Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide

[Ivan Seeking]

First I want to say that some of the harsher comments made here are not intended towards anyone at this forum. This applies more to the trench warfare that takes place in lesser forums, on television, and in the popular media in general.

My first serious review of the UFO literature was for a college English essay. Before this, I found the subject to be bizarre, cultish, and mostly nonsense. I had some interest, but any actual story was too far out for my worldview. Only after reading about 10 books for my essay writing - The Hynek UFO Report being the most significant of these – did the subject carry any real weight in my own thoughts. From my own experience, it is easy to ignore or ridicule the subject, if you have ignored the subject, but an informed opinion is another matter altogether.

Now, any two people may interpret the same information is different ways; this is an unavoidable consequence of being human. And to say that the subject of UFOs opens the floodgates for conflict is an understatement at least, but to say the subject is all hogwash is to demonstrate ignorance. On the other hand, if this comes as an informed opinion, there is only one explanation for this behavior that makes sense: Fear. This would explain quite a few paradoxical aspects of our beloved debunkers. Here are a few of these paradoxes.

If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it. This is really strange since for one, the subject never can be disproved. This would violate basic logic. We can never prove that some elusive visitor is not here. Any good skeptic would know this so this begs the question: Why do they try so hard? Some might say they dedicate their time to help free the world of its nonsense notions? Nonsense! If they have half a clue about human nature they know this is not possible. Also, given that any good skeptic must know this, one must wonder why they don’t have something better to do? Of all the things that one might do with their time, why spend so much effort trying to show everyone else how silly they are? Even if this results from plain old meanness, or unfulfilled potential, failed dreams, boredom, or even if dad or mom didn’t love them enough, even if some reason like this exists, why attack the UFO crowd?

I have considered this question a bit, and it seems to me that the answer is fear. This is why the attacks are so misguided and personal. Note that the debunkers often try to debunk the messenger and not the message. This is one reason that I tend to stick with the study of government files as my focal point; this is the only source of UFO records that have some built in validation. But when faced even with intelligence reports that went to all of the highest levels of government including the White House, I have had debunkers ignore these official records as if they were from the National Enquirer. This leaves only one possible conclusion: the debunkers are rarely objective. This implies motive, or at least insincerity. What kind of motive? The preservation of their world view seems the only consistent explanation. What else could it be? What else would be so important that a person would donate so much time to a hopeless pursuit to disprove what they believe is nonsense, and which can never be disproved? Clearly our skeptics are quite uniquely bothered by this particular phenomenon. The reason is that deep down they realize just how important the subject might be.

Of course, as for our TV skeptics, it’s about the money.

Of course, we do still have to account for the insincere attackers: These are mostly people with personality disorders. They know that since UFOs are so elusive and controversial, the UFO buffs are easy targets. This allows them to be mean and lazy, which is usually all they really want.

To those who attack but have not studied the subject, I can understand your misguided malice. I once felt the same way about much this stuff.

 

[Zero]

WHat about the obvious points you miss? Here's a few I picked up on while reading your rant(well-reasoned rant, but a rant nevertheless):

1) UFOers mostly don't have any evidence, so of course skeptics will attack their credibility. It isn't a personal attack, so much as it is that an eyewitness has no evidence, and expects you to trust their integrity; if you later discover that the person has lied about other things, their integrity is shot.

2) I don't know of any skeptic who is trying to disprove the existence of UFOs. I do know a lot of skeptics who actually care about the truth, which the more credulous sometimes actively disregard.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think skeptics have selected ET believers out to concentrate on. Believers in all unproven claims get equal attention as far as I can see.

Producing an argument against skeptics per se doesn't further your stance at all. All I can hear you saying when you concentrate on the personality defects of skeptics you don't like is that you wish the people who disagreed with you would go away.

I would rather you lead us through the train of evidence (documents) in a given case that is particularly convincing to you, and explain your reasoning as you go along.

-zoob

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
WHat about the obvious points you miss? Here's a few I picked up on while reading your rant(well-reasoned rant, but a rant nevertheless):

1) UFOers mostly don't have any evidence, so of course skeptics will attack their credibility. It isn't a personal attack, so much as it is that an eyewitness has no evidence, and expects you to trust their integrity; if you later discover that the person has lied about other things, their integrity is shot.

2) I don't know of any skeptic who is trying to disprove the existence of UFOs. I do know a lot of skeptics who actually care about the truth, which the more credulous sometimes actively disregard.

