the subject of in-depth studies proving that something did in fact land on the ground and parked there. Civilian and military pilots have provided gripping testimonies, often corroborated by radar recordings, as was the case recently in France. In view of the lack of irrefutable proof regarding the origin of these phenomena, the need for understanding persists.” (p.7)

One could continue with a long list of official sources that assert or imply the existence of UFOs. For example there is Blue Book Special Report No. 14. (1955) of which Alan J. Hynek speaks: “If one limits oneself to the Excellent versus [I]Poor sightings (213 and 435 sightings respectively) one finds that the “Unknowns” make up 33 percent of the Excellent reports and only 17 percent of the Poor reports.” (Hynek, A., J. (1978) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books LTD. New York. P.277) There is also the Condon Report (1968. http colon //ncas . org/condon/text/s6chap10.htm), in which the statement “Just what should constitute the population of UFO reports? Should we include all UFO reports regardless of probable explanation, or just those reports for which no rational explanation can be given?” (p.1274). Each of the above statements by definition implies that UFOs exist. That is, whatever was contained within the “Unknown” category of UFO reports in Blue Book Special Report No. 14 is [I]by definition a UFO; and if a UFO report has "no rational explanation" this also implies by definition that UFOs exist. The existence of UFOs should then be uncontroversial and incontrovertible to any rationally minded person, however it seems that there are people who to this day persist in denying the UFO phenomena altogether. There can be no rational debate on the topic if that is to be the starting point. It is my fervent wish that people in this forum at least can accept the fact of the existence of UFOs and move on to discuss hypothetical explanations and arguments concerning what the cause of the phenomena might be.

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw an object to the south west. The object was certainly no satellite or plane (I checked), but was blinking in some form of unsteady rhythm while it moved at an impossible speed across the sky. Other people have independently seen it, too.

Was that a credible UFO account?

Actually no, Mr Larson, it is NOT a credible UFO account. It does not have enough information to rule out more mundane objects. For example “impossible speed” is too subjective to be defined relative to the speed of a jet or meteor &c. The others of your statements also may be interpreted entirely subjectively. So no, it is not a credible UFO report. For some examples of what more credible UFO reports look like see for example (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html) which lists the Blue Book “Unknowns”.

Rramjet

11th December 2008, 06:05 PM

I asked for evidence and you give me an ad hom attack. You are too kind.

I think you mean ad hominem surely… and only in the last sentence Glenn. I suppose I really should not have done that. I got carried away. In realise the error of my ways and therefore offer my apologies. I will try to stick purely to the evidence in future.

First, what were the experts evaluating???

They were evaluating claims such as those found at (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)

Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable and it doesn't matter who the eyewitness is.

This is a spurious argument Glenn. If your statement were to hold true then you would be unable to claim with any veracity ANY observation statement about the world that surrounds you. THIS is precisely the point of the “Brain in the Vat” conundrum by the way. You seem to be falling in line with the school of Relativism here (as opposed to the Realists). I doubt that you believe this statement to be true in every day life, why bring it in as one of your beliefs here?

Solid evidence I would consider:

Alien DNA
Evidence of fusion or antimatter propulsion
Any repeatable EM emissions from another solar system or from UFOs.
… You have offered none of this.

Nor do I have to Glenn (see the section on UFOs in my reply to Mr Larson above for example). Also I have promised in another thread to present some of the evidence many are beginning to call for. I have stated I will do this by beginning another thread. STAY TUNED.

As for bigfoot...it is directly on point. The same credulous people believe in bigfoot or chupacabras or any type of unsubstantiated claims with very weak evidence also lack the skills to evaluate UFOs.

No… Bigfoot has NOTHING to do with my critique of Randi’s entry on UFOs. THAT is why it is irrelevant to this thread and this argument. If you want to argue the merits of Bigfoot sightings that would deserve another thread. THIS thread is about Randi’s spurious and fallacious encyclopedia entry on UFOs.

"Since" means that sightings have continued in the time span between now and then. It does not necessarily mean that they started then. Your comment is a disingenuous nitpick, and it's even incorrect.

I have addressed this issue elsewhere but: The meaning of Randi’s statement on this issue is, while not directly stating the falsehood, to try and place the idea in the public’s mind that UFO reporting only really began with Arnold’s sighting. Disingenuous is the term I used (Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating) and I hold to that assertion.

How about post #2 in this thread? You could try and address the issue that Arnold really saw pelicans not flying saucers.

Okay Gord, I have addressed it indirectly already but a fuller treatment will have to wait a bit. I WILL get around to that – please remind me if you find too much time has gone by without my addressing this issue.

On your "Klass is an evil, uneducated liar" thread I see the big guns have joined in. I think I'll just settle back and see you get your ass whipped.

Not sure of the score at the moment Gord but perhaps you’d like to have a look and let me know what you think so far :)

I went to http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.aspto check on the quality of their photos…. Inside, I found more photos of fuzzy blobs, and quite a few obvious photoshops … Nothing more to see here, folks.

Yeah… but this is like the UFO reports. Debunkers will point to those that have a mundane explanation. That is NOT what they must explain. It is the reports (in this case photos) that are unexplained (more precisely “Unknown) that need explanation. For example (http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm) – and of course I could provide many other examples from the site (just look at the EARLIEST groups of photos). Two points, because of the digital age, photographs can no longer be relied upon as evidence of anything much BUT we must however consider the WEIGHT of evidence.

Here's a question. Why aren't any UFOs reported by astronomers?

Oh but they DO. Type in “astronomer UFO” as a search term in Google and witness your error.

Any good sites on "How to debunk UFOs"? I'd like to be more prepared...

Read Randi’s Encyclopedia entry… He is supposed to be the ultimate Guru :) …or do you mean that entry is NOT helpful to your debunking cause… but it should be…surely? :rolleyes:

Mr. Randi does not seem to be far off, therefore, in stating that “…most of them actually of weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events.” The numbers above suggest that these mundane explanations were correct in 78.5% of the cases reported in the data of this Blue Book study as you presented it, certainly not a small number and easily within the scope of the term "most".

Actually you have convinced me Matt - and I therefore WILL make a retraction here. Randi’s statement is not “utterly false”, that is too strong a term. I return then to “disingenuous”. Randi, unless he is totally ignorant, would know of the actual data presented in official reports such as Blue Book and therefore to term his descriptions as he does by referring to categorisations not actually made in the original reports (eg; the inclusion of “science projects”) is DISINGENUOUS – again for the uninitiated - Disingenuous: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.

technoextreme

11th December 2008, 06:54 PM

Look up a textbook on perception. People actually ARE good at describing what they see.

?
You do realize that is wrong though. Horribly wrong. Then again what would I expect from someone who thinks that textbooks from the 1950's gives cutting edge information.
http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1150823205.44/Article-Intl%20J.%20L.%20Psy.-Accuracy%20of%20eyewitness%20memory...Morgan.pdf

Hindmost

11th December 2008, 07:26 PM

I think you mean ad hominem surely… and only in the last sentence Glenn. I suppose I really should not have done that. I got carried away. In realise the error of my ways and therefore offer my apologies. I will try to stick purely to the evidence in future.

I was abbreviating. Evidence is what I really care about and thanks for the appology.

They were evaluating claims such as those found at (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)

I will take a look.

This is a spurious argument Glenn. If your statement were to hold true then you would be unable to claim with any veracity ANY observation statement about the world that surrounds you. THIS is precisely the point of the “Brain in the Vat” conundrum by the way. You seem to be falling in line with the school of Relativism here (as opposed to the Realists). I doubt that you believe this statement to be true in every day life, why bring it in as one of your beliefs here?

First I have no idea what you mean by the school of relativism. I have read quite a few articles about memory and its fallibility. This is one of the reasons people are getting out of jail after DNA finds them not guilty while eyewitnesses find them guilty.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

"Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 (http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/f&tfootnotes.htm#4) Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories."

Nor do I have to Glenn (see the section on UFOs in my reply to Mr Larson above for example). Also I have promised in another thread to present some of the evidence many are beginning to call for. I have stated I will do this by beginning another thread. STAY TUNED.

When you provide the evidence, please include a sound reason that no EM transmitions have come from space. And don't forget the energy issue...it would take the equivalent of the entire earth's energy to get to another star...and about 80000 years. Even with fusion, the problem is more than daunting. I have never received any good response to the energy issue and space travel--please don't ignore it.

No… Bigfoot has NOTHING to do with my critique of Randi’s entry on UFOs. THAT is why it is irrelevant to this thread and this argument. If you want to argue the merits of Bigfoot sightings that would deserve another thread. THIS thread is about Randi’s spurious and fallacious encyclopedia entry on UFOs.

Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, but the evidence that bigfoot exists is directly on point. If Penn and Teller can fool the bigfoot believers with a simple trick, it clearly shows how creduluous people can be and how evidence is ignored. Pick a topic: crop circles, chupacabras, alien abduction..etc. They all have their devoted followers. All lack evidence that would satisfy standard scientific analysis. The standards of evidence have to be greater than a few eyewitness reports. Which topic would you consider as incredible?

By the way, I am not in any way a UFO debunker. I would very much like to see a UFO over our skies. A friendly one. Unfortunately, I know the physics involved and I just don't see anything to change the equation.

glenn

HghrSymmetry

11th December 2008, 08:10 PM

.

Here's a question. Why aren't any UFOs reported by astronomers? They spend an awful lot of time looking up. Yet they never seem to report UFOs.

Perhaps what they do see isn't mistaken for intergalactic craft. (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/)

Rramjet

13th December 2008, 12:34 AM

"Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments…

Okay – here’s the deal with those experiments. First the witnesses interviewed were provided false information in order to determine if they could be biased by that false information. This does not happen in the case of UFO reporting. Most often the witness reports what they see and that is the end of the matter. They DO NOT have an interviewer deliberately trying to trip them up by inserting misleading statements such as “Are you sure it was not actually elliptical?” when the observer reports that it was “spherical”. This type of statement certainly would give the observer pause to think and to become perhaps a little uncertain. HOWEVER, if the interviewer stated “Are you sure it was not a square?” if the observer stated it was “triangular” then there is actually very little problem – the observer sticks with triangle. If the experimenter in the Loftus research had stated “Are you sure it was not a GO sign – I am sure that the witnesses would have had no trouble in stating that it was actually a stop sign. You see the difference then between Loftus research and UFO reporting? THIS is why I asked before for an explanation of exactly HOW Loftus research is related to UFO reporting. In practice it CANNOT be.

Not convinced. Let us then tackle the “car crash” scenario. Again we have the misleading information DELIBERATELY inserted into a description with the direct object of biasing the witness. Again, this DOES NOT happen in UFO reporting. A report is made under no external duress and the observer is then questioned for details without leading questions (Note leading questions are blamed for alien abduction phenomena and a court of law will disallow witness statements if it can be shown the questions were “leading”). Moreover, I am sure the witnesses in either experimental condition could have told you it was two CARS that collided, not two planets, clouds, meteors, aircraft, etc… simply Loftus’ research IS NOT directly applicable to UFO observations and it is therefore obviously fallacious to introduce such research into the UFO debate.

Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, … it clearly shows how creduluous people can be and how evidence is ignored. Pick a topic: crop circles, chupacabras, alien abduction..etc. They all have their devoted followers. All lack evidence that would satisfy standard scientific analysis. The standards of evidence have to be greater than a few eyewitness reports. Which topic would you consider as incredible?

This is being disingenuous. I could mount exactly the same argument against those who deny these “phenomena” (for lack of a better neutral word) – that they are “credulous followers of a certain faith” in believing the evidence AGAINST such phenomena – the argument gets us precisely NOWHERE.

I find ALL the above topics incredible. I find the existence of rational humans on earth incredible. I find the universe highly improbable… the whole darn thing is absolutely incredible, so to single out UFOs etc as somehow PECULIARLY incredible seems pointless to me. I want EXPLANATION – not perceptual excuses as to why I could not have seen what I did. That is merely insulting. If I saw a square in the sky perform a right angle turn, you can be 100% certain I did not see a jet plane, a meteor, the moon, or any other natural phenomena. A square in the sky performing a right angle turn simply does NOT have a prosaic explanation – no matter HOW much you care to distort my perceptual ability.

UFO debunkers have distorted human perceptual ability to the point where NO observational evidence is safe at all and the very foundation of science itself is therefore under threat. This CANNOT be the correct way to proceed.

I would very much like to see a UFO over our skies. A friendly one. Unfortunately, I know the physics involved and I just don't see anything to change the equation.

So you think like a person who believes science is DEAD. There are no more discoveries to be made at all. Physics has nowhere to advance from here! We KNOW IT ALL. Everything in physics that can be known already is… C’mon Glenn, you’ll have to provide a better argument than “I know the physics involved…” We ALL know the physics involved…they KNEW the physics involved before Einstein (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell…) and they KNEW the physics involved before quantum relativity…

technoextreme

14th December 2008, 09:49 AM

UFO debunkers have distorted human perceptual ability to the point where NO observational evidence is safe at all and the very foundation of science itself is therefore under threat. This CANNOT be the correct way to proceed.

