Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

a reply to: Scdfa

And finally, no, I never said aliens are here because I know they're here. You're being sloppy with your accusations.

So you don't know if aliens are here and you are considering that you only imagined it all? When will you start your own thread?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant...
Thanks for this but this is a long duration so it could not have been a rocket launch or re entry, unless I'm missing your point?

My bad, I carelessly assumed that when you commented on my argument in an article I'd linked to, you had actually gone to the link and read it.
Sorry for the snarkiness.
The link is the report on the fifty year old Kiev USSR case that I believe has an amazing insight to teach us all about a particular category of witness misinterpretation.
These times are for a satellite reentry of the same nature as the Yukon case.
The full Russian report is also on my home page AND on a few Russian websites so you can catalog the time scatter yourself from the raw data. Please do so to confirm my list.

I missed out on some of this thread due to slight illness (stomach cramps from reading juvenile sarcasm [not you]) so I have no idea of where the link is.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

And finally, no, I never said aliens are here because I know they're here. You're being sloppy with your accusations.

So you don't know if aliens are here and you are considering that you only imagined it all? When will you start your own thread?

Um, what? You don't seem to be making sense.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant...

Thanks for this but this is a long duration so it could not have been a rocket launch or re entry, unless I'm missing your point?

My bad, I carelessly assumed that when you commented on my argument in an article I'd linked to, you had actually gone to the link and read it.

Sorry for the snarkiness.

The link is the report on the fifty year old Kiev USSR case that I believe has an amazing insight to teach us all about a particular category of witness misinterpretation.

These times are for a satellite reentry of the same nature as the Yukon case.

The full Russian report is also on my home page AND on a few Russian websites so you can catalog the time scatter yourself from the raw data. Please do so to confirm my list.

Ah! So the statements of the actual witnesses to this event disproved your theory.

So, the problem is clear: the witnesses were all wrong!

Sure thing, Jim, that's the problem, all those pesky witnesses all being wrong. How dare they screw up your perfect theory that just doesn't fit at all!

Why believe witnesses? Just because they were actually there and you were not? Hardly seems fair!

"A particular category of witness misinterpretation", you decry.

Sounds more like a particular category of disinformation.

You had a background in science, is that the scientific method?

I thought you were supposed to change your theory to fit the evidence, not change the evidence to fit your theory?

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

And finally, no, I never said aliens are here because I know they're here. You're being sloppy with your accusations.

So you don't know if aliens are here and you are considering that you only imagined it all? When will you start your own thread?

Um, what? You don't seem to be making sense.

No, its pretty clear.

originally posted by: JimOberg
The satellite reentries offer a unique, priceless calibration experiment because they -- unlike other potential sources of light-swarms -- are so well documented in time, space, and motion.

We know what the witnesses WERE looking at, and we know how they reported it.

Now we have to grapple with the implications of this.

You're exaggerating this point again Jim, trying to encourage an inference that the data doesn't seem to support.

The Condon Report mentions the very "calibration experiments" you refer to, the re-entries. What you'll see is that most people reported the reentries pretty accurately. Only a small percentage of those who filed UFO reports -- less than 10%, if I recall correctly -- inserted windows and such onto the "craft". And I think nearly half of those who reported the UFO actually mentioned that it was possibly just a re-entry... and of course many people identified the event for what it was and didn't even report a UFO.

In the Yukon case, your amateur satellite expert noted that most witnesses described / sketched the event surprisingly accurately.

In the airliner incident you brought up, it was only because the witness was so very accurate and precise that the UFO was even able to be identified. That's a fact I've seen you try to dance around and explain before, but one that ultimately just doesn't fit comfortably into your UFO hypothesis.

Now that Hartmann section is not something UFO proponents will be entirely thrilled to read, but it does show that most people are mostly accurate, even when reporting what is, to them, a rare and perhaps once-in-a-lifetime event. Given that, the key question becomes: how likely does one think it is that the entirety of the UFO phenomenon can be attributed to the kinds of misperceptions that are highlighted by these calibration experiments?

Most people apparently find that extremely unlikely.

(And let's not forget, there are certain kinds of cases -- the radar-visuals, for example -- where those types of misperceptions become even more rare.)

So I do think you're correct that these re-entry situations can be excellent calibration experiments... but for some reason you're content to mischaracterize or misrepresent those experiments' results. You omit what is probably the most important part. And that omission, to me, is even more problematic than what you accuse Leslie Kean of. Her mistake was minor. It concerned a database of over 1300 cases, which is kept by an ex-NASA scientist, and is still very likely to be over 99% accurate. Additionally, more than once in this thread I've seen you imply that your 10 probably-solved cases come from among those few dozen cases which are showcased in her book... but they don't come from there, and you know that. Your words, there again, are misleading.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets...

In the Yukon case, your amateur satellite expert noted that most witnesses described / sketched the event surprisingly accurately.

In the Kiev case as well -- there was a mix of both kinds of perceptions. Doesn't that suggest that the more conventional one -- a grouping of bright lights -- was the more likely cause?

Granted -- it's a challenging idea, all I'm asking is it be considered.

In the airliner incident you brought up, it was only because the witness was so very accurate and precise that the UFO was even able to be identified. That's a fact I've seen you try to dance around and explain before, but one that ultimately just doesn't fit comfortably into your UFO hypothesis.