Zero, you obviously need to learn much more about the subject before forming an opinion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I don't think skeptics have selected ET believers out to concentrate on. Believers in all unproven claims get equal attention as far as I can see.

check the book shelves. Look at the number of UFO debates at various forums. There are probably as many UFO threads as all other fringe subjects combined - less religion.

Producing an argument against skeptics per se doesn't further your stance at all. All I can hear you saying when you concentrate on the personality defects of skeptics you don't like is that you wish the people who disagreed with you would go away.

There are many who insist on personal attacks in place of considered debate or discussion. These are the people I reference. Also, I am furthering no position. I am simply making an observation. The degree of effort put forth by those who consider this subject nonesense makes no sense. Just as in any business meeting, the hostility is the dead giveaway.

I would rather you lead us through the train of evidence (documents) in a given case that is particularly convincing to you, and explain your reasoning as you go along.

The napster is posted. There is only so much value in debate. Any attempt to discuss information here, or at most any forum only tends to degenerate into mudslinging or endless refusals to consider the evidence in any reasonable way. In fact, the one clear lesson for me in this stuff is that people's minds can rarely be changed. If a person is interested, the only thing to do is to study and see for yourself. This post is really intended more for those who already have an interest. Frankly, we take a lot of crap for our honesty. I think it's time to recognize that the debunkers are really only acting to protect their own interests and beliefs. This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Zero, you obviously need to learn much more about the subject before forming an opinion.

Nah, I think I know enough, thanks.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
check the book shelves. Look at the number of UFO debates at various forums. There are probably as many UFO threads as all other fringe subjects combined - less religion.

Going by television I've seen more shows debunking Nessie than any others. I've seen two good shows debunking Roswell. Most bigfoot shows are balanced pro and con with a little more pro. I've seen three good shows debunking Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.

There are many who insist on personal attacks in place of considered debate or discussion. These are the people I reference.

This is their folly. I suggest you arm yourself with some good comebacks to the ad hominem argument, an argument which is not acceptable in debates. Perhaps supermentor Tom could help from his study of logic.

Also, I am furthering no position.

I was referring to your position on UFOs as stated in past threads, which has been that the phenomenon doesn't get the attention from serious scientists that it deserves.

I am simply making an observation. The degree of effort put forth by those who consider this subject nonesense makes no sense. Just as in any business meeting, the hostility is the dead giveaway.

I agree with your reasoning about this sort of skeptic but I don't care about this sort of skeptic.

The napster is posted. There is only so much value in debate.

There is a lot of value in good open minded debate. When people start behaving unfairly you can call them on it, as in that one crop circle thread.

Any attempt to discuss information here, or at most any forum only tends to degenerate into mudslinging or endless refusals to consider the evidence in any reasonable way.

This has happened, but it doesn't always happen.

In fact, the one clear lesson for me in this stuff is that people's minds can rarely be changed.

With proper evidence you can change almost anyone's mind. If you can flip someone over into believing in Flying Discs from outer space without proper evidence all you've done is located a gullible person, so what's the point? If, on the other hand, you can't present the people here who hang around the "hard" science forums with enough evidence to get them to consider UFOs with more thought, then I think you should question, not your interest, but the large emotional investment you have in the subject.

If a person is interested, the only thing to do is to study and see for yourself.

The reason I suggested you take us through a case yourself is that I'm sure I won't read any info and interpret it the same way you do. As with the Hoover note.

This post is really intended more for those who already have an interest. Frankly, we take a lot of crap for our honesty. I think it's time to recognize that the debunkers are really only acting to protect their own interests and beliefs.

Debukers get cr*pped on all the time. Usually by people who are shouting.
Believers are also just protecting their own interests and ego and world outlook.

This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct.

I wasn't aware debunkers were in the habit of equating ET to UFOs. I recall that you seemed to equate them, and that I was the one who pointed out that just because there are strange things flying around doesn't mean they are from another planet.

 

[Zero]

Well...there is a difference between accepting the existence of stuff in the sky, and the nonsense that many UFOers promote. If you see something unexplainable in the sky, cool...if you declare that it is proof of anything, prepare for the skeptics to jump you, and for good reason.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Zero
Well...there is a difference between accepting the existence of stuff in the sky, and the nonsense that many UFOers promote. If you see something unexplainable in the sky, cool...if you declare that it is proof of anything, prepare for the skeptics to jump you, and for good reason.