Yes it is the correct way to procede because as much as you are whining about how wrong we are about perception it is the truth. No amount of whining. No amount of handwaving. Because as much as you are trotting out the ninety degree turn as having no prosaic explanation stranger things like seeing someone's head shrink actually does. Human perception is a cacophony of kludges.

CFLarsen

14th December 2008, 11:11 AM

Ignorance of what a hypothetical example for the sake of argument does not exactly help understanding a point being made. I did not "make up" data, but presented a distribution for the sake of the argument I made.

I'll try again:

Whatever the various percentages are: Does that mean that the x% unknowns are something else? No: It simply means we haven't got enough information to determine what it was. It therefore makes sense to say that that x% also has a distribution of planes, satellites, Venus, etc. That still leaves us with a x% of x% of unknowns, but it still means that there isn't enough information.

That is why physical evidence is so important.

Again, we see an inability to read what was written. Again, this does not speak well for the ability to observe and interpret correctly.

Nor does it speak well for the ability to understand a rebuttal of a criticism, if said rebuttal is claimed to be non-existent.

Not does it speak well for the ability to understand that nobody has denied the existence of UFOs-as-unindentified-flying-objects. I fail to see what the hubbub's about - unless it is also believed that UFOs are really alien space ships.

That an idea has been discounted does not mean it can't be used as an example of an idea that is worthless.

Of course, if something other than that has surfaced, I would love to hear about the real ramifications concerning how we conceive reality.

Oddly enough, my account contained a heck of a lot more information than many UFO accounts that are deemed as alien spaceships.

E.g., the fact that direction, location and description would have made it easy to determine the cause:

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw the toolbox that NASA's astronaut Heidemarie Stefannyshyn-Piper lost from the International Space Station, ISS.

HeavensAbove (http://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=33442&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET)

What can be learned from this? That UFOs are in the eye of the believer - as alien space ships.

Hindmost

14th December 2008, 05:00 PM

Okay – here’s the deal with those experiments. First the witnesses interviewed were provided false information in order to determine if they could be biased by that false information. This does not happen in the case of UFO reporting. Most often the witness reports what they see and that is the end of the matter. They DO NOT have an interviewer deliberately trying to trip them up by inserting misleading statements such as “Are you sure it was not actually elliptical?” when the observer reports that it was “spherical”. This type of statement certainly would give the observer pause to think and to become perhaps a little uncertain. HOWEVER, if the interviewer stated “Are you sure it was not a square?” if the observer stated it was “triangular” then there is actually very little problem – the observer sticks with triangle. If the experimenter in the Loftus research had stated “Are you sure it was not a GO sign – I am sure that the witnesses would have had no trouble in stating that it was actually a stop sign. You see the difference then between Loftus research and UFO reporting? THIS is why I asked before for an explanation of exactly HOW Loftus research is related to UFO reporting. In practice it CANNOT be.

Not convinced. Let us then tackle the “car crash” scenario. Again we have the misleading information DELIBERATELY inserted into a description with the direct object of biasing the witness. Again, this DOES NOT happen in UFO reporting. A report is made under no external duress and the observer is then questioned for details without leading questions (Note leading questions are blamed for alien abduction phenomena and a court of law will disallow witness statements if it can be shown the questions were “leading”). Moreover, I am sure the witnesses in either experimental condition could have told you it was two CARS that collided, not two planets, clouds, meteors, aircraft, etc… simply Loftus’ research IS NOT directly applicable to UFO observations and it is therefore obviously fallacious to introduce such research into the UFO debate.

This is being disingenuous. I could mount exactly the same argument against those who deny these “phenomena” (for lack of a better neutral word) – that they are “credulous followers of a certain faith” in believing the evidence AGAINST such phenomena – the argument gets us precisely NOWHERE.

I find ALL the above topics incredible. I find the existence of rational humans on earth incredible. I find the universe highly improbable… the whole darn thing is absolutely incredible, so to single out UFOs etc as somehow PECULIARLY incredible seems pointless to me. I want EXPLANATION – not perceptual excuses as to why I could not have seen what I did. That is merely insulting. If I saw a square in the sky perform a right angle turn, you can be 100% certain I did not see a jet plane, a meteor, the moon, or any other natural phenomena. A square in the sky performing a right angle turn simply does NOT have a prosaic explanation – no matter HOW much you care to distort my perceptual ability.

UFO debunkers have distorted human perceptual ability to the point where NO observational evidence is safe at all and the very foundation of science itself is therefore under threat. This CANNOT be the correct way to proceed.

First, don't alter the context of my post by clipping out a relavant statement.

Originally Posted by Hindmost http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4265201#post4265201)
Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, … it clearly shows how creduluous people can be and how evidence is ignored. Pick a topic: crop circles, chupacabras, alien abduction..etc. They all have their devoted followers. All lack evidence that would satisfy standard scientific analysis. The standards of evidence have to be greater than a few eyewitness reports. Which topic would you consider as incredible?

What I put in is shown below. Next occasion I will report it.

Originally Posted by Hindmost
Bigfoot doesn't have anything to do with it, but the evidence that bigfoot exists is directly on point. If Penn and Teller can fool the bigfoot believers with a simple trick, it clearly shows how creduluous people can be and how evidence is ignored. Pick a topic: crop circles, chupacabras, alien abduction..etc. They all have their devoted followers. All lack evidence that would satisfy standard scientific analysis. The standards of evidence have to be greater than a few eyewitness reports. Which topic would you consider as incredible?

Standards of evidence are universal. Bigfoot and cropcircles and chupacabras lack evidence due to the complete lack of DNA, bones, plasma vortexes etc. I don't give evidence for UFOs a free pass. Until I see a reasonable energy signature, some EM wave evidence, reasonable photographic evidence, I will not agree that UFOs have visited here.

The study that I linked to clearly shows how pliable memory is. The fact that false evidence was used is just part of the testing protocol. How else could you test memory and observational falibility without providing differing inputs. Interviewers could easily lead a person claiming to have seen a UFO--especially if the information supports their position and they refuse to critcally analyzing it. (as with Penn and Teller's bigfoot hoax.)

For UFOs, a square in the sky making a right angle turn is easy to explain...especially since a right angle turn depends on the angle the of the viewer. A light reflected off a cloud could make a right angle turn and appear to the observer to be impossible. The only evidence for UFOs is poor photographs and very poor sightings.

So you think like a person who believes science is DEAD. There are no more discoveries to be made at all. Physics has nowhere to advance from here! We KNOW IT ALL. Everything in physics that can be known already is… C’mon Glenn, you’ll have to provide a better argument than “I know the physics involved…” We ALL know the physics involved…they KNEW the physics involved before Einstein (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell…) and they KNEW the physics involved before quantum relativity…

You will not get logical fallacies past many people on this forum...show me where I implied or stated science is dead. (strawman stuff)

Anyhow, to get from one star to the next, it takes energy. Force still equals mass times acceleration and energy still equals mass times the speed of light squared. Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance of providing enough energy to get from star to another. Antimatter is not common and to make enough of it to power an antimatter reactor would take an enourmous amount of energy input. And then storing it would be quite problematic. Using fusion power would be feasible, but the ship would be enormous...and very easy to spot. There is not much possibility of finding an energy source better than antimatter.

The energy signature of an antimatter or fusion reactor would be easy to detect. Evidence...they have to get here first. Again, where are the EM waves within 50 L-Y to indicate any type of advanced civilization. Kind of an alien version of "I love Lucy."

glenn

arthwollipot

14th December 2008, 10:14 PM

Yeah… but this is like the UFO reports. Debunkers will point to those that have a mundane explanation. That is NOT what they must explain. It is the reports (in this case photos) that are unexplained (more precisely “Unknown) that need explanation. For example (http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm) – and of course I could provide many other examples from the site (just look at the EARLIEST groups of photos). Two points, because of the digital age, photographs can no longer be relied upon as evidence of anything much BUT we must however consider the WEIGHT of evidence.We cannot draw any conclusions from things that are "unidentified". Only that we don't know what it is. Even if there are a million "unidentifieds", we still cannot conclude that UFOs are alien spacecraft. Only that there are a million things we haven't identified.

Rramjet

15th December 2008, 11:13 PM

Yes it is the correct way to procede because as much as you are whining about how wrong we are about perception it is the truth…. Human perception is a cacophony of kludges.

But NO-ONE has explained HOW human perception is to be considered significantly faulty in relation to UFO reporting. Merely stating over and over (like some broken record) does not make it true. You HAVE NOT demonstrated that your contention is significantly true in relation to UFO reporting.

This is one of the most favourite things the dogmatic UFO debunkers indulge in. Just repeat the unfounded, fallacious assertion over and over and over and over…ad nauseum It is a mindless exercise and DOES NOT MAKE AN ASSERTION TRUE.

THIS is why I am able to legitimately label you and your kind cultist, dogmatic, antirational, anti-scientific, anti-science and so on.

CFLarsen
(Rr: I think you have omitted some HTML tags so that the quote references are not visible? I have therefore not addressed some of your points as I can not see what they refer to)

Does that mean that the x% unknowns are something else? No: It simply means we haven't got enough information to determine what it was. It therefore makes sense to say that that x% also has a distribution of planes, satellites, Venus, etc. That still leaves us with a x% of x% of unknowns, but it still means that there isn't enough information.

This is a pack of nonsense. For example Blue Book and Blue Book Special Report No. 14 BOTH contained three broad categories, IFO, UFO and Insufficient Information.

IFOs DO NOT contain UFOs and UFOs do not contain IFOs or IIs. There are strict criteria (size, shape, dimensions, appearance, colour, movement, and so on and so on) which must be fulfilled for there to be sufficient information to attribute an object the status of (for example) an airplane. We can quickly determine HOW MUCH and WHAT TYPE of information is needed when we discover that we can readily and repeatedly ascribe UFO reports to be reports of mundane objects. THAT is the amount of information needed. If that amount of information is contained within a UFO report and we cannot ascribe a prosaic explanation, then it must (by definition) be an UNKNOWN (or UFO). This is simple, straightforward and logical.

Your statement that a certain percentage of “Unknowns” contain “Knowns” is therefore illogical, spurious, a representation of faulty thinking.

That is why physical evidence is so important.

You speak as if there was no physical evidence. Type in “UFO physical evidence” into any internet search engine and see what happens. You will find examples of UFO cases where physical evidence is manifest.

…nobody has denied the existence of UFOs-as-unindentified-flying-objects.

You are being disingenuous Mr Larsen. I am however gratified that you do acknowledge that there do exist UFOs.

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw the toolbox that NASA's astronaut Heidemarie Stefannyshyn-Piper lost from the International Space Station, ISS.

HeavensAbove

What can be learned from this? That UFOs are in the eye of the believer - as alien space ships.

But I already acknowledged that your original report did not contain sufficient information to make an attribution of EITHER IFO OR UFO. That you then make this statement indicates to me that you are obtuse. What other term can you think of to describe your behaviour when you submit a UFO report and ask if it is a quality report and I indicate it is NOT a quality report and falls under the category of “Insufficient Information” and then you submit this statement as if I had indicated your report represented a UFO. THAT is being obtuse on your part Mr Larsen.

Standards of evidence are universal. Bigfoot and cropcircles and chupacabras lack evidence due to the complete lack of DNA, bones, plasma vortexes etc. I don't give evidence for UFOs a free pass. Until I see a reasonable energy signature, some EM wave evidence, reasonable photographic evidence, I will not agree that UFOs have visited here.

“Google” “UFO physical evidence”. Physical evidence exists for UFO cases.

Interviewers could easily lead a person claiming to have seen a UFO…

Most UFO reports do not involve an interviewer at all, they are submitted without outside “interference”.

You will not get logical fallacies past many people on this forum...show me where I implied or stated science is dead. (strawman stuff)

You stated:
By the way, I am not in any way a UFO debunker. I would very much like to see a UFO over our skies. A friendly one. Unfortunately, I know the physics involved and I just don't see anything to change the equation.

What IS the implication of this Glenn if it is not that visiting aliens are a fallacious explanation for UFOs because the laws of physics indicate that interstellar space travel is highly improbable?

Anyhow, to get from one star to the next, it takes energy. Force still equals mass times acceleration and energy still equals mass times the speed of light squared. Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance of providing enough energy to get from star to another.

Read up on the latest developments in physics. Interdimensional travel is mooted for a start. Besides your statement: “Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance…” indicate you DO believe physics is a dead subject with no hope for future discoveries.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167).

I stated It is the reports (in this case photos) that are unexplained (more precisely “Unknown) that need explanation. For example (http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm)…

We cannot draw any conclusions from things that are "unidentified". Only that we don't know what it is.

I am glad you acknowledge that there ARE extant photos indicating “unidentified” (flying) objects. This is a breakthrough in your thinking?

Even if there are a million "unidentifieds", we still cannot conclude that UFOs are alien spacecraft. Only that there are a million things we haven't identified.

This is my point EXACTLY. Now we can move on to hypothesise about what the DESCRIPTIONS of those UNKNOWNs represent or suggest?

arthwollipot

15th December 2008, 11:26 PM

I am glad you acknowledge that there ARE extant photos indicating “unidentified” (flying) objects. This is a breakthrough in your thinking?I have never denied that there are photos of things that I cannot identify. A fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob. So no, no breakthroughs.

