UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[FlexGunship]

But we are in agreement about what I posted then right. So if astronomers don't report ridiculous or sketchy sightings, and since they are a minority as well, that only 1% of UFO sighting are reported by astronomers makes perfect sense.

[...]

The Article you posted is pretty poorly done. The title is contradicted by the first sentence.

We aren't in agreement, I'm afraid. The number of UFO reports from astronomers is disproportionately small compared to the number of astronomers.

I would also be cautious in your dismissal of Phil Plait (and his writings). I will avoid the "argument from authority" here, but, instead, simply suggest that his observations and metaobservations (observations of observations) are worth considering strongly. Between him and Neil deGrasse Tyson, you would be hard pressed to find more reputable sky-observers. In part, though, they are reputable because they have learned to disregard "brain failures" (as Tyson calls it) in favor of scientific objective observation.

As Tyson says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68): "in the court of science, eye witness observation is the lowest form of evidence."

P.S. Yes, I know he was talking about abductions at that exact moment. But even 2nd graders know that you can't rely on stories (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k&feature=related - go to 5:00 for "brain failures").

At 8:20 of that second video Tyson also addresses your question again of astronomers and UFOs.

 

[jreelawg]

We aren't in agreement, I'm afraid. The number of UFO reports from astronomers is disproportionately small compared to the number of astronomers.

I would also be cautious in your dismissal of Phil Plait (and his writings). I will avoid the "argument from authority" here, but, instead, simply suggest that his observations and metaobservations (observations of observations) are worth considering strongly. Between him and Neil deGrasse Tyson, you would be hard pressed to find more reputable sky-observers. In part, though, they are reputable because they have learned to disregard "brain failures" (as Tyson calls it) in favor of scientific objective observation.

As Tyson says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68): "in the court of science, eye witness observation is the lowest form of evidence."

P.S. Yes, I know he was talking about abductions at that exact moment. But even 2nd graders know that you can't rely on stories (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k&feature=related - go to 5:00 for "brain failures").

Doesn't change the fact failed logic was used in the article.

 

[jreelawg]

All I care about is the substance. If you are going to argue that the proportion of sightings by astronomers says something about the UFO phenomena, then let's see the evidence. Then let's look closely at it, and discuss it.

 

[jreelawg]

In part, though, they are reputable because they have learned to disregard "brain failures" (as Tyson calls it) in favor of scientific objective observation.

How reputable would they be if they went public about seeing a UFO and reported it to MUFON?

 

[jreelawg]

I agree with Carl Sagan.

"The idea of benign or hostile space aliens from other planets visiting the Earth [is clearly] an emotional idea. There are two sorts of self-deception here: either accepting the idea of extraterrestrial visitation by space aliens in the face of very meager evidence because we want it to be true; or rejecting such an idea out of hand, in the absence of sufficient evidence, because we don't want it to be true. Each of these extremes is a serious impediment to the study of UFOs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_hypothesis#Opinions_among_scientists

 

[nismaratwork]

How reputable would they be if they went public about seeing a UFO and reported it to MUFON?

...And how immortal would their names become if they were one of the first people to provide more than just blurry images of "orbs"? I think if pilots are willing to risk their flight certs, and Generals their reputations, that yes... astronomers would be willing if they saw something absolutely inexplicable. You're placing the burden of proof on the people who are skeptical, but in reality that's neither logical nor scientific: if you want to prove a belief, you have to provide commensurate evidence. You keep saying, "I could say the same for the skeptics...", but actually you can't. The skeptic isn't a CYNIC, and isn't saying, "nope, nope, that can't be real," they're just people with a standard of proof that is in line with the claim.

Eyewitnesses are terrible when it comes to mundane events, so why would they be considered worthwhile for something that would be LITERALLY out of this world? Anecdotes, no matter how trustworthy the source, do not forward science... that is part of the success you find as a result of using the scientific method. If you have evidence of skeptics rejecting evidence out of hand, present it, otherwise quoting Carl Sagan is just an appeal to authority and cherry picking for something you interpret as supporting your position.

 

[jreelawg]

...And how immortal would their names become if they were one of the first people to provide more than just blurry images of "orbs"? I think if pilots are willing to risk their flight certs, and Generals their reputations, that yes... astronomers would be willing if they saw something absolutely inexplicable. You're placing the burden of proof on the people who are skeptical, but in reality that's neither logical nor scientific: if you want to prove a belief, you have to provide commensurate evidence. You keep saying, "I could say the same for the skeptics...", but actually you can't. The skeptic isn't a CYNIC, and isn't saying, "nope, nope, that can't be real," they're just people with a standard of proof that is in line with the claim.

Eyewitnesses are terrible when it comes to mundane events, so why would they be considered worthwhile for something that would be LITERALLY out of this world? Anecdotes, no matter how trustworthy the source, do not forward science... that is part of the success you find as a result of using the scientific method. If you have evidence of skeptics rejecting evidence out of hand, present it, otherwise quoting Carl Sagan is just an appeal to authority and cherry picking for something you interpret as supporting your position.

Any claim or argument should be subject to the burden of proof skeptic or not. Science is the investigation and research of observed phenomena.

I quoted Sagan in response to Flex's post in which he expects me to take an accomplished astronomers unsupported opinions at face value.

I also quoted Sagan because he said what I've been trying to say well, and yes, I thought maybe someone would take Sagan more seriously than me.

 

[jreelawg]

...And how immortal would their names become if they were one of the first people to provide more than just blurry images of "orbs"? I think if pilots are willing to risk their flight certs, and Generals their reputations, that yes... astronomers would be willing if they saw something absolutely inexplicable.

Let's see some kind of evidence at all, that the % of astronomers claiming to have seen UFO's is of some ratio.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh Lord, here we go. I should have just started a log of canned responses long ago. We have been over this soooooo many times. I will probably just nibble away at this.