I agree. I'm convinced by the many reports of strange things flying around that unusual things are flying around. Anyone who is sure that they're from another planet has jumped to a conclusion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am short on time right now, so until I get caught up on my programming I will say this, I find it difficult to ignore the ETH but I don't accept it. However, and on this point I am rather inflexible, something very strange and incredibly energetic is moving about the skies from time to time. It seems that neither I nor anyone else can explain it. Honest investigation of this subject provokes endless attacks and challenges by people who are not willing to learn about the subject for themselves. For those of us with an interest, this grows most tiresome - the constant antagonism. This stuff just can’t be summed up in an argument or two; it has taken me many years to acquire the conviction that I have. It is just not possible to convey everything that I have seen that has convinced me that UFOs are something real. This would require the recall of everything I have watched, heard or read about the subject for the last eighteen years. But in effect, in order to satisfy the debunker, this is what's required.

The stalemate is obvious. I can't prove anything beyond the evidence immediately available, and the debunker can never prove a negative. My motivation is my conviction that this is worth figuring out; for one because of the potential truth IF the ET "nuts" are right. If not, then it still qualifies as an interesting natural phenomenon...or something. But lately I keep asking myself, why do some many debunkers act so hostile; and why do they try so hard?

I try to present good evidence, but as time goes on, everything on the internet is more ad more suspect. This means that unless a person is willing to make the effort to learn about this themselves, I might as well talk until I turn blue. It will make no difference. Again though, as far as personal attacks and internet forums go, the really hostile behavior results from a lack of or absence of moderation in the forum. This really does not apply here at PF. We have a few members that have gotten quite personal at times, but most people here are really pretty docile. Take a look at the UFO discussions in an un-moderated forum some time.


One last note: If ET is here I would sure like to know it. I can see why so many people think this really is true, but that’s as far as I go.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I wasn't aware debunkers were in the habit of equating ET to UFOs. I recall that you seemed to equate them, and that I was the one who pointed out that just because there are strange things flying around doesn't mean they are from another planet.

This is the typical escape route when face with evidence they can't explain.

Zooby, I just can't do much here unless you can open pdf files.

 

[(Q)]

The stalemate is obvious. I can't prove anything beyond the evidence immediately available

Here’s where your logic fails miserably – there is no stalemate. The so-called evidence in which believers tend to find compelling is little more than testimonial hyperbole, which is far from the evidence required to even form a hypothesis.

the debunker can never prove a negative.

Debunkers are not interested in proving negatives. Debunkers have already successfully proven that believers have nothing to base their assertions aside from their own over-active imaginations. Of course, the believer ignores their own lack of validity and credibility.

why do some many debunkers act so hostile; and why do they try so hard?

Most likely, they are sick and tired of believers demanding funding for their fallacious projects - trying to find ET. As well, believers tend to mislead and deceive others with their ridiculous claims, thus having a negative effect on the perception of the scientific community. In short, believers do more damage to science than any good that might come about from their claims.

The hostility is well grounded.

If ET is here I would sure like to know it. I can see why so many people think this really is true

Quite frankly, I am dumb-founded by the amount of people willing to believe anything they are told. Most have little or no formal education and can’t even begin to fathom the problems associated with interstellar travel, yet are perfectly willing to accept the possibility that ET walks the Earth. The amount of UFOlogy crap on the internet only serves to feed their delusions.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so sadly tragic.

 

[FZ+]

Note that the debunkers often try to debunk the messenger and not the message

I dunno, but you seem to be mounting a bit of an ad-hominem attack, right now...

Ok, now with greater seriousness...

It is indeed true that one of the occupational harzards of skeptics are the so-called siege mentality, which is often connected with a sort of slippery slope logic. I've probably been guilty of it, myself. The fear is that (a) admitting insecurity about a case can lead to the loss of confidence of the general populace in established science etc as a whole, and (b) allowing claims to lie would only contrast with the claims that have been vigourously attack, giving apparent credence.

But I think that extending this sort of thinking to the borders of irrational paranoia only applies to a limited number of cases.
Most probably act out of a sense of duty, or as a kind of public service. If you see someone you know is a con man making a deal, would you prevent it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
But I think that extending this sort of thinking to the borders of irrational paranoia only applies to a limited number of cases.
Most probably act out of a sense of duty, or as a kind of public service. If you see someone you know is a con man making a deal, would you prevent it?