This is my point EXACTLY. Now we can move on to hypothesise about what the DESCRIPTIONS of those UNKNOWNs represent or suggest?See, the difference between you and me is that you believe that the existence of unknowns is somehow significant or interesting. It isn't. There are always unknowns, there always have been, and there always will be. They only start to get interesting when they can be identified. To this date there is no good reason to identify any particular unknown as an alien spacecraft.

Unless you have a reason, that is. I'm quite willing to address whatever evidence you think you have.

Rramjet

15th December 2008, 11:45 PM

I have never denied that there are photos of things that I cannot identify. A fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob is a fuzzy blob. So no, no breakthroughs.

The cylindrical object in the photo at http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm is a fuzzy blob? Please let us not play games here. I would like your description of that object and what you think it may represent. If you believe that it may be a mundane object (or have an otherwise prosaic explanation) I would surely like to know.

...To this date there is no good reason to identify any particular unknown as an alien spacecraft.

Unless you have a reason, that is...

You are not ready to accept evidence of an alien presence yet Mr arthwollipot. When you are you will receive it. :)

I'm quite willing to address whatever evidence you think you have.

First I would like you to address the photo of the cylindrical object mentioned above... a fuzzy blob it is not :)

arthwollipot

16th December 2008, 12:26 AM

The cylindrical object in the photo at http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm is a fuzzy blob? Please let us not play games here. I would like your description of that object and what you think it may represent. If you believe that it may be a mundane object (or have an otherwise prosaic explanation) I would surely like to know.Roger, you've made enough posts now that you can post links.

I think it's a poorly-lit blimp. But I have to reiterate that I don't know, because there is not enough of it for me to draw a firm conclusion.

You are not ready to accept evidence of an alien presence yet Mr arthwollipot. When you are you will receive it. :)And what the heck is that supposed to mean?

First I would like you to address the photo of the cylindrical object mentioned above... a fuzzy blob it is not :)Well, it's still pretty fuzzy. But yeah. If I had to state what I thought it was, I'd say that I think it's a blimp, poorly lit from underneath. There's no suggestion that it's "tubular", by the way. One end is in shadow - there's no way of knowing what's there. It's impossible to tell how big it is or what may be hidden in shadow.

Note that this is not a positive identification of the object as a blimp. It's only what I think it might be. For all I know, blimps were not used in New York in 1950. It's an unknown. I don't know what it is.

But I am pretty sure it's not an alien spacecraft.

CFLarsen

16th December 2008, 01:16 AM

My original report certainly contained more than enough information to make an attribution to whatever group: Time, place, direction, a clear description. All it would take is a bit of research.

This wasn't done. Instead, the wrong conclusion was reached.

On one hand, we are told that this is not to argue that there is evidence that aliens are visiting us.

On the other, we are told that once we are ready, we will accept the evidence. And that evidence exists.

So, let's see this evidence. Physical evidence.

No, a generic Google search is not physical evidence.

Darth Rotor

16th December 2008, 12:00 PM

That 94% of those descriptions in Blue Book were accurate enough to enable investigators to ascribe mundane explanations (balloons, airplanes, etc) speaks of the indelible ACCURACY of how people describe what they see.
I am not sure that word means what you think it means. I also offer to you that accurate for the measuring device used may not provide the desired precision.
It must be stressed here that to most “alien abductees” the experience is SEVERELY traumatic (reference link disallowed). For some it simply ruins their lives, for many it makes their lives very difficult to carry on normally. Like many victims of severe trauma they can become withdrawn and isolated, losing their jobs and relationships. To visit ridicule on these people on top of their trauma constitutes cruel and unusual treatment – in other words torture.
And here is where the lying begins. Ridicule is now torture, is it?

Let me give you another example of trying to call a dog a faucet:

Reading intellectually dishonest screeds on the internet is mentally traumatic, and the blunt, non rapier wit used to present it is damaging to my mental well being. You are invited to turn yourself in to the police for inflicting blunt trauma upon me. Assault, with stupidity as a weapon.

What began as a critique of James Randi's less than airtight prose turns into a silly appeal to victim status, evoking torture as your emotional tool.

Rramjet, you are well named for the posting style you have adopted:

The air comes in, mixes with gas, and then comes out as hotter gas having moved nothing inside the boor. (Or is it bore?)

ETA: I need to say this. Sparring with Larsen is one thing, Claus likes to quibble a lot.

Insulting Glenn/Hindmost is another. He's a very calm, rational, and decent net conversationalist, who is very well grounded in science , as well as energy generation and conversion. My only caveat on his excellent points regarding the energy requirements for interstellar travel would be, (anti-matter and all)

"nothing we've been able to figure out as practically buildable and implementable in the geometries resembling the reports of UFO's that are deemed by some to be from extraterrestial sources."

In short, if there is something in the universe as we know it that is manipulable such that is allows a "stargate" sort of wormhole travelling mechanism, and thence a mother ship sending out smaller ships to do whatever in and near Earth, it's not yet been figured out. Given how far down into matter and energy states the earth based physicists have delved, the spacecraft typically alluded to are unlikely in the extreme to be crafted and operated.

Regarding your faith in eyewitnesses:

I have better than average eyesight. I spent over two decades as a pilot. I have made some excellent visual identifications at range, and certainly some errors. While many people give decent eyewitness reports, visual acquisition and identification of a flying object can be horribly wrong.

Go back about fifteen years, and check out the two US Army Blackhawks that were misidentified by professional pilots with excellent visual acuity, both of whom were trained observers of flying objects: a pair of USAF F-15 pilots. Read here if you have 100% faith in the ability of untrained observers identifying and describing flying objects. The pilots blew the Visual Identification. Twenty Six dead. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident)

Rramjet

16th December 2008, 03:30 PM

Mr Larsen. you are being irritatingly obtuse. What else am I to think when you submit a personal UFO “report” and then ask whether it is a “quality” report and I indicate to you that it is NOT a quality report and that there is in fact insufficient information to rule out a mundane explanation and then you immediately imply that I actually said it WAS a UFO… Here is the exact record of the conversation Mr Larsen…

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw an object to the south west. The object was certainly no satellite or plane (I checked), but was blinking in some form of unsteady rhythm while it moved at an impossible speed across the sky. Other people have independently seen it, too.

Was that a credible UFO account?

Actually no, Mr Larson, it is NOT a credible UFO account. It does not have enough information to rule out more mundane objects. For example “impossible speed” is too subjective to be defined relative to the speed of a jet or meteor &c. The others of your statements also may be interpreted entirely subjectively. So no, it is not a credible UFO report. For some examples of what more credible UFO reports look like see for example (http colon//www .ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html) which lists the Blue Book “Unknowns”.

Oddly enough, my account contained a heck of a lot more information than many UFO accounts that are deemed as alien spaceships.

E.g., the fact that direction, location and description would have made it easy to determine the cause:

On 9. December, 2008, at 16.42, I was in Copenhagen, when I saw the toolbox that NASA's astronaut Heidemarie Stefannyshyn-Piper lost from the International Space Station, ISS.

HeavensAbove (http://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=33442&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET)

What can be learned from this? That UFOs are in the eye of the believer - as alien space ships.

But I already acknowledged that your original report did not contain sufficient information to make an attribution of EITHER IFO OR UFO. That you then make this statement indicates to me that you are obtuse. What other term can you think of to describe your behaviour when you submit a UFO report and ask if it is a quality report and I indicate it is NOT a quality report and falls under the category of “Insufficient Information” and then you submit this statement as if I had indicated your report represented a UFO. THAT is being obtuse on your part Mr Larsen.

My original report certainly contained more than enough information to make an attribution to whatever group: Time, place, direction, a clear description. All it would take is a bit of research.

This wasn't done. Instead, the wrong conclusion was reached.

What wrong conclusion Mr Larsen? … I stated clearly that your report COULD NOT rule out mundane objects and I certainly did NOT classify it in the UNKNOWN category (that is that it was a true UFO). That left me in the position of stating that I had insufficient information to make a judgement and so to state that your report did not constitute a “quality” UFO report.

IN FACT if you search Google for the city, date and time that you provide in your “report” it DOES NOT REVEAL anything to do with astronaut’s toolboxes …so your “All it would take is a bit of research” assertion is patently false. How else am I going to research your account Mr Larsen? With what other tools would you approach the topic of your report?

Furthermore, you were clearly withholding information from me to see if I would walk into some kind of trap. THAT is underhand and sneaky Mr Larsen… and you utterly failed in the attempt… yet you carried on as if I had walked into your trap!

A conversation with Mr Larsen:

CFL: “This is my assertion.”
Rr: Your assertion is incorrectly made because…”
CFL: This IS my assertion”
Rr: “Yes, we know it is your assertion, but you need to provide supporting evidence.”
CFL: “This is my ASSERTION”
Rr: “So you have repeatedly stated, but consider this alternate way of seeing things.
CFL: THIS is my assertion”
Rr: “Are you being deliberately obtuse?”
CFL: “This is my assertion and moreover YOU agree with it.”
Rr: “Don’t be irrational Mr Larsen. Nowhere have I stated I hold to that view, in fact quite the opposite.
CFL: “THIS IS my assertion and it is YOUR assertion too”
Rr: “Now Mr Larsen, really. How is one to logically debate you?
CFL: “THIS IS MY assertion AND yours too”
Rr: “…!”

technoextreme

16th December 2008, 05:07 PM

Well, it's still pretty fuzzy. But yeah. If I had to state what I thought it was, I'd say that I think it's a blimp, poorly lit from underneath. There's no suggestion that it's "tubular", by the way. One end is in shadow - there's no way of knowing what's there. It's impossible to tell how big it is or what may be hidden in shadow.

It's probably the moon. I've mastered the art of the shaky hand photos and it's a shaky hand photo of a full moon taken at a long enough exposure. The problem is that the interview information is missing. If it's something he only noticed after he took the picture it's definitely the moon. If it's something before he took the picture then I would agree with you. I would tend to lean towards the moon because apparently some people are predisposed to assign supernatural phenomenon towards normal optical phenomenon in pictures.

arthwollipot

16th December 2008, 08:26 PM

It's probably the moon. I've mastered the art of the shaky hand photos and it's a shaky hand photo of a full moon taken at a long enough exposure. The problem is that the interview information is missing. If it's something he only noticed after he took the picture it's definitely the moon. If it's something before he took the picture then I would agree with you. I would tend to lean towards the moon because apparently some people are predisposed to assign supernatural phenomenon towards normal optical phenomenon in pictures.I think the moon explanation is not likely, because there are actually a couple of faint stars visible in the shot as well. It could be a very long exposure, so that the moon moves through the field of view, but I would have expected to see more stars. If it's a shaky-hand photo, then the stars would be streaked as well.

technoextreme

16th December 2008, 08:43 PM

If it's a shaky-hand photo, then the stars would be streaked as well.
Nope. Meet shaky-hand photo #1:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=65&pictureid=510
Though this is more pick up camera and toss it around than it is shaky photo because as you can tell there were more beams of light than light sources in that picture. Notice how the van de graf generator remains in focus while it's evident that I shook the camera around. I don't know why it happened but it did. It is also the reason why I kept it around because it defies what I expected when I realized what I had done. Swift also has pictures exactly like that one that have been described as the work of ghosts so it's not exactly a fluky event.

Hindmost

16th December 2008, 09:25 PM

Snip....

“Google” “UFO physical evidence”. Physical evidence exists for UFO cases.

Most UFO reports do not involve an interviewer at all, they are submitted without outside “interference”.

UFOs do get reported to people that put them in the paper and on websites....not everyone that sees something immediately opens their own website to report it. There are always filters and some of them can swayed by confirmation bias...a very real thing. Read: Mistake were Made, but not by me."

You stated:

Originally Posted by Hindmost http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4265201#post4265201)
By the way, I am not in any way a UFO debunker. I would very much like to see a UFO over our skies. A friendly one. Unfortunately, I know the physics involved and I just don't see anything to change the equation.

What IS the implication of this Glenn if it is not that visiting aliens are a fallacious explanation for UFOs because the laws of physics indicate that interstellar space travel is highly improbable?

Read up on the latest developments in physics. Interdimensional travel is mooted for a start. Besides your statement: “Fusion and antimatter matter reactions are the only chance…” indicate you DO believe physics is a dead subject with no hope for future discoveries.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167).

I stated It is the reports (in this case photos) that are unexplained (more precisely “Unknown) that need explanation. For example (http colon//www .ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm)…

I do like shakespeare, but his insights won't provide evidence. I should add that fusion and antimatter are not the ONLY chance--that was shortsighted on my part. However, they are reasonable propulsion possibilities and fusion the most likely a first step for any civilization. I certainly don't think physics is dead since I keep buying new books on the subject.

Since the physics of space travel make it highly improbable, that tends to push occam's razor toward UFOs being of earth origin...or possibly meteors which do hit the planet on a daily basis.

I am glad you acknowledge that there ARE extant photos indicating “unidentified” (flying) objects. This is a breakthrough in your thinking?