That's what logic dictates, Ivan. What other possibilities do you see?

I don't have to offer any explanations in order to say that we don't know.

he facts are not of scientific quality - that's why they are not accepted. Your position, dismissing reasonable skepticism, is anti-science.

Reasonable skepticism? I am the one being skeptical of your explanation.

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to get answers - to draw conclusions.

So first you argue that the information is not of scientific quality, and then you argue that we should draw conclusions.

There is no other reason to do it. Furthermore, humans are hard-wired to draw conclusions.

So it is your position that we succumb to our animal nature in order to remain objective.

It's our nature and is essentially impossible to avoid, even if it were desirable, which it isn't. It is unscientific and disingenuous to claim that one can do decades of research and not even come up with potential/tentative conclusions. It's also counterproductive since failure to properly apply scientific thought to these sightings can result in incorrect conclusions being drawn.

Says who? What research? You are talking complete nonsense here. The accumulation of information does not constitute or pretend to be scientific research from which conclusions can be drawn.

As I said, I am the skeptic here. I refuse to leap to conclusions based on some predispostion to draw conclusions, where none can be supported. The need to believe something does not justify conclusions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No. Heck, I won't even stipulate to the premise of the question! I have *never* seen a UFO report that made me stand up and say "Wow, I think that's an alien spacecraft !" like proponents of the Mexican Air Force sighting said I should. And in cases like that one, my skepticism has served me well, whereas the wishful thinking/grasping at straws of the UFO crowd has served them poorly. No, it is being suggested that language suggestive of ET is being deleted/not used for the sake of comfort by the author. The impression given is leading us toward a conclusion, then not explicitly stating what that conclusion is. It is argument by inuendo and you did something similar above when you said my conclusions were limited without explaining what the alternatives are.

You are making this about ET, not me. Where in the Iran report does anyone say anything about ET? You and I agreed seven years ago that we have no credible scientific evidence for an ET presence, so why do you consistently make this the argument?

It seems to me that you are the one hung up on ET. Yes, the claim is out there, get over it already. Do you automatically consider a rejection of your eplanations, a claim for ET? I think so. If we don't limit the scope of explanations to your frame, its crackpot, right?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to many, the Mexican Air Force UFO sighting of a few years ago was an extremely convincing sighting of alien spacecraft ...which turned out to be oil rigs. The conclusion a skeptic must draw from that is that in the absence of convincing proof of a mundane explanation, many UFO advocates jump to the alien spacecraft conclusion.

Don't pick and choose examples and then misrepresent them. "According to many" can be said about most beliefs. No one credible was jumping to any conclusions.

As is generally stated in the serious efforts to examine this phenomenon, we take it as a given that 90-95% of all UFO reports can be explained. Don't waste our time by pointing to the obvious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does her book mention the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"?

No, and we debunked this one long ago. That is the view from a US jet, not a Mig.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

More later, but here's some red meat.

What are the chances of an ET encounter?

Answer: We have no idea. It may be a near certainty that we will encounter ETs.

Prove me wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't have to offer any explanations in order to say that we don't know.

No, but you do have to offer an explanation to make the affirmative claim that I'm limiting the possibilities. You're basically saying 'you're wrong, but I can't/won't prove it.' Pathetic cop-out.

Reasonable skepticism? I am the one being skeptical of your explanation.

I'm perfectly willing to let you flip the issue over, but your refusal to be logical/scientific and support your claims is most certainly not reasonable skepticism.

So first you argue that the information is not of scientific quality, and then you argue that we should draw conclusions.

What conclusion are you referring to? When you have data that is not of scientific quality the only conclusion to be drawn is that the hypotheized effect is not borne-out by observation. In other words, the conclusion is that the hypothesis that there are alien spacecraft visiting us is not supported by observation.

So it is your position that we succumb to our animal nature in order to remain objective.

Huh? That doesn't make sense, but it kinda sounds like exactly the opposite of what I said. What I'm saying is that it is our animal nature to seek-out signal in the noise. That's what "UFOology" is: an attempt to find signal in noise. And predominantly what I've seen from "UFOologists" is that there is a signal they want to find and because our brains are hardwired to seek out and find patterns even when there aren't any, their animal nature overrides their objectivity and causes them to see a signal that isn't there.

Says who? What research? You are talking complete nonsense here. The accumulation of information does not constitute or pretend to be scientific research from which conclusions can be drawn.

Oh, really? Then I misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempts were being made to study the UFO phenomena scientifically. Should I stop using the term "UFOology" then and just say 'flying saucer hunters'?

As I said, I am the skeptic here. I refuse to leap to conclusions based on some predispostion to draw conclusions, where none can be supported. The need to believe something does not justify conclusions.

No, you're really not, Ivan. You cling to a signal that isn't there and dismissively refuse to apply logic and scientific thought to the subject. You're basically looking at the issue backwards, claiming that because the signal is weak it can't be proven it isn't there so we should assume it is for the purpose of investigation.

You are making this about ET, not me. Where in the Iran report does anyone say anything about ET?

It is disingenuous to claim that the UFO issue is not about ET. It is. That was part of the discussion earlier: ET advocates tend to avoid talking about ET because they don't want to be seen supporting that hypothesis. But every now and then, they let their true position slip.

You and I agreed seven years ago that we have no credible scientific evidence for an ET presence, so why do you consistently make this the argument?

Because while you acknowlege that, you also said you are still almost completely convinced that there is an ET presence. You're playing both sides in an attempt to appear more objective than you really are. And that appears to me to be the norm of ET believers. That is why I continually harp on this: The "UFO" phenomena is about ET and it is disingenous to claim otherwise. It's probably an internal struggle that manifests externally and not really a conscious attempt to deceive, but nevertheless, it is a real issue here. IOW, you probably believe you are being objective/scientific, but you aren't.