Really I haven't visited any un-moderated forums lately. I know that about 5 years ago place like Deja used to get absolutely out of control. Of the forums that I still visit, sciforums still allows this kind of garbage.

As for a public service, if the skeptics typically knew anything about the subject they were attacking I might agree. Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
*snip*Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about.

Really? I don't believe it...I mean, not counting me, of course! I have found over the last few years that many skeptics who spend time debunking a certain area are also experts in that area. For instance, James Randi is pretty accomplished in cold reading and magician's tricks, and Joe Nickell, who writes well and often in the skeptical journals, is really knowledgeable as regards the techniques and history of paranormal 'experience'. I can't imagine that somehow the UFO skeptics are exempt from that sort of expertise...myself excluded, of course.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? I don't believe it...I mean, not counting me, of course! I have found over the last few years that many skeptics who spend time debunking a certain area are also experts in that area. For instance, James Randi is pretty accomplished in cold reading and magician's tricks, and Joe Nickell, who writes well and often in the skeptical journals, is really knowledgeable as regards the techniques and history of paranormal 'experience'. I can't imagine that somehow the UFO skeptics are exempt from that sort of expertise...myself excluded, of course.

There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth.

something similar could easily be said about the UFO crowd. When the evidence is hearsay, comes from repeat liars, or is simply eyewitness accounts of strage lights in the sky, there really isn't much to work with, is there?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
something similar could easily be said about the UFO crowd. When the evidence is hearsay, comes from repeat liars, or is simply eyewitness accounts of strage lights in the sky, there really isn't much to work with, is there?

This is true. It takes a lot of work to filter out the credible cases. This is why the skeptics are so transparent.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This stuff just can’t be summed up in an argument or two; it has taken me many years to acquire the conviction that I have. It is just not possible to convey everything that I have seen that has convinced me that UFOs are something real. This would require the recall of everything I have watched, heard or read about the subject for the last eighteen years. But in effect, in order to satisfy the debunker, this is what's required.

Some things require a book length explanation.

It isn't fruitful for you to say that the information is out there and then become frustrated when people don't look into it. Since you are the one raising the subject for discussion so often I feel it is encumbent on you to be able to put the information you want people to see right in front of their eyes.

If you can't quite remember what lead you to this conclusion or that point of view after 18 years, where the info is, what your train of thought was, it isn't sporting of you to get frustrated with anyone else for not being persuaded by you. If these things aren't consciously organized in your mind in a presentable form, there's a good chance people won't even really be able to understand what point it is you're making.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It isn't fruitful for you to say that the information is out there and then become frustrated when people don't look into it. Since you are the one raising the subject for discussion so often I feel it is encumbent on you to be able to put the information you want people to see right in front of their eyes.

This sounds like clear thinking to me. Having never had an encounter convincing me such things are even worth the time to look into, or known anyone in person who had, I feel that an extraordinary claim needs to be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. I can only acknowledge that claims are made by certain people, some of whom are fakes and others who are no doubt sincere. From a practical position I have to place UFO’s in a similar category to that in which I place claims of the knowledge of god(s), of which I know precisely as little. It is, for the present, something outside my condition and hence nothing I can make a 100% claim either for or against. All that remains is for me to live my life until such time as I either develop a strong interest, or at least have more to work with.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Actually, though, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think it is up to Ivan to prove Flying Discs exist. I'm more interested in him taking us through the chain of info in one case or another that he finds compelling to explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study. People don't read things and come away with the same impression. Ivan needs to point out step by step why certain things strike him as different than the kind of report that can be dismissed, if he wants to be better understood.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is true. It takes a lot of work to filter out the credible cases. This is why the skeptics are so transparent.

But, even the 'credible' cases don't have a whole lot of evidence to back them up, do they?

 

[(Q)]

Ivan,

Why did you come to Sciforums and make false accusations against me regarding my post above? Is that appropriate action a Mentor would take? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps Greg should rethink his choice for Mentor of this forum. IMO, you have embarrased him.

 

[(Q)]

Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about.

That may be true for some but is not true as a generalized statement.

By the same token, there are quite a few believers who know nothing of the science behind interstellar travel, yet are willing to commit a great deal of time trying to convince others that ET visits Earth and in some cases, walks the Earth.

There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth.