This is my point EXACTLY. Now we can move on to hypothesise about what the DESCRIPTIONS of those UNKNOWNs represent or suggest?

Of course I believe there are UFOs...I just don't think they come from another solar system. (In my college days, UFOs were "unidentified fried objects"...but I digress.) Some photos are convincing. Some are just silly. I am usually amazed how aliens always forget to turn off their headlights. Now, if the UFOs were accompanied by a radar signature...or gamma rays or sophisticated EM, then I would really be on the side of earth having been visited by an alien. But to accept only photographic evidence is just not scientific. I certainly don't accept abduction stories.

Any advanced civilization would have to exploit physics similar to what we have since they would have the same proton, neutrons and electrons. Therefore, the signature for that civilization should be out among the stars as well. SETI hasn't found anything close to convincing.

http://www.physorg.com/news8817.html

The link above provides some compelling physics associated with space travel. It leaves out an Orion type project which also has potential. Pay particular attention to the bit on antimatter.

Now, I would love to believe a wormhole could be established for interstellar travel...but they are completely theoretical and--if they do exist--really hard to keep open for a period of time. Plus, the negative energy/mass thing is troublesome. I actually wonder what a wormhole opening on our horizon would look like.

glenn

arthwollipot

16th December 2008, 10:53 PM

Nope. Meet shaky-hand photo #1:
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=65&pictureid=510
Though this is more pick up camera and toss it around than it is shaky photo because as you can tell there were more beams of light than light sources in that picture. Notice how the van de graf generator remains in focus while it's evident that I shook the camera around. I don't know why it happened but it did. It is also the reason why I kept it around because it defies what I expected when I realized what I had done. Swift also has pictures exactly like that one that have been described as the work of ghosts so it's not exactly a fluky event.This happens because of the way long shutter speeds work with the flash. The flash goes off either when the shutter opens, or just before it closes. So the part of the scene that is dark is sharp (because it is illuminated by the flash) and the bright points are spread out because the shutter is open and they have enough light for the camera to pick up.

I don't think Roger's "cylindrical object" fits the bill here, because it is a bright object on a dark field, while the stars are very dim. For the flash to be illuminating the stars, they would have to be, well, not stars.

CFLarsen

17th December 2008, 12:20 AM

Can we see the physical evidence or not?

technoextreme

17th December 2008, 06:55 AM

This happens because of the way long shutter speeds work with the flash. The flash goes off either when the shutter opens, or just before it closes. So the part of the scene that is dark is sharp (because it is illuminated by the flash) and the bright points are spread out because the shutter is open and they have enough light for the camera to pick up.

I don't think Roger's "cylindrical object" fits the bill here, because it is a bright object on a dark field, while the stars are very dim. For the flash to be illuminating the stars, they would have to be, well, not stars.
Nope. Just doubled checked the exif data. No flash. I think your right but the flash is irrelevant.

Astrophotographer

17th December 2008, 07:47 AM

I don't think Roger's "cylindrical object" fits the bill here, because it is a bright object on a dark field, while the stars are very dim. For the flash to be illuminating the stars, they would have to be, well, not stars.

Are we sure the white specs are stars and not just dust specs on the scan/negative? To me it looks like somebody took multiple exposures of the moon on one negative over several minutes but that is just an opinion based on first glance. If they are stars, that would refute this idea. Just remember, this is a scan of a negative or print. Any dust that is on that negative/print will be scanned in as well. I would like to see a better image. However, I don't think we can discount the moon in the case quite yet.

Astrophotographer

17th December 2008, 10:19 AM

After examination of the photograph, I am fairly convinced (not 100%) that the Project Grudge boys got this one right. Take a look at this photograph:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2298/2325579711_1a9d6b5b54.jpg?v=0

I suggest we rethink the stars argument because of the type of films in use in 1950. Most of the films were slow ISO(at that time ASA) rating of <400. Recording anything but very bright stars/planets on slow films for short duration exposures would almost be impossible. If this was a "snapshot" of a single UFO with a handheld camera, you would not see stars in the image. Therefore, it is my opinion that the "stars" are really just dust specs or imperfections in the scan. Looking at the multiple exposure photo of the moon I linked above you can see similarities with the 1950 shot. Apparently, somebody just took a camera and did not advance the film. They probably took numerous 1/4-1/60th second exposures over and over again on a fixed tripod every few seconds. The end result would be a bunch of crescent moons apparently connected together.

Additionally, the moon on March 20, 1950 was a thin evening crescent just over 2 days old (4% illuminated) and set around 8:20PM EST for New York. The rough angle at which this is titled is measured to be about 55 degrees. When I measured the angle of the moon's setting motion for New York on that evening, I got a value of roughly 68 degrees. Not exactly the same but if the camera was not level, it could explain the deviation of 13 degrees.

Finally, the moon was in Pisces with many faint stars nearby and no bright ones. No bright stars (the only type that can be recorded in short exposures) would have been recorded preventing the casual observer from recognizing that it was multiple exposures of the moon setting.

To me, there is enough evidence to suggest this could very well be a multiple exposure of the crescent moon setting that night. I think the Project Grudge boys may have gotten this one correct despite the lame proclamations by the UFO website.

arthwollipot

17th December 2008, 07:23 PM

I bow to the superior knowledge of someone who knows something about astrophotography. :D

Rramjet

18th December 2008, 08:25 PM

I found another image of that “cylindrical” object http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case407.htm which shows New York City in relation to the object http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/northamerica/Photo393.htm. It looks like the photo I drew people’s attention to at might actually be an “enhanced” section of a larger original… (don’t you hate it when they DO that without showing the original on the same page or even labelling it as an enhanced section taken from an original...? I do!) the original (!) shows the camera was level and also indicates (if one knows New York I guess) which direction the camera was pointing.

I suppose it now should be (relatively?) easy for astrophotographer to work out if the moon could have been at that position in the sky and tracking at the angle indicated in the photo?

I cannot disagree with astrophotographer that the picture looks like it COULD have been a multiple exposure of the moon and I will be willing to accede to astrophotographer's explanation if he is certain that the moon could have been tracking where it is and at the angle it is shown to be in the photo – but given that his initial estimations were out by 13 degrees and he explained this as possible camera angle deviation, I humbly request a clarification from him concerning position and tracking angle of the “moon” in the "original" photo...I don’t go for that “mothership” speculation on the website either…

jmcvann

18th December 2008, 09:10 PM

I think it's a poorly-lit blimp. But I have to reiterate that I don't know, because there is not enough of it for me to draw a firm conclusion.

Wow. I think you're being generous. "Blimp" implies it's big and way up in the air. Looks like the tube from a roll of paper towels to me. And considering the poor lighting, easy to fake.

But I'm no expert. I'll let other folk hash this out. It's fun reading.

18th December 2008, 10:28 PM

What do we have, after 'n' pages of unfounded accusations, insults, and claims of misconduct on the skeptics' part?

Nothing. No evidence, no substance, no UFO, nothing but empty words, insults, and accusations.

I know, maybe this guy is actually an alien trying to convince us he doesn't exist!!!!

arthwollipot

18th December 2008, 10:49 PM

Okay, with that new picture I'm more convinced that this is a long exposure of the moon. It's the right size, and in 1950 you'd have to have the shutter open for quite a long time to get such resolution of the city lights, and the "glow" above the city confirms it. Grudge was right.

Astrophotographer

19th December 2008, 07:49 AM

I cannot disagree with astrophotographer that the picture looks like it COULD have been a multiple exposure of the moon and I will be willing to accede to astrophotographer's explanation if he is certain that the moon could have been tracking where it is and at the angle it is shown to be in the photo – but given that his initial estimations were out by 13 degrees and he explained this as possible camera angle deviation, I humbly request a clarification from him concerning position and tracking angle of the “moon” in the "original" photo...I don’t go for that “mothership” speculation on the website either…

Well, it is hard to guess at the angle we are looking at because the actual horizon of the city is not clear. I too later found this photograph. I found the camera to be tilted around 5 degrees but that was based on the lights on the waterfront and may not be a very accurate measurement. Additionally, my earlier measurements were rough guesses using a crude protractor and an inexpensive freeware program that may be off in it's calculations. The difference can be simply due to measurement error. I will attempt later it again, when I get a chance this evening with photoshop and a more precise astronomy program if you so desire. BTW, The bright area behind the object is probably the twilight sky background. Additionally, the "UFO" is in the same location the moon would be around that time of the evening. I see no reason to reject the moon hypothesis because of my earliest measurements having a potential for being in error. Most important is if it is in the early evening as the sky twilight suggests and it is on the date in question, I ask the simple question, where is the moon if this is a "true UFO"? The moon should be present in the photograph (especially since city lights were recorded).

Astrophotographer

19th December 2008, 12:01 PM

After looking at the astronomy program again, I realized I used too small a sample for the moon's motion and may have been looking at the ecliptic when I obtained my value of 68 degrees. Actually, if I recall my celestial mechanics correctly, the motion would be roughly at the same angle as the celestial equator, which is a function of observer's latitude (i.e. somebody on the equator would have the celestrial equator straight up and down to the horizon or 90 degrees while at the north pole the angle would be 0). The angle for the celestial equator would be about 49 degrees for NY (which is close to 41 deg latitude). This means objects at the celestial equator would set at an angle of 49 degrees. There are some issues that are introduced as the object deviates from the equator but the moon was only 10 degrees above the celestial equator that evening so I do not think the deviation is significant.

As far as the tilt of the camera goes, I stated I measured a rough tilt of 5 degrees (I actually remeasured several values between 2 and 5). This 2-5 degree tilt is angled upward from the artificial horizon (The left is higher than right). This means we need to subtract this tilt from the motion of the object. That gives us a motion of the object of 50-53 degrees (as I stated previously this is a crude measurement made by a protractor against my monitor). I think some crude measurements of 50-53 is close enough to 49 to demonstrate it is the moon. I guess it is up to those who state it is not the moon to demonstrate that my measurements and rough calculations are incorrect.

IMO, stick a fork in it. It's the moon.

Astrophotographer

19th December 2008, 01:51 PM

Gord_in_Toronto

19th December 2008, 07:59 PM

OK, I have managed to make the measurements using photoshop and the angle for the moon is roughly 54.5 deg. The camera tilt is not as easy as I described previously because we only have lights to look at. Again, this value varies between 2-5 degrees depending on which row of lights you want to consider. Bottom line is that the Grudge boys did their homework and this is most likely the moon.

Either that, or we have to ask, as we do in so many of these situations, why can't we see the Moon that should be right there in the sky close to where the UFO is? Sort of like in the case of "Jimmy Carter's UFO". Where the heck was Venus? :D

Hindmost

21st December 2008, 07:26 PM

found some evidence...

12556

glenn:D

arthwollipot

21st December 2008, 11:11 PM

So what happened to rramjet? Was he abducted or something?

HghrSymmetry

22nd December 2008, 12:53 AM

More of an intrusive close encounter. The proctologist is having trouble removing the implants.

Astrophotographer

22nd December 2008, 07:34 AM

So what happened to rramjet? Was he abducted or something?

Perhaps he is working on his UFO Best evidence thread he promised in his critical evaluation of Phil Klass's ten UFOlogical principles thread. I am not holding my breath.

Rramjet

22nd December 2008, 02:10 PM

Not abducted just a bit ill...

I accept the moon explanation.

And yes astrophotographer I HAVE been working on getting a new thread up concerning UFOs... it will happen... but I am going for a holiday for Xmas/New Year and I won't have web access where I am going - so that posting will have to wait until mid-January... sorry to disappoint! :)

I also have some more to say about this thread in relation to Randi - but again that will have to wait.

So... I must now take my leave for a couple of weeks or so. Hope you don't miss me too much! :)

Merry Xmas and Happy new Year!
Rramjet.

CFLarsen

22nd December 2008, 02:24 PM

Can we see the physical evidence or not?

Anytime will be fine.

arthwollipot

22nd December 2008, 07:40 PM

Merry Christmas, Rramjet, and I hope you're feeling better soon.

technoextreme

24th December 2008, 01:04 PM

Wow. I think you're being generous. "Blimp" implies it's big and way up in the air. Looks like the tube from a roll of paper towels to me. And considering the poor lighting, easy to fake.

But I'm no expert. I'll let other folk hash this out. It's fun reading.

Thank you for posting what I originally thought. It does look like a paper towel tube.

arthwollipot

27th December 2008, 06:15 AM

Looks can be deceiving...

Obviously, the photo could be a blatant hoax. People are known to do this, for whatever reason. That cannot be ruled out.

Zurack

28th December 2008, 11:34 AM

I'm pretty sure that the "cylindrical object" is a multiple exposure of the Moon.

I used the sky simulation program "Stellarium" to see how the sky was in New York, March 20, 1950. And the UFO is pretty close to where the Moon is supposed to be! Even the Moon phase match the "cylinder" illumination.

Screenshots:

img91.imageshack.us/img91/8131/stellarium001mx4.png
img91.imageshack.us/img91/7140/stellarium002vu3.png

Sorry, I cannot post the links as images! If you can, please post it for me. :D

Oh, and quoting from the "UFO EVIDENCE" website: (Because it's funny, of course!)