Don't pick and choose examples and then misrepresent them. "According to many" can be said about most beliefs. No one credible was jumping to any conclusions.

Unless you use a recursive definition, that's just plain not true. The "UFOologist" that the Mexican military brought in (Jaime Maussan) was one of/the first to utter that conclusion.

As is generally stated in the serious efforts to examine this phenomenon, we take it as a given that 90-95% of all UFO reports can be explained. Don't waste our time by pointing to the obvious.

I point out the obvious because UFO advocates dismiss the obvious: the fact that 90-95% including many seen to be compelling can eventually be explained is the signal to noise ratio that I'm referring to. You can't treat a later-explained sighting that was intially thought to be alien spacecraft as if it never happened. It is disingenuous and unscientiifc to discard data because it doesn't fit the hypothesis - especially when the fraction is so large! I harp on it because UFO advocates want to pretend it didn't happen. That's data cooking.

 

[russ_watters]

More later, but here's some red meat.

What are the chances of an ET encounter?

Answer: We have no idea. It may be a near certainty that we will encounter ETs.

Prove me wrong.

Ivan, "prove me wrong" is right out of the crackpot handbook. An armchair skeptic such as myself has no burden of proof here: the burden of proof is always on the one doing the research/making the claim - even if that claim is only backhandedly implied.

And even worse, what you want me to prove wrong is an obvious unscientific analysis of data. And yes, we have data. Every UFO sighting that can't be proven to be ET - and you have acknowledged that so far none can - is another data point to the 1/x upper bound odds that an ET encounter can be scientifically proven. In other words, if there have been 1,000,000 sightings then the odds that any new sighting will be a confirmed ET has an upper bound of one in a million.

"It may be a near certainty..." is an unscientific possibility to extract from the data.

Furthermore, since as you say, 90-95% of initially unexplained sightings can later be explained to be mundane and/or misunderstood, any scientifically minded person should conclude that with better data, the rest would also be. Flipping the signal and noise: 90-95% confidence is a conclusion is a pretty good signal to noise ratio.

 

[russ_watters]

I cannot speak for or against the eyewitness accounts.

But, for all practical purposes, a bullet coming out of a gun barrel accelerates instantly - to the human eye. Lead and black powder - 2,500 years old.

And have you ever seen an adept Australian aborigine throw a boomerang ? Depending on it's attitude to the wind, and your point of observation, it can sure as hell appear to make a 90 deg turn - or even a 30 deg turn sometimes. Wind and wood - 70,000 years old. How's that, Mr Einstein ?

It's probably inadvertent, but you are agreeing with me here. When someone says 'it executed a 90 deg turn and since our technology/science says that is impossible, it must be ET' that shows that they almost certainly misunderstood and misreported what they were seeing. There is a huge difference in the implications of 'it executed a 90 deg turn' and 'it appeared to execute a 90 deg turn'. We've examined examples in this thread where that is exactly the misinterpretation that drove the event.

 

[russ_watters]

No, alt is still talking. Can someone else take a whack at this for a while.

By the way, "illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax" is hardly a quatrotomy (quadchotomy?). Illusion describes thousands of possible experiences. Confusion describes ever more! This is an entire spectrum of human interaction with reality and none of it requires aliens or super-high-tech secret military aircraft.

How is that not more reasonable? You need nothing extraordinary to explain it. Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.

Furthermore, since 90-95% of the initially unknown can be shown to be mundanely explained/misinterpreted, it is reasonable to conclude that with higher quality data, the rest could be too.

 

[jreelawg]

Furthermore, since 90-95% of the initially unknown can be shown to be mundanely explained/misinterpreted, it is reasonable to conclude that with higher quality data, the rest could be too.

How is this reasonable to conclude?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know how interesting it really is, though. I don't think there was much hallucination going on, more confusion with a light splash of illusion. Lying? Sure, what military leader wants to come out and say: "Wow, everyone, we were really silly there. Sorry about the scare. It's just that we don't really know what we're doing with this radar stuff, and these jets... sheesh, have you seen the number of buttons?! We only press the green ones for the most part."

The general point that humans are 'belief engines', pre-programmed to find signal in noise without even realizing it may be basic to you and me, but not everyone is aware of/accepting of it. I recommend reading Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" for those just discovering the concept. His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased. Thus it can be concluded that things that are currently unexplainable probably have explanations that don't require jumping outside of science/logic.

 

[jreelawg]

What does it mean to conclude that probably? If it's probably then it's not conclusive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, but you do have to offer an explanation to make the affirmative claim that I'm limiting the possibilities.

You are not allowing that it simply something that we don't understand - the opportunity for discovery.

You're basically saying 'you're wrong, but I can't/won't prove it.' Pathetic cop-out.

And you are simply changing the facts and misreprenting my position. I didn't say you were wrong. I said that I am skeptical. I don't accept any explanation as a fact. You seem to need to believe something.

I'm perfectly willing to let you flip the issue over, but your refusal to be logical/scientific and support your claims is most certainly not reasonable skepticism.

I didn't make a claim. State my claim. The thing that you seem to be incapable of understanding is that I don't have a position. I draw no conclusions. None are possible.

What conclusion are you referring to? When you have data that is not of scientific quality the only conclusion to be drawn is that the hypotheized effect is not borne-out by observation. In other words, the conclusion is that the hypothesis that there are alien spacecraft visiting us is not supported by observation.

You ask what conclusion. Then you state a conclusion based on evidence that you yourself admit is not scientific quality. No one is claiming this is proof of anything. What bothers you is that if we take the report at face value, one quickly runs out of reasonable explanations. That is a simple fact.

Huh? That doesn't make sense, but it kinda sounds like exactly the opposite of what I said. What I'm saying is that it is our animal nature to seek-out signal in the noise.