I know you consider me a bad skeptic as you’ve gone to the trouble to make false accusations against me. However, I’ve asked you to discuss the real issues behind interstellar travel, yet you refuse to do so. Frankly, I don’t understand why you won’t discuss these issues considering you claim to have a degree in physics.

Is your physics claim false, as well?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by (Q)
Ivan,

Why did you come to Sciforums and make false accusations against me regarding my post above? Is that appropriate action a Mentor would take? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps Greg should rethink his choice for Mentor of this forum. IMO, you have embarrased him.

(Q),
Are you the person who also posts here as "Quantum Carl"?

 

[(Q)]

Zooby

No.

 

[radagast]

Ivan,
I will tell you I haven't explored UFO claims extensively. I have explored some. The fact that the UFO community (believers in UFOs) seem to be accepting of any evidence, with little/no criticism, has lead me to dismiss them, without further investment of my time.

As examples:

On a common UFO 'evidence' type show that was on about five years ago, one of the presented bits of evidence was an amateur video, filmed in Salt Lake City (if memory serves) which showed an apparent, blurred, UFO over the Rockies. This object was moving an a vertically oriented ellipse. It would have had to have been of non-terrestrial origins, if,as stated, it was flying above the Rockies, just from the inferred accellerations and alterations in flight patterns. Something was in it's motion was extremely familiar. I realized, within seconds, that what I was seeing mimiced the motion of a kite, exactly. What had been assumed to be over the Rockies, was undoubtedly only a half mile away, or less. And no one had thought to consider this.

I had a friend, in the Navy, who was the back-seater in an F14. One evening, after-dark, they were flying into Norfolk, Va. The next morning the paper reported hundreds of sitings of UFOs at the exact places and times that corrosponded to their flight paths. The Navy didn't disabuse this. It is their policy to never reveal information about operation activities. To this day he likes to tell people about his flight in a 'UFO'.

About ten years ago, a skeptics organization decided to run a little experiment on how self-policing the UFO community was. They went to a site (I believe in Scotland) near a mountain, where sitings of UFO's were common. After dark, they had a person shine a light (purple) against the far mountain, and a 'plant' among the group of gathered UFO enthusists, pointed the UFO out to the crowd. All in the crowd accepted that it was a UFO. In a few days, they (skeptics group) came out with set of photos, which were nothing like the purple light, claiming that this was a picture of the UFO. Then they sat back and watched. For two years. There was never any skepticism or questioning from the UFO community that these sitings and/or photos could be anything but real. Even after the hoax/experiment was revealed, the photos are still circulated as 'evidence' of visitors of extraterrestrial origin.

Do I fear UFO's? Yep, about as much as I believe I'll be strangled, in my sleep, by the Easter Bunny.

 

[russ_watters]

Just saw this thread, but haven't read it yet. For now, I'll just state my default position that extrordinary claims require equally extrordinary evidence. And an ETUFO is a REALLY extrorinary claim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Just saw this thread, but haven't read it yet. For now, I'll just state my default position that extrordinary claims require equally extrordinary evidence. And an ETUFO is a REALLY extrorinary claim.

I make no ET claims. It is not reasonable to point only to the crackpots as a solution to the phenomenon. I suggest that everyone stop making claims and try to figure this this out. If nothing else, the social significance demands it. There is more to this subject than simple crackpot claims; that's why it won't go away like so many other fad notions have over the last 60 years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should add that Q is one of the people to whom I refer as a hostile attacker. For this reason, due to Qs continuous personal attacks and insults, I no longer respond to Q.

Q, I won't tolerate the kind of garbage you hand out at Sciforums. Consider yourself on notice.

 

[(Q)]

I no longer respond to Q.

Yes, I’ve noticed – instead you now slink over to other forums and make false accusations against me.

Q, I won't tolerate the kind of garbage you hand out at Sciforums.

Call it what you will – the truth of the matter is corroborative - as is the case there as it is here, you are unable to formulate an argument in your favor and consider those responses that do not agree with your own views as hostile.

Consider yourself on notice.

Have I violated the terms of service? Please point out exactly why I am ‘on notice.’

Or are you abusing your power as a Mentor?

If you are so inclined to run me off the boards, so to speak, why don’t you just ask me to leave instead?

 

[FZ+]

Ok children... play nicely.

We don't want another ad hominemathon.