"Upon investigating the report, Project Grudge officially labeled it: "the moon"!"
Heh, because IT IS the Moon!

"Some ufologists have speculated that tubular objects of this sort may be "mother ships," purportedly capable of taking on and discharging smaller "craft" in stacks, poker-chip fashion."
It's funny how they swim on complete speculations and "what-ifs".

(Yey, my first post! Sorry if my English is bad, it's not my first language!)

Edit: Oh my god! The curse attacked once again! A very large number of my posts are always the firsts of the page (Page 3 in this case, with default settings) in all forums I use! This time it's even crazier, because it's my first post here. :rolleyes:

Chaos

28th December 2008, 12:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that the "cylindrical object" is a multiple exposure of the Moon.

I used the sky simulation program "Stellarium" to see how the sky was in New York, March 20, 1950. And the UFO is pretty close to where the Moon is supposed to be! Even the Moon phase match the "cylinder" illumination.

Screenshots:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8131/stellarium001mx4.png
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7140/stellarium002vu3.png

Sorry, I cannot post the links as images! If you can, please post it for me. :D

Here you are.

Oh, and quoting from the "UFO EVIDENCE" website: (Because it's funny, of course!)

"Upon investigating the report, Project Grudge officially labeled it: "the moon"!"
Heh, because IT IS the Moon!

To a certain mindset, that explanation is far too obvious to be true.

"Some ufologists have speculated that tubular objects of this sort may be "mother ships," purportedly capable of taking on and discharging smaller "craft" in stacks, poker-chip fashion."
It's funny how they swim on complete speculations and "what-ifs".

Probably because they don´t have anything else.

(Yey, my first post! Sorry if my English is bad, it's not my first language!)

Don´t worry, you´re doing very well.

Edit: Oh my god! The curse attacked once again! A very large number of my posts are always the firsts of the page (Page 3 in this case, with default settings) in all forums I use! This time it's even crazier, because it's my first post here. :rolleyes:

Must be the aliens doing this. They´re trying to help you because you are so useful hiding their presence here... :boxedin:

Astrophotographer

28th December 2008, 07:10 PM

Important to note in these images are that all the stars are second magnitude or fainter. They would not be recorded in short exposures of fractions of a second, which is what this photograph looks like.

Gord_in_Toronto

28th December 2008, 07:14 PM

Brody

4th January 2009, 06:14 AM

Hawk one

4th January 2009, 06:31 AM

I once saw a guy do a magic trick wherein U.S. quarters were placed in a square formation on a pad. Like this :: . Then, he covered each quarter with a playing card. But, one at a time, the quarters somehow "flew" invisibly and joined the quarter at the upper rightmost position.

I guarantee you, I did NOT describe reliably what I had seen, since when I later found out how the trick was done, I realized that I had glossed over and/or not noticed 3 key pieces of information.

So, I don't think eyewitnesses are THAT reliable.Heck, stage magic as we know it today wouldn't even exist if they didn't know that the witnesses can easily be fooled with "simple" techniques. Because if we were truly reliable eyewitnesses, then the majority of the audience would immediately spot what actually happened, with no explanation or pre-knowledge needed.

Not to mention that if humans were really reliable eyewitnesses, we'd also always (or close enough to make no significant difference) spot the film tricks in movies, no matter how convincingly they were done. Which would mean little to no market for movies relying on special effects.

*"Simple" as compared to actually making Brody's coins fly. I aknowledge that several of the tricks require months and maybe years of sleight-opractice to reliably work.

Astrophotographer

4th January 2009, 10:46 AM

Just to let everyone know, I duplicated the shot pretty well a few nights ago. This is a digital image where I had to stack the images over and over to duplicate the effect of exposing on one sheet of film. I used the foreground lights as a reference to perform the stacks. Each exposure was 1/15th second separated by about 30 seconds (It was cold and I made a mistake or two on the time in between shots). Venus is to the upper left but it is the only celestial object other than the moon that is recorded (there are a few hot spots in the image that I left). I set the camera for ISO 800, which is faster than any film that I am aware of in 1950. The stars near the moon for the night of March 20, 1950 were all second magnitude or fainter so they defintely would not be recorded.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/multimoon.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/multimoonb.jpg

arthwollipot

4th January 2009, 10:19 PM

Yeah! That's great! An almost-perfect reproduction of the original. Well done.

Ragnarok

6th January 2009, 07:50 AM

Go back about fifteen years, and check out the two US Army Blackhawks that were misidentified by professional pilots with excellent visual acuity, both of whom were trained observers of flying objects: a pair of USAF F-15 pilots. Read here if you have 100% faith in the ability of untrained observers identifying and describing flying objects. The pilots blew the Visual Identification. Twenty Six dead. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident)

You seem to be missing an important point; these men believed they were under serious threat from something that looked remarkably similar to what they mistakenly thought it was. They didn't mistake a Red Cross helicopter for an enemy craft. Someone was under extreme pressure, they panicked, made a wrong call. This event is hardly similar to the average ufo sighting incident.

Czarcasm

6th January 2009, 11:31 PM

Ragnarok

7th January 2009, 05:16 AM

Do you want to test the reliability of UFO reports?
Call you local night time radio talk show and claim that you saw an oblong shape with blue and green lights hovering to the west of your current location. Say that it seemed to float about 200 feet above the ground for about ten minutes, then flew straight up a couple hundred feet and then seemed to fly off to the south faster than any jet could possibly fly.

See how many "witnesses" call the station to give the same report, most probably with even more detail.

And this proves what, exactly?

So I lie about a ufo observation to a radio station; people call in and make similar reports, whether out of mischief, or because they had seen something. How many need to respond for this to be a valid representation of the public in general?

Czarcasm

7th January 2009, 07:36 AM

Most reports aren't made in a vacuum. People hear descriptions and unknowingly apply them to situations and events they themselves have experienced, later "remembering" the blend of personal experience and outside influence as something personally witnessed. You don't usually get a bunch of reports all of a sudden that agree with each other detail wise-what usually happens is that one or two vague reports comes in, others start reporting the same thing with added [at first conflicting) details, the more popular details are kept, and the end result is a detailed description that most of the event reporters "remember".

Andrew Wiggin

20th August 2009, 02:04 AM

First, there is no compelling evidence that alien abductions are related to UFOs and second most certainly it is NOT a “favourite claim” made by UFO researchers at all. Randi really has no idea of what he is writing. The two fields are separate research topics (although not mutually exclusive). Randi scurrilously links the two in an effort to denigrate UFO reports and UFO reporters and researchers by association with what has become in the general public’s eye a completely unbelievable claim.

I don't see how these can be considered unrelated phenomena. Enough of the accounts of abductions have reported being taken aboard a craft. If alien abductions are unrelated to UFO's, how do the aliens get around? Still waiting for the reports of abductees being probed in the back of, for example, a ford escort station wagon.

A.

Sean84

20th August 2009, 04:53 AM

I had an alien in the back of my ford escort sedan once, I commenced probing, does that count?

Andrew Wiggin

20th August 2009, 11:53 PM

I had an alien in the back of my ford escort sedan once, I commenced probing, does that count?

It's something. Not sure what exactly, but something.

A

Rramjet

24th August 2009, 12:56 AM

I don't see how these can be considered unrelated phenomena. Enough of the accounts of abductions have reported being taken aboard a craft. If alien abductions are unrelated to UFO's, how do the aliens get around? Still waiting for the reports of abductees being probed in the back of, for example, a ford escort station wagon.

A.

I wish people would tell me when they have found positive proof that aliens exist and that they travel around in "UFOs" :)

The populist belief that aliens exist and travel in UFOs is unproven. It is merely an hypothesis, but it is not the only one (eg; they could be humans from the distant future is another one, interdimensional beings is another, manifestations of our own psyche... the list goes on).

Any discussion about "UFOs" and the "beings" seemingly associated should be couched in terms of what we know - not what we speculate.

What we KNOW is that anomalous phenomena, completely outside our current understanding, are occurring regularly and that billions of people worldwide seem to experience these phenomena in similar and in categorical fashion. Because there is no concerted scientific analysis of these phenomena (indeed quite the opposite: there is a concerted effort on the part of - especially - people who host this forum and like minds, to forestall and discredit any form of serious analysis) we as a species remain ignorant of the true nature of the phenomena.

This is an indictment on skeptical and inquiring minds. Flat earther's like Randi can debunk and deny all they like, but the phenomena will continue to manifest.

Serious research is called for.

I live in hope for enlightened thinking but my experience in this forum shows me that humankind is very far from being rational and logically inquiring - and THAT is an indictment on the people who host this forum. It should be their business to foster clear and rational thinking, but instead they seem to cloud and obscure with ridicule and illogical thinking.

Shame, shame, shame. :(

Gord_in_Toronto

24th August 2009, 09:24 AM

I wish people would tell me when they have found positive proof that aliens exist and that they travel around in "UFOs" :)

The populist belief that aliens exist and travel in UFOs is unproven. It is merely an hypothesis, but it is not the only one (eg; they could be humans from the distant future is another one, interdimensional beings is another, manifestations of our own psyche... the list goes on).

Hiya Rog. Long time no see.

Any discussion about "UFOs" and the "beings" seemingly associated should be couched in terms of what we know - not what we speculate.

That sounds like a great idea.

What we KNOW is that anomalous phenomena, completely outside our current understanding, are occurring regularly and that billions of people worldwide seem to experience these phenomena in similar and in categorical fashion. Because there is no concerted scientific analysis of these phenomena (indeed quite the opposite: there is a concerted effort on the part of - especially - people who host this forum and like minds, to forestall and discredit any form of serious analysis) we as a species remain ignorant of the true nature of the phenomena.

We know that people see all sorts of things they cannot explain. There is little or no evidence that they are not explainable by mundane explanations.

This is an indictment on skeptical and inquiring minds. Flat earther's like Randi can debunk and deny all they like, but the phenomena will continue to manifest.

Give me a case that is properly documented and I, too, will become a believer.

Serious research is called for.

No one prevents anyone from doing this. There are all sorts of groups that claim to do so. Let me know when they come up with anything interesting.

I live in hope for enlightened thinking but my experience in this forum shows me that humankind is very far from being rational and logically inquiring - and THAT is an indictment on the people who host this forum. It should be their business to foster clear and rational thinking, but instead they seem to cloud and obscure with ridicule and illogical thinking.

I live in hope for rationality. I live in hope for evidence.

Shame, shame, shame. :(

Oh. The irony. :i:

Rramjet

31st August 2009, 01:48 AM

Hiya Rog. Long time no see.

Hiya Gord. Yeah, I've missed our little contretemps too :D
I've been busy. I run high level projects and unfortunately I need to work to very tight deadlines - which doesn’t leave much time for hobbies…

We know that people see all sorts of things they cannot explain. There is little or no evidence that they are not explainable by mundane explanations.

But that is the problem exactly… and considered, rational research is the key to discovery, but if Randi has his ilk persist in denying even that unknown phenomena manifestly exist… well let us just say that no serious research will ever be conducted in a climate of ridicule, strident debunking and misinformation…

Give me a case that is properly documented and I, too, will become a believer.

But there are PLENTY of cases that are properly documented. The problem is that Randi et al. (and anyone who is so disposed) can pick holes in ANY evidence (even the most sound, widely accepted and logically grounded scientific theory can be overturned – and often has throughout history). There is in fact no such thing as incontrovertible evidence for ANYTHING… science can only proceed on a preponderance of evidence…it never has, never can and never will proceed on the basis of “incontrovertible proof”. One can ALWAYS play mind games with alternate possible explanations (philosophy is particularly imaginative at doing this). Of course where Randi et al. argument falls down is that THEY cannot explain what is occurring either!

No one prevents anyone from doing this. There are all sorts of groups that claim to do so. Let me know when they come up with anything interesting.

Oh please! head out of the sand please Gord. Where is the serious, formal research funding then? The fact remains that there is none. One cannot conduct research without the resources to do so. And of course all sorts of “groups” make all sorts of “claims” because there is absolutely no formal peer reviewed accreditation process that would come with a formal research/grant application/ethics committee/peer review/publication process that has become the standard of current scientific practice.

I stated: I live in hope for rationality. I live in hope for evidence.

Oh. The irony.

I think perhaps you misunderstand my position…

Your position is:

1. Assume Randi has a logical argument against the existence of unknown phenmomena.
2. Assume that “We know everything there is to know, therefore there is nothing left to discover” sums up the current state of scientific research.
3. Assume anyone who mounts an argument against the illogic of holding points one and two as truths must be some sort of “UFO nut” to be lumped in with the crazies of the world.

My position is to reject points 1 and 2 on the grounds that they are not supported by ANY evidence and to proceed from there based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific method and of the supporting arguments of philosophy (particularly epistemology and logic).