What I am saying is that you seem to need to believe something here, but I don't.

That's what "UFOology" is: an attempt to find signal in noise. And predominantly what I've seen from "UFOologists" is that there is a signal they want to find and because our brains are hardwired to seek out and find patterns even when there aren't any, their animal nature overrides their objectivity and causes them to see a signal that isn't there.

Just like any true believer, that is your statement of faith.

Oh, really? Then I misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempts were being made to study the UFO phenomena scientifically. Should I stop using the term "UFOology" then and just say 'flying saucer hunters'?

Just as historians are gossip hunters.

No, you're really not, Ivan. You cling to a signal that isn't there and dismissively refuse to apply logic and scientific thought to the subject.

What you really mean is that I don't completely dismiss the possibility that ET has visited. I don't accept that, but I allow that it might be possible. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind. So again, I am actually the skeptic. You are the true believer. You need to believe that ET can't be here. My position is that I have no idea. It would seem to be highly unlikely, but I can't completely rule it out. No one can.

You hide behind the criteria for science for claims that can only be considered logically. The point of this forum is to consider evidence that cannot be tested directly. The claim of ET is not derived indirectly from reports like this. There are plenty of direct accounts of flying saucers, or whatever, hovering over houses, flying down the highway with police in pursuit, landing in pastures, and on and on for decades the stories go, in fact, for centuries, with some rare accounts of encounters with actual beings. Anecdotal evidence is still logical evidence, and the point is to consider the scope and depth of the claims - to provide some perspective. Why do people believe these things?

You simply refuse to consider the anecdotal evidence. It threatens you because were one word of it true, your belief system would collapse. You fail to recognize the difference between the willingness to not pass judgement, of being truly skeptical of any position here, and driving over a cliff. The idea of an open mind offends you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that at least some natural phenomena are mixed in with UFO reports. No doubt ball lightning can account for some reports. Maybe this and other phenomena can explain all of the really interesting reports, but we certainly don't know this to be true. We would expect this to be true, but we don't know it. It would be crackpottery to say that we do.

 

[nismaratwork]

Holy CRAP this got ugly fast...

For what little it's worth, in all of this I haven't seen Ivan talk about ETs other than to dismiss them in the context of what UFOs might be. I'm of the opinion that the "belief engine" notion probably accounts for the vast majority of observed "weirdness", but as Ivan's point is made with ball lightning, that doesn't cover EVERYTHING. I go back to how DaveC approaches science in the strictest sense... there isn't enough information here to draw conclusions across the board, only in a case-by-case basis. I do NOT see where Ivan is saying anything other than that, but Russ, you do seem to have a kind of faith in something you cannot possibly know.

I don't believe in god, or that ETs have visited Earth, but I recognize that's because no evidence of either has ever been presented to me which I find rigorous and scientific. I ALSO recognize that doesn't automatically make me right... it's just my belief.

Ivan, where Russ is CLEARLY right, is that in the midst of saying you are skeptically aloof, you start to talk about anecdotal claims being "logcial evidence". Now, I don't know what that's supposed to be, but it sure as hell is NOT scientific evidence: you can get a trillion bits of anecdote from 7000+ years of human record and still have nothing which a decent skeptic would do more than read, and put aside. Anecdote is essentially the OPPOSITE of evidence.

Maybe I'm not getting this, but it seems to me that Russ is arguing against you as if you do believe that ETs are an explanation for some things, and you do entertain that view. I don't see how you can make the skeptic's argument and then even CONSIDER that Russ or anyone should take anecdotes as evidence of anything. When you really look at history, the birth of science was the moment that anecdotes, no matter how convincing, were considered to be personal accounts and NOT evidence.

Clearly this is a long-standing issue between you two, and while Russ isn't being a true skeptic in that he comes to definite conclusions where only high probabilities can be drawn, you seem to be aiming for the acceptance of anecdote as evidence, which is disturbing.

Do I have this right? Essentially, Russ LEANS towards "UFO anything is crackpottery and nuts looking for magic" and Ivan LEANS towards "There is anecdotal 'evidence' that should make us consider claims without scientifically acceptable basis."...
... but when challenged you both hide behind the word "skeptic".

As I understand it a skeptic might have a personal belief based on likelihoods, but those are merely conditional and not worth arguing about until REAL evidence emerges. I have my leanings, which tend towards Russ' as it happens, but I don't dismiss a claim out of hand until the evidence is examined. If there's nothing, but an anecdote, log it in some file and put it away until it can be paired with real evidence. If it never is, then for me it means only that someone said something, period.

Beyond that, maybe this 7+ year argument you two are having should be... well... in its own thread or in a PM.

 

[alt]

The general point that humans are 'belief engines', pre-programmed to find signal in noise without even realizing it may be basic to you and me, but not everyone is aware of/accepting of it. I recommend reading Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" for those just discovering the concept. His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased. Thus it can be concluded that things that are currently unexplainable probably have explanations that don't require jumping outside of science/logic.

His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased.

That is much the same as saying that todays magic is tomorrows science.

 

[alt]

Holy CRAP this got ugly fast...

For what little it's worth, in all of this I haven't seen Ivan talk about ETs other than to dismiss them in the context of what UFOs might be. I'm of the opinion that the "belief engine" notion probably accounts for the vast majority of observed "weirdness", but as Ivan's point is made with ball lightning, that doesn't cover EVERYTHING. I go back to how DaveC approaches science in the strictest sense... there isn't enough information here to draw conclusions across the board, only in a case-by-case basis. I do NOT see where Ivan is saying anything other than that, but Russ, you do seem to have a kind of faith in something you cannot possibly know.

I don't believe in god, or that ETs have visited Earth, but I recognize that's because no evidence of either has ever been presented to me which I find rigorous and scientific. I ALSO recognize that doesn't automatically make me right... it's just my belief.