 

[(Q)]

Ivan sez:

Qs continuous personal attacks and insults

Actually, it’s interesting you should say that – perhaps we could invite others to see who exactly began with the personal attacks and insults, and only within a few days of joining Sciforums:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28520

… which led to this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=438478#post438478

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I make no ET claims.

What claims do you make then?

I suggest that everyone stop making claims and try to figure this this out.

The problem is that that implies a level playing field where none exists. There is a burden of proof on those who make extrordinary claims to provide the extrordinary evidence to back them up.

Backing up...

If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it.

Where? I've never seen any widespread effort toward trying to disprove "it." (Uh - disprove WHAT exactly, BTW?). Most scientists simply ignore the issue because it lacks any scientific validity - there simply isn't anything for them to disprove.

If you mean places like this forum - you start most of the threads on the subject.

This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct.

I equate ET with UFOs because that is the ONLY claim I have ever seen from the UFO camp. And your post halfway down the first page certainly implies that you believe there is an ET origin to UFOs. You didn't say it explicitly though, so if you could, would you clarify that please? Do you believe some UFOs are of ET origin?

Also, Just posting a link and asking for opinions as you did in another thread, then knocking down other people's evaluations without making your own claim is not acceptable science. It doesn't help you prove anything (and I don't care how many times you say you have no point - if you post a link, you are implying something about that link). It simply isn't how science works. Heck, the best response to such a non-claim is simply "I don't know." Then there is nothing to argue, nothing proven or disproven.

And a denial isn't a luxury here - its an assumption. Again, burden of proof is on the one making the extrordinary claim. Thats how science works.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
...It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

 

[Zero]

This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up. [b(]

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.

This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up.

Agreed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.

My position is popular with virtually no one; which tells me that I'm probably close. Really I do have a few kindred spirits. Recently I have corresponded quite a bit with a trial lawyer who feels much the same as I do. Also, Allen J. Hynek - the father of modern Ufology, and before that the original govenment sponsored UFO debunker - died in a state of uncertainty about the whole subject. He had no doubt that they exist, but what UFOs are remained a mystery to Hynek after nearly 50 years of research. So in fact some percentage of the most serious researchers, and certainly the grand daddy of them all do [did] feel uncertain about the proper explanation. Unfortunately, these people get little attention.

Most debunkers don't realize this.

EDIT: Also, my position is clear. I am convinced that something real, rare, unknown, and highly energetic does fly around the skies; interfere with aircraft, burn people, leave physical evidence upon touchdown [land], that sometimes show up on RADAR, and that are often interpreted as being alien spacecraft . They also appear to cause electrical systems to fail in unusual ways, and they act in a manner that is often interpreted as being controlled by some intelligence.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, though, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think it is up to Ivan to prove Flying Discs exist. I'm more interested in him taking us through the chain of info in one case or another that he finds compelling to explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study. People don't read things and come away with the same impression. Ivan needs to point out step by step why certain things strike him as different than the kind of report that can be dismissed, if he wants to be better understood.

Well said.

How about it Ivan?

And, just to be boringly repetitious, "... explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study"

Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful. Those of us who wish to view the source can always do so, and will also surely write back if they find your summary has significant shortcomings.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful.

This part would still be a problem for me because, as was demonstrated in the case of the Hoover note, being able to see the actual note turned out to be the key to unlocking its lack of signifigance.

It was a lot of trouble to figure out a way to put this document in a place I could get to it, as it turned out, which is why I suggested Ivan select one really convincing case and do some planning and work to put the info where it's easy to get to.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Ivan,
I will tell you I haven't explored UFO claims extensively. I have explored some. The fact that the UFO community (believers in UFOs) seem to be accepting of any evidence, with little/no criticism, has lead me to dismiss them, without further investment of my time.

Like any subject, one must be smart about their sources. Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens. It takes quite a bit of work to sort through the information and get a reasonable picture of what goes on. I hear almost no references to any of the information that interests me; only the obvious boloney that most serious investigators also dismiss. Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

Also, we don't assume that the people standing in line for two weeks to see Star Wars are representive of movie-goers; nor should we look to a bunch of people howling at the moon as representing the UFO crowd. There was recently a big UFO convention in Vegas. As I'm told, of the 500 people [or so] that attended, one idiot shows up with antennas on his head. Guess where all the news cameras were pointing?