My argument is that we reject researching unknown phenomena at the risk of advancement of knowledge itself. I believe I have a strong case and if you have read and understood the substance of my original posts here, you might think so too.
:)

Gord_in_Toronto

31st August 2009, 12:31 PM

<snip>

Your position is:

1. Assume Randi has a logical argument against the existence of unknown phenmomena.
2. Assume that “We know everything there is to know, therefore there is nothing left to discover” sums up the current state of scientific research.
3. Assume anyone who mounts an argument against the illogic of holding points one and two as truths must be some sort of “UFO nut” to be lumped in with the crazies of the world.

<snip>

I went back and re-read the first few posts in this thread.

Your characterization of my position is amusingly incorrect.

There are no UFO reports that incontrovertibly show the existence of anything extra-terrestrial, extra-temporal, or inexplicable.

Period.

Let me know when you find one.

And you don't have to convert either Randi or I. Just convert the world of science in general.

Brody

7th September 2009, 09:04 AM

Where is the serious, formal research funding then?

Where is the serious, formal information that would require funding?

Also, it's ALWAYS tough to find funding. It's easier if you can show some way that money can be made from the research, naturally.

However, there are still researchers that manage to make discoveries without funding. The Australian doctor that discovered a cause for ulcers (Dr. Marshall?) springs to mind.

If I remember correctly, he advanced a theory for ulcers that was poo-poo'ed by the medical societies. He continued his work, and was awarded the Nobel. Here's a quote:

The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas.

I believe that he even dosed himself with the bacterium to prove that his idea was correct, since he couldn't afford clinical tests.

So, it can be done....it's just tough work.

Rramjet

7th September 2009, 10:49 AM

Your implacable obtuseness no longer surprises me Gord. What is it your fear? It is as if you do not grasp the concept of an intellectual argument at all. For example:

There are no UFO reports that incontrovertibly show the existence of anything extra-terrestrial, extra-temporal, or inexplicable.

I already directly addressed that point in my previous post. If you have a rejoinder to rebut my stated position on this point (in that post) then please put it and we can continue the debate. However, simply restating your original point over and over ad nauseam is childish, petulant… implacably obtuse. And a further example

And you don't have to convert either Randi or I. Just convert the world of science in general.

This is not an exercise in “conversion” Gord, it is an intellectual debate. You happen to hold a position on “UFOs” which I happen to disagree with. You argue that there is no “incontrovertible proof” that UFOs are anything other than mundane or banal. I point out that there is no such thing as “incontrovertible proof” for anything at all – including the most cherished and widely accepted theories and hypotheses in science we have today and that there are plenty of “UFO”cases that are intriguing in their lack of mundane explanation. You can reply either by arguing in favour of the concept of “incontrovertible proof” or by accepting my point and moving on with the debate.

Let me know when you find one.

I suggest then you take a closer look at the first hand witness accounts in the Rendelsham Forest case. If you are truly interested in examining a case I find intriguing, you should download and listen to the podcast: The Paracast May 3, 2009 (http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/8173). This podcast supplies much of the background information you will need and an extended interview with one of the eyewitnesses. Of course you can find many websites devoted to this case proposing “explanations” but my concerns are with the case itself and not wild speculation and unfounded assertion. The source material itself is my only interest. Are you willing to have a debate after looking at the evidence I present to you?

Oh…and Brody (hi :)…

Where is the serious, formal information that would require funding?

There is some serious information in the abovementioned podcast. Are you also willing to take the challenge?

…and by the by, the Australian doctor dosed himself sure, but even that required initial funding for him to be working in his chosen profession with the consequent capabilities that conferred on him and he DID secure a great deal of funding to continue his work and conduct clinical trials - so your example is not correct at all. My argument that serious funding is required before serious research can be successfully completed stands.

Gord_in_Toronto

7th September 2009, 01:57 PM

Your implacable obtuseness no longer surprises me Gord. What is it your fear? It is as if you do not grasp the concept of an intellectual argument at all. For example:

Oh the irony.

I fear nothing except, maybe, the incredible level of credulity of UFOlogists.

Intellectual Argument vs Believer in Tall Tales.

I already directly addressed that point in my previous post. If you have a rejoinder to rebut my stated position on this point (in that post) then please put it and we can continue the debate. However, simply restating your original point over and over ad nauseam is childish, petulant… implacably obtuse. And a further exampleWith all the UFO industry and all the money that is made, surely someone can spend a dollar or two. Just give us one inconvertible case.

This is not an exercise in “conversion” Gord, it is an intellectual debate. You happen to hold a position on “UFOs” which I happen to disagree with. You argue that there is no “incontrovertible proof” that UFOs are anything other than mundane or banal. I point out that there is no such thing as “incontrovertible proof” for anything at all – including the most cherished and widely accepted theories and hypotheses in science we have today and that there are plenty of “UFO”cases that are intriguing in their lack of mundane explanation. You can reply either by arguing in favour of the concept of “incontrovertible proof” or by accepting my point and moving on with the debate.It is not an exercise in conversion it is an exercise in reality.

Pretty much all of reality exists of incontrovertible proof. What is your problem? :boggled:

I suggest then you take a closer look at the first hand witness accounts in the Rendelsham Forest case. If you are truly interested in examining a case I find intriguing, you should download and listen to the podcast: The Paracast May 3, 2009 (http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/8173). This podcast supplies much of the background information you will need and an extended interview with one of the eyewitnesses. Of course you can find many websites devoted to this case proposing “explanations” but my concerns are with the case itself and not wild speculation and unfounded assertion. The source material itself is my only interest. Are you willing to have a debate after looking at the evidence I present to you?OK. I've now listened to the podcast.

Oh…and Brody (hi :)…Hi Brody.

There is some serious information in the abovementioned podcast. Are you also willing to take the challenge?Rendlesham (note the spelling) is a typical UFO Big Fish story. The original minnow grows with each retelling until, in this case it is as big as a basking shark.

The only real data we have from the time are Col Halt's audio tape and his handwritten notes.

Don't get scared in an English forest at night when you see a flashing light from a light house, the lights of a farm house, white lights on radio towers & etc and particularly don't look at any bright light through a Starscope.

And don't run around hysterically in the dark.

The rest my friend are just tall tales. Where is there any supporting evidence?

…and by the by, the Australian doctor dosed himself sure, but even that required initial funding for him to be working in his chosen profession with the consequent capabilities that conferred on him and he DID secure a great deal of funding to continue his work and conduct clinical trials - so your example is not correct at all. My argument that serious funding is required before serious research can be successfully completed stands.The podcast mentions $200,000 being spent by Ted Turner on the original CNN show on Rendlesham. How much more do you want?

Gord_in_Toronto

7th September 2009, 02:00 PM

Double post. :o

Rramjet

14th September 2009, 01:41 AM

Intellectual Argument vs Believer in Tall Tales.

Gord, you still don’t seem to understand what it means to have an intellectual argument/debate.

You seem to be approaching things from a fundamentalist point of view. You come into this with a fixed position (It cannot be therefore it is not). Your mind is made up and no amount of logic or debate or “evidence” will change your implacable position. Moreover, this is exactly the point of view you ascribe to and then deride in your so-called “UFOlogists”.

Remember, I am not a UFOlogist and I hold no position, one way or other, on the matter whatsoever. I am merely interested in the logic and history of the debate because as a research psychologist and philosopher it intrigues me that the double standards, stridency and implacable illogic of the so called debunkers (as represented by Randi and various members of this forum) should hold such influence over the (so called) “serious” scientific community. I am interested historically as to how such paradoxical position should have been arrived at and how it is maintained in the present age. I am interested specifically in the history and philosophy of the scientific enterprise and I look for historical parallels with present-day belief structure concerning UFOs (and more broadly the “paranormal”).

With all the UFO industry and all the money that is made, surely someone can spend a dollar or two.

So where is this money you speak of? You should be able to provide examples to prove your general (but largely unstated) assumption that “UFOlogists are primarily in it for the money”. There is also a strange logic at work in that assumption. I guess it begins with another assumption - something like “Having or obtaining money from or for your research negates scientific value”. I cannot believe you truly hold that position.

Just give us one inconvertible case.

and…

It is not an exercise in conversion it is an exercise in reality.

Pretty much all of reality exists of incontrovertible proof. What is your problem? :boggled:

..and here’s where your fundamentalism comes to the fore (or perhaps it is merely a lack of formal education?). In science there is no such thing as “incontrovertible proof”, not even for “reality”. This is an age old philosophical debate (realism v. rationalism) with no side being able to land the coup de gras. “Proof” in science is always weighed on the “balance of evidence” – an entirely subjective assessment. No matter how much “evidence” one gathers there will always remain the possibility that tomorrow a counterfactual example will manifest.

Bishop Berkeley stubbed his toe on a rock and exclaimed (paraphrasing) “There is reality!” but the brain in a vat being fed its experiences by a mad scientist would feel the stubbed toe just the same. So where IS reality? Certainly we have a preponderance of evidence - but with equal certainty we have no “incontrovertible proof” - for “reality (as we perceive it)”.

So let us return to basics Gord. I asked you if you were going to argue the philosophical case for the existence of “incontrovertible proof” and you provided me with a fundamentalist exclamation of the kind “Reality just IS”. This is as equally credulous and gullible a position as you ascribe to UFOlogists and their “beliefs”. If you disagree, then debate it with reasoned argument. There is my challenge to you. Reasoned argument Gord…not a shouting match.

OK. I've now listened to the podcast.

Did you? I see you providing no evidence of such a thing. You provide no commentary on the content or refute any points made in the content. I can only assume you did not listen to the podcast, or you found nothing in it to object to.

Rendlesham (note the spelling) is a typical UFO Big Fish story. The original minnow grows with each retelling until, in this case it is as big as a basking shark.

Again your fundamentalism and lack of understanding of human psychology is showing. You come from the original position that it is a “Tall tale”. Nowhere do you question this assumption or provide evidence for it.

You state that the story “grows with each retelling”. Where do you get that information from? Is it another of your unquestioned fundamental assumptions?

On that point. Have you ever sat down and told a story of a life-experience to a stranger? Did you mention ALL the details (all the minutia) of that story to that stranger? Have you ever then re-told that story to another stranger? Did the details you told have a different emphasis? Of course they did, you tailored each telling of the story according to various factors including the questions asked by the stranger, your mood at the time, the time you had to do the telling in, and so on. In fact, you certainly left some details out of the first telling that you provided in the second – and vice-versa. To a third stranger still you might get all the details of both the first and second telling but STILL have other details as yet untold. Now, I am a bystander at all tellings of your tale and accuse you, on the third telling of turning a “minnow” into a “basking shark”. You protest legitimately that you have told a factual tale, merely with different emphasis on details in each telling. You would be correct and I incorrect. Your story has “grown”, but in a legitimate way as details are filled out and expanded on. The only objection I can really have to your story is in fact if you told of things that were not true. The same applies to you characterisation of the Rendlesham incident. That it has “grown” is not a point either for or against. If you have factual objections to the underlying truth of the story, then put them forward for consideration.

This method of yours of causing doubt by spurious association is an old, old trick of charlatans and hoaxers. Are you really wanting to associate yourself with such kind?

The only real data we have from the time are Col Halt's audio tape and his handwritten notes.

So you do not call eyewitness accounts “data”? The man in the Paracast interview was THERE. On the scene, at the time. He SAW what transpired. He experienced the events as they occurred. He is a first-hand eyewitness. If you discount his story then please provide your considered points of objection to it. Please Gord, quit being a credulous, fundamentalist “woo” believer and start to apply some logic and intellectual rigour to the debate at hand.

Don't get scared in an English forest at night when you see a flashing light from a light house, the lights of a farm house, white lights on radio towers & etc and particularly don't look at any bright light through a Starscope.

Please Gord… don’t get scared in your own forum when you see the Devil writing notes to you, Goblins posting from ghost computers, pixels running amok in what seems like understandable language & etc and particularly don’t use your glasses to view the screen… The point being that these claims are no less outrageous than your own.

Where is there any supporting evidence?

Ughhh… If you do not call handwritten notes, audio tapes and eyewitness testimony “evidence” then I fear for either your sanity or intellectual capacity my friend. These are the very things you need to refute – and so far you have not… I have provided evidence...The very thing you asked I should do. The ball is in your court Gord.

The podcast mentions $200,000 being spent by Ted Turner on the original CNN show on Rendlesham. How much more do you want?

A commercial TV enterprise is out to make money from an unusual happening… What is your point Gord? This is not scientific research… unless you believe commercial TV is a peer reviewed scientific enterprise…

My primary thesis that Randi and many of the members of this forum are peddlers of irrationalism, a danger to critical thinking and the scientific method and uncritical believers in nonsense is supported by your posts. Please Gord, I beg you, for your own sake, prove to me that you are not an intellectual minnow who is a fundamentally uncritical believer in "woo". So far you have demonstrated that you have no capacity for logical argument. Prove to the world that you can THINK CRITICALLY Gord.

Gord_in_Toronto

14th September 2009, 12:58 PM

You really think a lot of yourself don't you?

Gord, you still don’t seem to understand what it means to have an intellectual argument/debate.

Why. Thank you very much. And your mother wears army boots.