Ivan, where Russ is CLEARLY right, is that in the midst of saying you are skeptically aloof, you start to talk about anecdotal claims being "logcial evidence". Now, I don't know what that's supposed to be, but it sure as hell is NOT scientific evidence: you can get a trillion bits of anecdote from 7000+ years of human record and still have nothing which a decent skeptic would do more than read, and put aside. Anecdote is essentially the OPPOSITE of evidence.

Maybe I'm not getting this, but it seems to me that Russ is arguing against you as if you do believe that ETs are an explanation for some things, and you do entertain that view. I don't see how you can make the skeptic's argument and then even CONSIDER that Russ or anyone should take anecdotes as evidence of anything. When you really look at history, the birth of science was the moment that anecdotes, no matter how convincing, were considered to be personal accounts and NOT evidence.

Clearly this is a long-standing issue between you two, and while Russ isn't being a true skeptic in that he comes to definite conclusions where only high probabilities can be drawn, you seem to be aiming for the acceptance of anecdote as evidence, which is disturbing.

Do I have this right? Essentially, Russ LEANS towards "UFO anything is crackpottery and nuts looking for magic" and Ivan LEANS towards "There is anecdotal 'evidence' that should make us consider claims without scientifically acceptable basis."...
... but when challenged you both hide behind the word "skeptic".

As I understand it a skeptic might have a personal belief based on likelihoods, but those are merely conditional and not worth arguing about until REAL evidence emerges. I have my leanings, which tend towards Russ' as it happens, but I don't dismiss a claim out of hand until the evidence is examined. If there's nothing, but an anecdote, log it in some file and put it away until it can be paired with real evidence. If it never is, then for me it means only that someone said something, period.

Beyond that, maybe this 7+ year argument you two are having should be... well... in its own thread or in a PM.

Well, I hope they don't take it to PM. Many of us would be highly respectful of both of them, and very interested to see this discussion develope, and possibly taken to some conclusion - else, what's a forum for ?

 

[Pythagorean]

My reservations with the UFO clan is that the term "UFO" has obviously been compromised. But there's also an issue with the terminology itself. "Flying" is a strong verb that's easy to personify. If natural phenomena may be responsible, there's all kinds of lighting effects to consider that really have nothing to do with flying.

Why not abandon the term UFO? The masses already instantly think alien. I can't help but think alien myself many times throughout this thread, even thought I know it's not. It's just so ingrained in our society by now that UFO means alien spaceship.

Hypothetical: If governments do really have advanced technology (it needn't even be space-craft... maybe a biotoxin that causes hallucinations, maybe fancy light tricks with a balloon... but sure, spacecraft too) then we'd only be making it easier for them to get away with it by continuing to use the word UFO.

When I was younger, I had my suspicions that the UFO craze was a type of cover-up itself, obscuring and distracting from a less interesting, but more important, incident.

 

[Andre]

Though I am still perplexed about this scenario. If the members of the Iranian Air Force were all lying (or group hallucinating) then there's an interesting story there anyway about humans.

Not necessarily, no doubt that all three saw "something", like the 14 year old boy who saw a pigeon crossing the big dipper. And no doubt that they honestly seek an explanation.

But maybe that one of the pilot is thinking, that he leaves the story of the total electrical failure as is, since it would be very humiliating to admit that the thing scares the h... out of him, and then some minor event occurred like the master caution light coming on for a switch set wrong or so, which triggered him to break off the intercept. You need a pretty good excuse to explain that to the general.

And the other pilot leaves the story of the missile launch failure and the failed ejection, maybe because he did not even realize that he made the errors himself.

And the General, well, he just saw the light.

Things like confirming radar contacts and other failures, well it could be so, it could also be confirmation bias.

Then the intelligence report, unaware of the plethora of illusions of (night) flying, especially things like autokinetic illusion just put on a 'highly credible' stamp on it. Who would not trust a general and his pilots?

 

[FlexGunship]

Doesn't change the fact failed logic was used in the article.

Jreelawg, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You could argue he used "weasel words," but that's really a description, not an actual point being made. I'm not sure I see your "failed logic."

All I care about is the substance. If you are going to argue that the proportion of sightings by astronomers says something about the UFO phenomena, then let's see the evidence. Then let's look closely at it, and discuss it.

Do you agree that there exists a community on Earth that looks up more often than the general public? You would expect a disproportionately large number of UFO reports from that community. But instead you see fewer than the normal ratio. I'll agree that this isn't "evidence" on it's own, but can't we agree that this points to a significant trend, and that this trend might have explanatory power?

What are the chances of an ET encounter?

Answer: We have no idea. It may be a near certainty that we will encounter ETs.

Prove me wrong.

That's pretty easy. Given that there are no known methods of traveling faster than the speed of light, and assuming that the closest star system held intelligent life, they would still be confined to a 9 year round-trip. That's a best case scenario. In actuality, the trip would probably be much longer.

Again, we're not talking definites, but at a minimum, you can say that such a trip would be so amazingly inconvenient as to be much less likely than a "near certainty."

And before you fall into another fallacy: assuming that the odds of FTL travel being possible and practical are even (50:50) simply because it hasn't been done is not a scientifically valid position at this time (you would never think of the converse as being applicable to existing technology).

If you apply wishful thinking, you could make that number whatever you like, but applying a scientific eye to it, you must conclude that there is no reason to believe anyone in the universe is moving faster than c.

His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased.

That is much the same as saying that todays magic is tomorrows science.

No, because once science has revealed that "darkness" it's never replaced with the same thing. The lesson is not to presuppose magic under any circumstances, but instead to calm down your imagination and distance yourself from your perceptions.

Not necessarily, no doubt that all three saw "something", like the 14 year old boy who saw a pigeon crossing the big dipper. And no doubt that they honestly seek an explanation.