People like this really have nothing to do with the subject any more than skin heads represent the republican party, or that tree hugging dope smokers represent the democrats.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have refrained from posting a summary of the event since there are so many critical details. I guess in all fairness to Zooby I should. I will convey the details of the report as it is written.

What we have is an intelligence report to the DIA [ Defense Intelligence Agency] from a DAO [Defense Agency Officer], and distributed to the CIA, NSA, White house, CMC, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and a number of other agencies. The report describes events over Tehran, Iran, on Sept 19th, 1976. The credibility of the report is listed as high, with high ranking witnesses, RADAR confirmation, effects on the crews night vision [due to the brilliance of the object], and onboard electronics were affected.

The command center at [Iranian] Shamrokhi AFB – then an ally of the US hence our presence in the area – received a number of calls from citizens reporting unusual lights and objects over the city. From the command center, the officer in charge could see a bright light near the area reported. After it was confirmed that no helicopters were in the air, command scrambled an F-4 to investigate at about 12:30 AM. The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away. On approach and when at 25 NM [Nautical Miles] from the UFO, the plane lost all communication and instrumentation. When the plane turned away, [specifically the statement is made] apparently when the F-4 was no longer a threat, the electronics returned to normal. The first plane returned to base. Another F-4 was dispatched for intercept at 12:40 AM. As the “backseater” with RADAR then approached the object and obtained a lock at 27NM, the UFO began to move away so as to pace the F-4 and maintain a constant distance of 25 NM. . This motion was confirmed on RADAR.

The object yielded the same RADAR return as a 707 tanker. The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance. Blue, green, orange, and red strobe lights are seen arranged in a rectangle and flashing so quickly that all could be seen at once. As the chase ensues to the south of Tehran, another bright object about 1/3 the size of the original came out of the object heading directly towards the F-4. The pilot attempted to fire and AIM missile, but at that exact moment his weapons and communications systems failed. The plane took evasive actions to avoid collision with the smaller orb which then followed the F-4 in the evasive dive at about 3-4 NM, and then cut across the inside chord of the flight path for a “perfect rejoin” with the main object.

Next, the crew regains their electronics and then observes another bright object come out of the other side of the original and head straight down at high speed. An explosion was expected, but the object slowed to a gentle landing and then cast a bright light over a 2-3 km area. After circling the landing zone a couple of time, the planes attempted to return to base. They lost communications every time the plane heading approached 150 degrees [presumably the direction of the UFO wrt their heading to base]. Another civil airliner on approach lost communications at this time as well. On final approach, the F-4 crew observed a cylindrical object in flight – about the size of a T-bird – at about 10 miles, and with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. This was not detected on RADAR, but the object was visually confirmed by the tower.

The next day the landing area was inspected by helicopter. A very noticeable beeper sound was heard. [presumably on their radio, this is not indicated] They landed and interviewed some people living near the landing area. The locals reported a very loud noise and a bright light like lightning the night before. The area was being checked for radiation. This information was obtained through a sub-source and the pilot of the second F4

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's a place to start: can someone figure out in lumens how bright it would have to have been to be visible 70 miles away?

 

[(Q)]

Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens.

This is of course farthest from the truth. Most believers know little of the facts behind interstellar travel aside from their TV nighttime soap operas.

Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

From a believer’s point of view, any argument that begins to bring science to the forefront is tiresome. It’s not possible to retain a belief system with facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure how to do that one Zooby...at least not off the top of my head. Maybe someone will know a shortcut.

Also, I should note that the report also indicates that this was confirmed by other sources.

In my experience we find most of the major components of the typical [credible] UFO here.

Obviously we find high strangeness.
The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes
The object could split and then rejoin again
The object appeared to act in a controlled manner

These types of observations are common in the best cases. One thing that we don't see here is any evidence of fantastic flight capabilities. Accelerations in excess of 20Gs, and speeds in excess of 4000 mph are also seen in some cases that resemble this one.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Listing its apparent characteristics is a good idea.
Obviously we find high strangeness.

"High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. Uninformative. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.

The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes

Sounds right.

The object could split and then rejoin again

Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.

The object appeared to act in a controlled manner

Yes.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.

Seemingly inexplicable behavior and/or characteristics.

Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.

Point taken.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics. [/B]

The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Seemingly inexplicable behavior.

In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.

The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...

We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII. Now, the pilot of the F-4 describes the phenomenon as a brighly lit object. Aside from the retangular lights, he describes no structure.