You seem to be approaching things from a fundamentalist point of view. You come into this with a fixed position (It cannot be therefore it is not). Your mind is made up and no amount of logic or debate or “evidence” will change your implacable position. Moreover, this is exactly the point of view you ascribe to and then deride in your so-called “UFOlogists”. Well the "“evidence”" I have seen does not amount to a hill of beans. Like many members of the skeptic community, I once did believe. The "evidence" that convinced me has all been either refuted absolutely or reduced in its value to the point that it ceases to prove the existence of "UFOs".

Have you read any books by Charles Fort? Do you accept everything he reported? After all they were all documented.

Remember, I am not a UFOlogist and I hold no position, one way or other, on the matter whatsoever. I am merely interested in the logic and history of the debate because as a research psychologist and philosopher it intrigues me that the double standards, stridency and implacable illogic of the so called debunkers (as represented by Randi and various members of this forum) should hold such influence over the (so called) “serious” scientific community. I am interested historically as to how such paradoxical position should have been arrived at and how it is maintained in the present age. I am interested specifically in the history and philosophy of the scientific enterprise and I look for historical parallels with present-day belief structure concerning UFOs (and more broadly the “paranormal”).Remember, I am not a professional debunker. All I am is a person that would like the application of logic and reason to all things claimed to be true. Surprisingly, I manage to live a full and satisfying life.

And "the double standards, stridency and implacable illogic of the so called debunkers (as represented by Randi and various members of this forum)" does not have any influence over the (so called) “serious” scientific community. Would that it did! Science seems to arrive at these conclusions on its own. Application of the scientific method, aka logic, filters out the true "truth" from the detritus of history.

Evidence for Phrenology exists; do you reject this science? Do you see historical parallels with present-day belief structure concerning UFOs (and more broadly the “paranormal”)?

Evidence for the curious beliefs in The Secret ; do you reject this methodology? Do you see historical parallels with present-day belief structure concerning UFOs (and more broadly the “paranormal”)?

Evidence for "high" temperature superconductivity exists (even though the physics is as yet unexplained) do you reject this science? Do you see historical parallels with present-day belief structure concerning UFOs (and more broadly the “paranormal”)?

They may have laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Each individual event must be examined on its own merits. This is all I say, it is all any skeptic can say, it is all anyone with a brain can say, it is all Randi, in his gruff exasperated way, says.

So where is this money you speak of? You should be able to provide examples to prove your general (but largely unstated) assumption that “UFOlogists are primarily in it for the money”. There is also a strange logic at work in that assumption. I guess it begins with another assumption - something like “Having or obtaining money from or for your research negates scientific value”. I cannot believe you truly hold that position.First, I have never said “UFOlogists are primarily in it for the money”. I have not ascribed any motive to them but this is a good one; along with delusion. Oh, and a degree of tale tales and leg pulling.

How much money do you think is required to "properly" investigate UFOs? What would be done that has not been done?

and…continuing

..and here’s where your fundamentalism comes to the fore (or perhaps it is merely a lack of formal education?). In science there is no such thing as “incontrovertible proof”, not even for “reality”. This is an age old philosophical debate (realism v. rationalism) with no side being able to land the coup de gras. “Proof” in science is always weighed on the “balance of evidence” – an entirely subjective assessment. No matter how much “evidence” one gathers there will always remain the possibility that tomorrow a counterfactual example will manifest. I am not prepared to carry on a debate about "proof" and "reality" in this thread. There are plenty of such threads on this Forum if you are interested.

My "inconvertible" proof would only require logical consistency and acceptance by people knowledgeable in the areas concerned.

Bishop Berkeley stubbed his toe on a rock and exclaimed (paraphrasing) “There is reality!” but the brain in a vat being fed its experiences by a mad scientist would feel the stubbed toe just the same. So where IS reality? Certainly we have a preponderance of evidence - but with equal certainty we have no “incontrovertible proof” - for “reality (as we perceive it)”.You really should get not your aphorisms from your memory (but, amusingly, your misremembering does prove at least one of my points). It was Johnson who refuted Berkeley -- at least according to his friend Boswell.

Where then is the "preponderance of evidence" for UFOs not having mundane explanations?

So let us return to basics Gord. I asked you if you were going to argue the philosophical case for the existence of “incontrovertible proof” and you provided me with a fundamentalist exclamation of the kind “Reality just IS”. This is as equally credulous and gullible a position as you ascribe to UFOlogists and their “beliefs”. If you disagree, then debate it with reasoned argument. There is my challenge to you. Reasoned argument Gord…not a shouting match.

Reality is at least constant. The pieces fit together. As I said, this is not a discussion that needs to be here.

Did you? I see you providing no evidence of such a thing. You provide no commentary on the content or refute any points made in the content. I can only assume you did not listen to the podcast, or you found nothing in it to object to.

So I don't get that hour of my life back? I had pretty much "heard" it all before. Did you listen to the end? I did. Why give any credibility to the speaker /author who claims that on his recent return to the long closed Bentwaters airbase he wandered out into the woods and sees dozens of UFOs. What? Of course he had forgotten his camera at the hotel. Are the local residents so cowed by the MOD that they dare not speak up? And I gathered that the developers of the site had not discovered the underground rooms yet.

Pull the other leg.

Again your fundamentalism and lack of understanding of human psychology is showing. You come from the original position that it is a “Tall tale”. Nowhere do you question this assumption or provide evidence for it.No. The Rendlesham incident is not (originally) a tall tale. It is a few people mistaking a flashing light house, lights at a farm house and lights on five (note the number) radio towers, possibly a meteorite, and the mistake of looking at a bright light through a night scope. Then it is tall tales.

You state that the story “grows with each retelling”. Where do you get that information from? Is it another of your unquestioned fundamental assumptions? Because it has. Follow the history of the stupid story.

From our friends at wikipedia (Rendlesham_Forest_incident:

Jim Penniston and John Burroughs went to investigate the craft together. However, there is a major inconsistency in separate interviews of Jim Penniston and John Burroughs. In an interview with Larry King on November 9, 2007, Jim Penniston claimed that he did a 45 minutes full investigation of the craft on the ground, touched the craft and took photos of the craft. However, in a separate interview in Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries, John Burroughs described that after suddenly encountering the craft on the ground, "we all hit the ground, and it went up into the trees". The inteviews with Jim Penniston and John Burroughs have subsequently been made available on Youtube.

These are the prime flying saucerists.They can't get their stories straight. Did they get brainwiped by the MiB?

On that point. Have you ever sat down and told a story of a life-experience to a stranger? Did you mention ALL the details (all the minutia) of that story to that stranger? Have you ever then re-told that story to another stranger? Did the details you told have a different emphasis? Of course they did, you tailored each telling of the story according to various factors including the questions asked by the stranger, your mood at the time, the time you had to do the telling in, and so on. In fact, you certainly left some details out of the first telling that you provided in the second – and vice-versa. To a third stranger still you might get all the details of both the first and second telling but STILL have other details as yet untold.

Oh "a research psychologist and philosopher" go hence and research on the fallibility of human memory. Of course I would get all the details right at every telling, remember additional facts and not embellish the story in any way. :rolleyes: But that is only me. All other humans (with the exception of some savants with truly perfect recall) seem to have problems with this. Having a wife present does seem to restrict one's story telling ability considerably.

Now, I am a bystander at all tellings of your tale and accuse you, on the third telling of turning a “minnow” into a “basking shark”. You protest legitimately that you have told a factual tale, merely with different emphasis on details in each telling. You would be correct and I incorrect. Your story has “grown”, but in a legitimate way as details are filled out and expanded on. The only objection I can really have to your story is in fact if you told of things that were not true. The same applies to you characterisation of the Rendlesham incident. That it has “grown” is not a point either for or against. If you have factual objections to the underlying truth of the story, then put them forward for consideration.

When a later telling contradicts a previous telling surely even you would cry foul?

This method of yours of causing doubt by spurious association is an old, old trick of charlatans and hoaxers. Are you really wanting to associate yourself with such kind?I am not trying to cause doubt. I only do it for my amusement. Oh. And, by the way, I am a fan of HL Mencken. You have heard of him in your studies?

So you do not call eyewitness accounts “data”? The man in the Paracast interview was THERE. On the scene, at the time. He SAW what transpired. He experienced the events as they occurred. He is a first-hand eyewitness. If you discount his story then please provide your considered points of objection to it. He was there. But is he telling the truth? The "best" witness accounts are contradictory. Other witnesses said nothing much happened. Do you believe the Majestic 12 document is true? Is Bob Lazar telling the truth? Did Betty and Barny (the Hills, not the ones from Bedrock) really get carried off in a space ship? Where is the independent confirmation?

Please Gord, quit being a credulous, fundamentalist “woo” believer and start to apply some logic and intellectual rigour to the debate at hand.Too funny for words!

Please Gord… don’t get scared in your own forum when you see the Devil writing notes to you, Goblins posting from ghost computers, pixels running amok in what seems like understandable language & etc and particularly don’t use your glasses to view the screen… The point being that these claims are no less outrageous than your own.What incredibly convoluted nonsense.

My claim is only that no UFOs have been proved to anything but mundane.

Ughhh… If you do not call handwritten notes, audio tapes and eyewitness testimony “evidence” then I fear for either your sanity or intellectual capacity my friend. These are the very things you need to refute – and so far you have not… I have provided evidence...The very thing you asked I should do. The ball is in your court Gord.So on that basis, YOU should believe in the Book of Mormon? It does not have the audio tapes but it does have affidavits.

A commercial TV enterprise is out to make money from an unusual happening… What is your point Gord? This is not scientific research… unless you believe commercial TV is a peer reviewed scientific enterprise…No my point was that money was available to research Rendlesham. If they had proved it to be true, what a wonderful show that would have been.

Let's hear you slander the Condon Report then. Huge sums of money have been spent. Saucerists just don't like the answers.

My primary thesis that Randi and many of the members of this forum are peddlers of irrationalism, a danger to critical thinking and the scientific method and uncritical believers in nonsense is supported by your posts.The folks in this forum spent a large amount of time debunking all sorts of silly woo-ish beliefs from Astrology to Zen Buddhism by applying exactly the same methodology I am applying to UFOs. Deal with it!

Show us proof that just one single UFO incident that cannot have a mundane explanation.

Please Gord, I beg you, for your own sake, prove to me that you are not an intellectual minnow who is a fundamentally uncritical believer in "woo". So far you have demonstrated that you have no capacity for logical argument. Prove to the world that you can THINK CRITICALLY Gord.Ha. Ha. Ha.

You really do think a lot of yourself don't you?

Are you sure that you are not Winston Wu? (The one that's friends with Dr. Victor Zammit in case you have to Google.)

I really can't believe I am actually arguing with Roger_Ramjet. Though I had always thought the show was made in Toronto as I was friends with one of the illustrators on it. I guess Wikipedia and Google must be wrong. :duck:

Brody

16th September 2009, 05:08 PM

Rramjet:

Hi. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but it's been hectic.

I also must apologize for not being clearer in my previous post about the Australian doctor and the ulcer studies.

I was not only stating that he was working with limited funding, but he was working AGAINST the medical establishment and all of their funding and influence.

However, once he had gathered enough evidence, funding became more plentiful, and science now views his discoveries as crucial enough to award a Nobel prize.

So, I don't think you can solely blame the fact that no one assigns much funding OR attention to to a topic that presents little concrete evidence.

Perhaps those who spend the time and money to create and air the podcast would be better served by donating the money to the researchers.

Rramjet

18th September 2009, 02:41 AM

Like many members of the skeptic community, I once did believe.

…and now you do not “believe”?

My point is that to either “believe” or “not believe” in UFOs is muddleheaded. Either position belies the very nature of the phenomena and indicates the person holding to either position to be a non-critical thinker and a fundamentalist. You do not believe. Ergo…

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am simply intrigued.

We know of no prosaic set of explanations that cover all UFO “sightings”. The only explanations do we have are applied as post hoc rationalisations. We simply do NOT know what is going on here. We can only speculate in the face of our ignorance. We speculate that some are hoaxes. We speculate that some are born of faulty perception. We speculate that memory is faulty. And some may be, but when you look at the serious research that has been conducted (primarily by the USAF in its various guises – Condon included) we find that even they could not explain away ALL UFO encounters. Some simply remain a mystery: An intriguing mystery because they portend something entirely without our ordinary day-to-day and scientific knowledge.

…or reduced in its value to the point that it ceases to prove the existence of "UFOs".

But there NEVER has been evidence to “prove” the existence of UFOs. We have “suggestive” eyewitness experience and testimony. We have suggestive photos. But these in and of themselves are proof on nothing at all except some people have these types of experience. WHY they have such experiences is yet to be fully articulated by science. To argue that one should cease all investigation is antiscientific. It is in effect a Fascist point of view: That is - I am right, you are wrong, that’s all there is to the matter).

Don’t YOU want to know what is going on with all these people? I gather you have never had a “paranormal” experience yourself. I will tip my hand here and state that I have and I can tell you that despite my long years of training and experience in the fields of psychology and philosophy (or perhaps because of them!), no amount of “You are mistaken in your perception” or “You are a liar” or “You have a faulty memory” will satisfactorily explain my experience(s). Nor will they explain the experiences of the independent witnesses to my experience(s). The incontrovertible facts of my experience(s) stand. Believe me, I have spent many an hour researching possible explanations and have so far been left no closer to the truth.