But maybe that one of the pilot is thinking, that he leaves the story of the total electrical failure as is, since it would be very humiliating to admit that the thing scares the h... out of him, and then some minor event occurred like the master caution light coming on for a switch set wrong or so, which triggered him to break off the intercept. You need a pretty good excuse to explain that to the general.

And the other pilot leaves the story of the missile launch failure and the failed ejection, maybe because he did not even realize that he made the errors himself.

And the General, well, he just saw the light.

Things like confirming radar contacts and other failures, well it could be so, it could also be confirmation bias.

Then the intelligence report, unaware of the plethora of illusions of (night) flying, especially things like autokinetic illusion just put on a 'highly credible' stamp on it. Who would not trust a general and his pilots?

This is an excellent summary. It requires nothing special for a full explanation. People who disregard this explanation need to reevaluate the reasons why they disregard it. Everything is covered and nothing is mystical, unexplained, or even unlikely. To try to bring it back into the realm of "the unknown" is wishful thinking. You "wish" it was unknown. But there's just nothing compelling here.

Russ has made some really clever points that seem to be falling through the cracks. He's correct in the fact that UFOs have always existed in the noise of the data we collect. If that were not true, then as measuring equipment increases, so should the quality of UFO reports. But they don't.

Think of "ghost EVPs." Audio recording technology has advanced 1000-fold since the first EVPs were "recorded." With this, you would expect that EVPs would be 1000-fold better. Yet, you must still crank up the gain, and listen to the white noise in the background to find ticks and scratches that could be misinterpreted as voices. EVPs are another noise-hunt just like UFOs.

 

[eupeptic]

Reuters: "http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915 "

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Witness testimony from more than 120 former or retired military personnel points to an ongoing and alarming intervention by unidentified aerial objects at nuclear weapons sites, as recently as 2003. In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby. Six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former enlisted man will break their silence about these events at the National Press Club and urge the government to publicly confirm their reality.

One of them, ICBM launch officer Captain Robert Salas, was on duty during one missile disruption incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base and was ordered to never discuss it. Another participant, retired Col. Charles Halt, observed a disc-shaped object directing beams of light down into the RAF Bentwaters airbase in England and heard on the radio that they landed in the nuclear weapons storage area. Both men will provide stunning details about these events, and reveal how the U.S. military responded.

Captain Salas notes, "The U.S. Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it." Col. Halt adds, "I believe that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted—both then and now—to subvert the significance of what occurred at RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."

The group of witnesses and a leading researcher, who has brought them together for the first time, will discuss the national security implications of these and other alarmingly similar incidents and will urge the government to reveal all information about them. This is a public-awareness issue.

Declassified U.S. government documents, to be distributed at the event, now substantiate the reality of UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites extending back to 1948. The press conference will also address present-day concerns about the abuse of government secrecy as well as the ongoing threat of nuclear weapons.

 

[Pythagorean]

Not necessarily

Even if all your guesses come together to accurately portray what happened, it's still interesting (at least to me) that everyone converged on a belief as they did. You have to consider that my field of interest is neuroscience.

This is in contrast to (for instance) religious beliefs that people are raised to believe from birth.

You'd also have to consider the investigations afterwards, where a team went to examine the ground where a "pod" supposedly landed from the main "ship" and found some radioactive activity (that report was never declassified).

The next day, the F-4 crew flew out in a helicopter to the site where they had seen the smaller object land. In the daylight, it was determined to be a dry lake bed, but no traces could be seen. They then circled the area to the west and picked up a noticeable "beeper" signal. The signal was loudest near a small house, so they landed and questioned the occupants of the house about any unusual events of the previous night. They reported a loud noise and a bright light like lightning.
Further investigation of the landing site, including radiation testing of the area was apparently done, but the results were never made public. Since this event occurred before the fall of the Shah, any records in Tehran itself may be lost.

You also haven't factored in the numerous reports from civilians that night (i.e. this is even more interesting as a group hallucination.)

Ironically, Jupiter was just out recently (as it was on the night of the Tehran incident) and I went to the local mountain top with some friends and viewed it with a telescope (we could see it's rings and moon! Very exciting!). Even without the telescope you could see it because it has a kind of orange hue to it, as if it were reflecting city light from the Earth. It does look unnaturally close because of the light reflections!

 

[FlexGunship]

Even if all your guesses come together to accurately portray what happened, it's still interesting (at least to me) that everyone converged on a belief as they did. You have to consider that my field of interest is neuroscience.

Well understood as "confirmation bias." Watch an episode of Ghost Hunters for examples.

• Person A: "Did you just see that woman?"
• Person B: "What? Oh! Yeah! Woah!"
• Person A (later): "Remember when we both saw that woman?"
• Person B: "Yeah, that was crazy."

Ironically, Jupiter was just out recently (as it was on the night of the Tehran incident) and I went to the local mountain top with some friends and viewed it with a telescope (we could see it's rings and moon! Very exciting!). Even without the telescope you could see it because it has a kind of orange hue to it, as if it were reflecting city light from the Earth. It does look unnaturally close because of the light reflections!

That's not "ironic" it's just "coincidental." Furthermore, you didn't see the rings of Jupiter. Sorry, not trying to be rude. But you didn't. This is an awesome case of misidentification. The best part, is I'm sure all of your friends would back you up. You would all swear to what you saw, and if someone interviewed you, it would be reported as a group case. And if someone accused you of "illusion, confusion, or hallucination" you would surely tell them how wrong they are.

You've proved exactly how UFO myths get started with a single post.

 

[FlexGunship]

Reuters: "http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915 "

The worst thing you can do to get a clear picture of what happened is bring witnesses together! This is just begging to be rendered useless. There could be a real event that happened here, and a real story... but because of the way its being handled, we'll never know.