One thing DOES stand out though – the implacable opposition to the fact that I might even show an interest in the subject (let alone wish to research it…). It has been made clear to me that I risk my livelihood if I pursue the matter too closely. I have to ask myself WHY this should be so.

What are people afraid of? What do they NOT want me to discover? If it is all baloney, then what is the harm in my pursuit of it?
Many famous explorers set out in a world where the Flat Earth hypothesis was popular. Did that stop them making startling discoveries in the face of dire warnings and strident ridicule?

Charles Fort? I have of course heard of him by reputation, but have never read anything of his, so I cannot judge his worth directly. I gather some cases he documented are intriguing, others are of questionable value. He seems to have been serious in his objective though.

Science seems to arrive at these conclusions on its own

Oh dear… “Science”, in the form of serious research has arrived at very different conclusions indeed. Serious research, bar none (even you precious Condon report – on which more below) cite many cases where no explanation at all can be found. ALL, bar none, conclude that there are many cases that warrant further investigation. Yet we have the debunkers claiming just the opposite. This is pure misrepresentation at the highest level.

Application of the scientific method, aka logic, filters out the true "truth" from the detritus of history.

Ummm … logic is not “science” and science often gets it wrong. Witness your own examples:

Phrenology. A mistake in the application of cause and effect. But was it really a “science”? Nevertheless I certainly do see parallels here. Aside from the obvious point that “science” often gets things wrong despite consensus opinion, you are applying the same mistaken belief set to UFOs. That is hoaxes, faulty perception and faulty memory cause certain experiences that we call UFOs. Unfortunately, serious research has ruled out these explanations for many cases (see Blue Book Special Report No. 14 and the Condon Report for example).

The Secret: What has that to do with science? Nevertheless, the power of positive thought is well documented and found to be efficacious in many areas of life. The obtaining of spiritual and material goods is enhanced by positive thinking. The methodology of The Secret IS questionable, but the concept is remains sound.

High temperature superconductivity: I am not familiar with the research and accordingly cannot form an opinion. However, if you state that there is evidence for it’s existence (and I have no reason to disbelieve you), yet cannot be explained, does that not describe the UFO experience too?

They may have laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Huh? Your point being? They laughed at each for different reasons entirely. Here is a serious point though. That YOU could somehow link the two to try and make a point shows up the true nature of your thought processes. You concatenate independent events as though they were somehow related. THIS is the spurious methodology of Randi and his ilk. THIS is why such people represent a danger to critical thinking and to science in general. THIS is where my serious objections lie. The illogical nature of such thinking is an anathema to careful and considered thought processes. That you can write such garbage makes me doubt all that you might have to offer. You have NOT shown your powers of critical thinking on this one.

Each individual event must be examined on its own merits. This is all I say, it is all any skeptic can say, it is all anyone with a brain can say, it is all Randi, in his gruff exasperated way, says.

But science does not work that way. Examining individual events in isolation is NOT science. One must explore all the permutations. One must look at similar events and draw parallels (or rule them out). Examining events in isolation is just plain stupid – perhaps wilfully ignorant. Science is nothing if not comparative. Results must be generalisable. Your ignorance of the scientific method is breathtaking in one who claims adherence to it. I suggest you read Chalmers’ “What Is This Thing Called Science” as at least a beginning of your enlightenment.

How much money do you think is required to "properly" investigate UFOs? What would be done that has not been done?

And there’s the rub. You now show your ignorance of previous research. All such research has called for further investigation (For example, READ the Condon Report – not just the “summary” – which is at complete odds with the content. I think you would be surprised at what the content of the Condon Report contains).

I am not prepared to carry on a debate about "proof" and "reality" in this thread

But YOU raised the issue, now you back away from it?

You really should get not your aphorisms from your memory (but, amusingly, your misremembering does prove at least one of my points). It was Johnson who refuted Berkeley -- at least according to his friend Boswell.

So you missed my point entirely! You should learn to READ critically as well Gord. Not just what you want to see… Who cares who refuted Berkely, THAT was not my point, My point was that “realists” (represented in my example by Berkeley) have not “proved” reality, counter-examples exist and can be thought of, therefore your implacable belief in “reality” is uncritical and belies immature thought processes.

Thus you can write:
Reality is at least constant. The pieces fit together. As I said, this is not a discussion that needs to be here.
I am beginning to feel sorry for you Gord. Where are the colours in your world?

Where then is the "preponderance of evidence" for UFOs not having mundane explanations?
I start with Blue Book Special report No. 14 and continue through the Condon Report…perhaps I throw in COMETA for good measure… I include my own experiences… I certainly do not include Wikipedia… anyone can write anything they want there… that should be enough for any beginner wanting to get going…

I can only assume you did not listen to the podcast, or you found nothing in it to object to.
So I don't get that hour of my life back? I had pretty much "heard" it all before. Did you listen to the end? I did. Why give any credibility to the speaker /author who claims that on his recent return to the long closed Bentwaters airbase he wandered out into the woods and sees dozens of UFOs. What? Of course he had forgotten his camera at the hotel. Are the local residents so cowed by the MOD that they dare not speak up? And I gathered that the developers of the site had not discovered the underground rooms yet.

Ughh…Yes I apologise for some some misleading direction here – the podcast I actually wanted to refer you to was the 22 Jun 09 Paracast. Here John Burrows, who was an eyewitness to the events describes his experiences. This is an eyewitness account, not a secondhand “researcher” account (as the 3rd May 09 Paracast was). I seem to have shot myself in the foot… Owww. I don’t blame you for the “pretty much heard it all before” comment. That is a legitimate comment when listening to “second-hand” accounts and commentary. Peter Robbins DOES waffle on about nothing a fair bit…so…

I THERFORE RETRACT MY COMMENTS ABOUT YOU NOT LISTENING TO THE PODCAST AND APOLOGISE FOR THEM UNRESERVEDLY. We were talking at cross purposes here and that was entirely my fault. SORRY Gord. I cannot directly give you your “hour” back but I am willing to provide you an hour of my time in return – perhaps you have some small research task or the like?

I would nevertheless very much like if you could give the 22 June 09 Paracast a go (http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/4854271). It really is intriguing and is a “straight from the horses mouth” account. I really cuts through and shows up some of the …shall we say…BS… spouted by Robbins…

Now…Back to normal service 

No. The Rendlesham incident is not (originally) a tall tale. It is a few people mistaking a flashing light house, lights at a farm house and lights on five (note the number) radio towers, possibly a meteorite, and the mistake of looking at a bright light through a night scope. Then it is tall tales.
Now I cannot berate you for stating this when you have not examined the first-hand accounts – the “evidence” in other words. Unless you do this – then we cannot debate it further… If you explore the first hand accounts you will see how ridiculous your statement “It is a few people mistaking a flashing light house, lights at a farm house and lights on five (note the number) radio towers, possibly a meteorite, and the mistake of looking at a bright light through a night scope” really is. There is nothing in these accounts that would lead one to believe such nonsense. The witnesses were close enough to TOUCH the “UFO” . House lights, lights on radio towers, farm house lights, meteorites, etc do not come THAT close…

Oh "a research psychologist and philosopher" go hence and research on the fallibility of human memory. Of course I would get all the details right at every telling, remember additional facts and not embellish the story in any way. But that is only me. All other humans (with the exception of some savants with truly perfect recall) seem to have problems with this. Having a wife present does seem to restrict one's story telling ability considerably.

Now this statement is actually a point against your argument Gord. The Rendlesham eyewitnesses, because of human memory fallibility, got some of the minor details wrong (and in fact, as we know that time is an entirely subject experience, accounts of timing can be expected to differ). However, the substantive account of the experience is consistent between all witnesses. They all describe the events consistently between them, the only difference is in the timing. YOU should do some research on HOW memory is fallible and under what conditions. It is obvious you have not.

Has the “story” grown in the way I describe or has the story grown according to your fundamentalist misperceptions of psychology? Remember I am not interested in the (often) overblown commentary and speculation from various sources (including Peter Robbins), I am only interested in the first hand accounts and if you can find serious flaws or inconsistencies in those accounts that would negate them, I would like to hear them.

…and please don’t quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for any of this stuff. It is simply a gossip site. I am especially concerned that you quote Wikipedia when you seem to hold the scientific method in such high regard…

Jim Penniston claimed that he did a 45 minutes full investigation of the craft on the ground, touched the craft and took photos of the craft. However, in a separate interview in Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries, John Burroughs described that after suddenly encountering the craft on the ground, "we all hit the ground, and it went up into the trees".

I think you have been mislead again by sourcing second-hand commentary from somewhere…have you listened to these YouTube interviews. You will realise your grave error in trusting second hand sources if you do. The two statements you ascribe are actually not inconsistent when seen in context. Penniston decribes the generalities of what occurred (on the first night), in essence that the people involved spent some time investigating the UFO and then the area after it left, what Boroughs is not inconsistent. There is a clear edit point in this story where it cuts from them discovering the UFO immediately to his description of what happened when it left the ground. What is missing from this heavily edited and contrived TV show – what has been so obviously edited out – is John’s description of what occurred between the time they came across the UFO on the ground and the time it departed. All witnesses (when telling their unedited stories) describe the experience in broadly similar terms as Penniston on Larry King did. They ALL investigated the UFO, some closer than others. Again Gord, get your facts straight.

Oh "a research psychologist and philosopher" go hence and research on the fallibility of human memory.

…but I have Gord. I am an expert in the field. Human memory is indeed fallible, just not in the way you pretend it is… Can you describe to me your formal education in the subject? I have had years of formal education directly related and specifically studying human memory. Your descriptions of how it works are of the kind commonly termed “folklaw”. You are seriously misrepresenting how memory works if you think it can explain away many UFO cases.

When a later telling contradicts a previous telling surely even you would cry foul?
I would cry foul if there were serious contradictions AND I had investigated to see how the contradictions are manifest in the unedited testimony of eyewitnesses. Not before. You jump too easily to conclusions based on second-hand accounts Gord. Research Gord. Research is the key.

I am not trying to cause doubt. I only do it for my amusement. Oh. And, by the way, I am a fan of HL Mencken. You have heard of him in your studies?
I gather you believe him to be a “debunker” of your own ilk? But what has he to do with anything discussed here? You really are all over the place with your ideas Gord.

The "best" witness accounts are contradictory. Other witnesses said nothing much happened. Do you believe the Majestic 12 document is true? Is Bob Lazar telling the truth? Did Betty and Barny (the Hills, not the ones from Bedrock) really get carried off in a space ship? Where is the independent confirmation?
As described above, the “best” witness accounts are in no way contradictory. Majestic 12? The consensus opinion is that they are faked…I have no reason to disbelieve that opinion. Bob Lazar was a nutter but he has some intriguing confirmations of his tale. Betty and Barney Hill I presume you mean. One of the first of the so called “abduction” cases. Has anyone contradicted any of the facts as stated in the eyewitness accounts? Not as far as I am aware. All the “debunking” seems to have been to cast aspersions on their relationship to each other. Not that I “believe” Betty or Barney, I just know of no contradictory evidence to their statements. Perhaps you can point some out to me?

My claim is only that no UFOs have been proved to anything but mundane.
Wow Gord. You really should get a handle on your logic. Have you (or anyone) proved all UFOs to be mundane. I’d like to see that proof. I repeat “proof”. Not speculation but proof.

So on that basis, YOU should believe in the Book of Mormon? It does not have the audio tapes but it does have affidavits.
I don’t think you should be casting aspersions on the Mormons Gord. What if they are RIGHT? Have you evidence to suggest they are wrong?

No my point was that money was available to research Rendlesham. If they had proved it to be true, what a wonderful show that would have been.

I still don’t get your point Gord. A TV show that has a purely commercial motive has NO interest (NONE) in “proving” stories one way or another. The truth matters not to them. I am touched by your naivety Gord.

Let's hear you slander the Condon Report then. Huge sums of money have been spent. Saucerists just don't like the answers.
Have you READ the Condon Report Gord? Methinks not. In it you will find many cases the researchers admitted they could NOT explain in any mundane or prosaic way. It is you and your ilk Gord who refuse to see the answers as presented to them in black and white. READ the Condon report Gord. Ughh…

The folks in this forum spent a large amount of time debunking all sorts of silly woo-ish beliefs from Astrology to Zen Buddhism by applying exactly the same methodology I am applying to UFOs. Deal with it!

But I AM dealing with it Gord. You state that uncritical thought processes, non-investigation of evidence and nonsensical logic is the method of yourself and fellow forum members. I feel sorry for you now.

Show us proof that just one single UFO incident that cannot have a mundane explanation.

There you go again. Asking for a categorical where none can exist. Yet you do not want to have even THAT debate. What an antirational fundamentalist you are Gord!

Oh...and Brody

You seem to think there might be money in serious UFO investigation. Believe me there is None. Ask the creators of the Paracast how much money they get for doing what they do. People do not get seriously involved in this area for the money. Very few people indeed make very much out of it at all. That is simply a fact of the matter. That is the bottom line. There is no money in it for researchers whatsoever.