 

[Pythagorean]

Furthermore, you didn't see the rings of Jupiter. Sorry, not trying to be rude. But you didn't. This is an awesome case of misidentification. The best part, is I'm sure all of your friends would back you up. You would all swear to what you saw, and if someone interviewed you, it would be reported as a group case. And if someone accused you of "illusion, confusion, or hallucination" you would surely tell them how wrong they are.

You've proved exactly how UFO myths get started with a single post.

I really don't know. I'm not an astronomer, but it was a pretty good telescope (it wouldn't fit in a smart car, for instance) that came from the university astronomy department.

How can you even guess what telescope I was using and whether it would see the rings or not? I'm truly interested in your thought process here. Can no mobile telescope's see the rings? I only saw one grey stripe, personally, but it was definitely there, ring or not.

 

[FlexGunship]

I really don't know. I'm not an astronomer, but it was a pretty good telescope (it wouldn't fit in a smart car, for instance) that came from the university astronomy department.

How can you even guess what telescope I was using and whether it would see the rings or not? I'm truly interested in your thought process here. Can no mobile telescope's see the rings? I only saw one grey stripe, personally, but it was definitely there, ring or not.

Stripes, I can believe. My point is that you had misclassified what you saw, like so many thousands of other people. It's not a crime, and you shouldn't be embarrassed... but we should all recognize it's common. Many people look into the sky and misidentify things they see, or even simply call them by the wrong name.

The rings off Jupiter weren't discovered until 1979 by the Voyager 1 probe. They are not even visible from Earth through observatory-sized optical telescopes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Jupiter) So, unless you're rockin' the Hubble in your backyard, I have a strong feeling you didn't see Jupiter's rings.

 

[Pythagorean]

Stripes, I can believe. My point is that you had misclassified what you saw, like so many thousands of other people. It's not a crime, and you shouldn't be embarrassed... but we should all recognize it's common.

The rings off Jupiter weren't discovered until 1979 by the Voyager 1 probe. They are not even visible from Earth through observatory-sized optical telescopes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Jupiter) So, unless you're rockin' the Hubble in your backyard, I have a strong feeling you didn't see Jupiter's rings.

I'm not really that embarrassed, the astronomy lab assistant is the one who said it was probably a ring and I'm not like, trying to make a point of it, i mentioned it casually. I wouldn't, for instance, file a report with the US military asserting that I had seen the rings of Jupiter. I don't think the lab assistant would be very offended either, honestly.

This is the large difference between our incident and the incident in Tehran, so I don't think it's really comparable. Even "Ghost Hunters" is completely based on ratings and entertainment. The Iranian military is not in either of those positions, they have a lot more to be accountable for than girls giggling about ghosts and how many people are watching during the commercial break.

 

[jreelawg]

...
Do you agree that there exists a community on Earth that looks up more often than the general public? You would expect a disproportionately large number of UFO reports from that community. But instead you see fewer than the normal ratio. I'll agree that this isn't "evidence" on it's own, but can't we agree that this points to a significant trend, and that this trend might have explanatory power?
...

Again, we're not talking definites, but at a minimum, you can say that such a trip would be so amazingly inconvenient as to be much less likely than a "near certainty."

...
If you apply wishful thinking, you could make that number whatever you like, but applying a scientific eye to it, you must conclude that there is no reason to believe anyone in the universe is moving faster than c.
...

I'm just saying that I have seen no data which suggests astronomers don't report seeing UFO's. All studies I could find suggest they do see UFO's. The proportion is different depending on the few studies you look at, but I can't find any which suggest incredibly low proportions. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and I see no proof. If we can look at some data, then we can be objective, and there could be a whole thread on this discussion alone.

Likeliness of ET visiting Earth is another issue all together. FTL travel is not a necessity, and worm holes aren't either.

I think what Ivan was getting at with his point about the likeliness, is that we don't know the details. The likeliness can dramatically change depending on circumstances unknown to us. With such uncertainty about circumstantial factors the likeliness becomes a subjective value.

 

[FlexGunship]

I think what Ivan was getting at with his point about the likeliness, is that we don't know the details. The likeliness can dramatically change depending on circumstances unknown to us. With such uncertainty about circumstantial factors the likeliness becomes a subjective value.

Still, there is a default value. You're allowed to say "I don't know." But if you must make a guess, then it should coincide with the best data available. We see nothing moving faster than the speed of light, so, although we can't draw a conclusion for sure, the default position is that ETs would have a very very very hard time getting to us.

Just because we don't know for sure, doesn't mean all options are equally likely.

 

[nismaratwork]

The worst thing you can do to get a clear picture of what happened is bring witnesses together! This is just begging to be rendered useless. There could be a real event that happened here, and a real story... but because of the way its being handled, we'll never know.

...Which, when you think about it, would make the entire story laughable and a great false cover if there was an issue with Nuclear weapons storage (which I doubt). Perhaps we should consider that pilots and generals believe that the persistence of UFO's remaining "U" is a useful card to have in the deck?

 

[jreelawg]

Still, there is a default value. You're allowed to say "I don't know." But if you must make a guess, then it should coincide with the best data available. We see nothing moving faster than the speed of light, so, although we can't draw a conclusion for sure, the default position is that ETs would have a very very very hard time getting to us.

Just because we don't know for sure, doesn't mean all options are equally likely.

Like I already said, FTL travel wouldn't be necessary for interstellar travel. There are a variety of possible circumstances which include ET visitation, without physics being violated.

The argument ends up pivoting on speculated ET motives and behavior.

 

[FlexGunship]

What is an alternative scenario that includes ET visitation but excludes FTL?

 

[FlexGunship]

...Which, when you think about it, would make the entire story laughable and a great false cover if there was an issue with Nuclear weapons storage (which I doubt). Perhaps we should consider that pilots and generals believe that the persistence of UFO's remaining "U" is a useful card to have in the deck?

That's actually an interesting point. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy (I.e. pilots and generals acting in concert with a clear motive). It could simply be that the government in general finds no effort to explain better than advancing any particular theory.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's actually an interesting point. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy (I.e. pilots and generals acting in concert with a clear motive). It could simply be that the government in general finds no effort to explain better than advancing any particular theory.

Yep, and the random sightings of pigeons and other explicable phenomena make it a perfect choice of cover when the need arises. They exert 0 effort, and confusion sets in immediately, even amongst such smarty pants as those present.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yep, and the random sightings of pigeons and other explicable phenomena make it a perfect choice of cover when the need arises. They exert 0 effort, and confusion sets in immediately, even amongst such smarty pants as those present.

Sigh... that's not quite the point I was trying to make. I wasn't introducing a "need" that could "arise."

 

[nismaratwork]

Sigh... that's not quite the point I was trying to make. I wasn't introducing a "need" that could "arise."

Why not? The F-117 was the subject of UFO sightings when it was in development, and simply by keeping quiet there was an introduction of confusion that would not otherwise exist.

 

[FlexGunship]

Why not? The F-117 was the subject of UFO sightings when it was in development, and simply by keeping quiet there was an introduction of confusion that would not otherwise exist.

Still, you're implying collusion. I don't think you need a mechanism like collusion to accomplish this. I'll see if I can draw a parallel"

A store has really crappy shelves and sometimes the food falls off the shelf. Slowly, overtime, customers attribute it to wearing certain kinds of clothing, and speaking too loudly (see Skinner's pigeon superstition). So, without enacting any kind of store policy, or supporting the superstition, people simply start talking quietly and never wearing red at the store.​

No one would argue that the store actually had something to gain here, but taking a stance in either direction is more effort than it's worth. Is there a benefit to a quieter store? It's debatable at best, but probably not. The store doesn't have to have a motive to simply decide not to do anything.

 

[nismaratwork]

Still, you're implying collusion. I don't think you need a mechanism like collusion to accomplish this. I'll see if I can draw a parallel"

A store has really crappy shelves and sometimes the food falls off the shelf. Slowly, overtime, customers attribute it to wearing certain kinds of clothing, and speaking too loudly (see Skinner's pigeon superstition). So, without enacting any kind of store policy, or supporting the superstition, people simply start talking quietly and never wearing red at the store.​

No one would argue that the store actually had something to gain here, but taking a stance in either direction is more effort than it's worth. Is there a benefit to a quieter store? It's debatable at best, but probably not. The store doesn't have to have a motive to simply decide not to do anything.

I'm really saying the same thing, but pointing out that in the past in THIS case, still without collusion or a conspiracy, it HAS had benefits. To think that experiencing benefits without forming a motive is probably naive. Just think of it, if you have another country which sends a spy-plane over US soil, an event that would normally be quite the bruhaha... you can not comment these days! Before anyone can ask the right questions and be met with "no comment", nuts are already claiming to have had their bungholes probed. In short, the public acts as chaff for any sighting, not an evidence-gathering organism. The few people who CAN accurately assess these matters are generally busy debunking pigeons and lens-flares. When they have something real, like ball lightning or a weather balloon, people are suspicious because it sounds so mundane. If 99% of these events are explicable by mundane means, that other 1% is bound to be obscured, and a small percentage of that 1% will be test-flights, and more.

This is a purely social construct, self-sustaining, which requires no change in behavior from any entity.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm really saying the same thing, but pointing out that in the past in THIS case, still without collusion or a conspiracy, it HAS had benefits. To think that experiencing benefits without forming a motive is probably naive. Just think of it, if you have another country which sends a spy-plane over US soil, an event that would normally be quite the bruhaha... you can not comment these days! Before anyone can ask the right questions and be met with "no comment", nuts are already claiming to have had their bungholes probed. In short, the public acts as chaff for any sighting, not an evidence-gathering organism. The few people who CAN accurately assess these matters are generally busy debunking pigeons and lens-flares. When they have something real, like ball lightning or a weather balloon, people are suspicious because it sounds so mundane.

Cautiously agree.

If 99% of these events are explicable by mundane means, that other 1% is bound to be obscured, and a small percentage of that 1% will be test-flights, and more.

I think it's more than a small percentage of that 1% is still mundane; probably two mundane things happening at the same time.

This is a purely social construct, self-sustaining, which requires no change in behavior from any entity.

Strongly agree.

 

[nismaratwork]

Cautiously agree.



I think it's more than a small percentage of that 1% is still mundane; probably two mundane things happening at the same time.



Strongly agree.

In theory it could be 99.9% or more mundane... after all there are only a handful of truly unexplained phenomena, such as ball lightning. The number of test flights that would be observed, or anything like that would be a minuscule fraction, but even then it makes no sense as long as there is no panic for the government to waste resources exploring every one of these. Given the propagation of 8+ megapixel cameras in phones, you'd think that the UFOligist would be dissapointed by the lack of a similar increase in recorded "sightings". In fact, most video just supports the premise that these are explicable phenomena which are being misinterpreted.

So yeah, I agree with your premise as well.

 

[jreelawg]

... If 99% of these events are explicable by mundane means, that other 1% is bound to be obscured, and a small percentage of that 1% will be test-flights, and more.

This is a purely social construct, self-sustaining, which requires no change in behavior from any entity.

It is self-sustaining as a purely social construct, but is not necessarily a purely social construct. The level of obscurity could be intentionally altered.

 

[FlexGunship]

It is self-sustaining as a purely social construct, but is not necessarily a purely social construct. The level of obscurity could be intentionally altered.

Jreelawg, Nismar and I were making so much progress. We had gotten rid of all of the conspiratorial thinking, had removed the mystical coverings, and had settled on a thin line where conjecture need not impart undue strain on fact.

...and then you post this...