The Minsk 1984 event? How do you defend the theory it was a object close to the Soviet airliner?

SOME witnesses 'see' a large structured object with mounted lights, even one occulting background stars, when they are watching a bright fireball swarm.,

How many examples of it happening do you need to admit it CAN happen?

Now that Hartmann section is not something UFO proponents will be entirely thrilled to read, but it does show that most people are mostly accurate, even when reporting what is, to them, a rare and perhaps once-in-a-lifetime event. Given that, the key question becomes: how likely does one think it is that the entirety of the UFO phenomenon can be attributed to the kinds of misperceptions that are highlighted by these calibration experiments?

Fair question, but I'm not talking about the 'whole', I'm talking about one particular category.

The only generalization I put forward on this is that it refutes the pro-UFO argument that by elimination of all known possible prosaic causes, a report can be certified as inherently unexplainable. I've shown that there are prosaic causes -- I give examples -- that are routinely overlooked in even the 'best' UFO case data bases.

Add in my second point -- that to claim that the failure to FIND a prosaic explanation is PROOF there IS no explanation is unjustified. That would require one to believe that in a world where there WERE no extraordinary phenomena, ALL reports of UFOs would eventually be explained. Is anyone really claiming that?

Most people apparently find that extremely unlikely. (And let's not forget, there are certain kinds of cases -- the radar-visuals, for example -- where those types of misperceptions become even more rare.)

We don't know HOW rare, and I'm glad you concede there ARE such cases.

So I do think you're correct that these re-entry situations can be excellent calibration experiments... but for some reason you're content to mischaracterize or misrepresent those experiments' results. You omit what is probably the most important part. And that omission, to me, is even more problematic than what you accuse Leslie Kean of. Her mistake was minor. It concerned a database of over 1300 cases, which is kept by an ex-NASA scientist, and is still very likely to be over 99% accurate.

It could be. On the other hand, it could also contain many more, up to and including 100% with crypto-explanations. The track record of these data base managers is LESS than they claim, no single investigator working part-time is going to dismantle decades of careless collection.

Additionally, more than once in this thread I've seen you imply that your 10 probably-solved cases come from among those few dozen cases which are showcased in her book... but they don't come from there, and you know that. Your words, there again, are misleading.

If I was unclear, I'm sorry -- those cases come from my own professional area of specialty, spaceflight, and all I can do for other areas is speculate that the case collectors are equally lax. I admit it is an assumption, prompted in part by the ufological school's passion for astronaut space sightings and videos, which as a category I've studied for decades and concluded are not 1% or 10% bogus, but 100% non-UFOs in the classical sense of unexplainable stimuli. But that's an entirely different thread because Kean prudently omitted all such stories from her book, and good for her.

And good for you for on-target and clearly expressed objections. This thread has seen a string of thoughtful and vigorous back-and-forth arguments that I hope has sharpened people's thinking on both sides of the issue -- I know it has mine and I'm grateful.

Thanks to the moderators, too, for letting a topic that strayed VERY close to the boundary of acceptable subject matter, continue under monitoring for good behavior while it discussed the controversial IDEAS surrounding the book and my criticism of it. I suspect more than once there were fingers poised on the SHUT-DOWN button for terms of service violations. I hope this conversation fulfilled their faith in it.

a reply to: JimOberg

But what are we to make of false reports of structured craft and reports with normal explanations? Could a lot of it be put down to over zealous ufologists and reporters trying to make a good story out of it?

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: JimOberg

But what are we to make of false reports of structured craft and reports with normal explanations? Could a lot of it be put down to over zealous ufologists and reporters trying to make a good story out of it?

Why are you calling them "false reports"?

They are UFO reports. Over 90% of UFO reports turn out to be misidentifications of some sort upon further investigation, leaving some percentage unexplained. In some cases more information allowed us to move the unexplained reports to the "misidentification" category.

False isn't a word I'd use for those as it implies it didn't really happen or some kind of hoax, which it's not. It really happened and it's no hoax, they apparently just saw an illusion of a solid craft where none existed. It's understandable as a misidentification.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant...
Thanks for this but this is a long duration so it could not have been a rocket launch or re entry, unless I'm missing your point?

My bad, I carelessly assumed that when you commented on my argument in an article I'd linked to, you had actually gone to the link and read it.
Sorry for the snarkiness.
The link is the report on the fifty year old Kiev USSR case that I believe has an amazing insight to teach us all about a particular category of witness misinterpretation.
These times are for a satellite reentry of the same nature as the Yukon case.
The full Russian report is also on my home page AND on a few Russian websites so you can catalog the time scatter yourself from the raw data. Please do so to confirm my list.

I missed out on some of this thread due to slight illness (stomach cramps from reading juvenile sarcasm [not you]) so I have no idea of where the link is.

Here's where I suggested some links.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You may find some geezer sarcasm, I hope your stomach has recovered.

a reply to: JimOberg

Thanks for the links.
False reports? I mean falsely(?) reported as flying saucers.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: JimOberg

Thanks for the links.
False reports? I mean falsely(?) reported as flying saucers.

I've really found very little 'falseness' or 'craziness' in this field, truth be told, from witnesses [somewhat more among proponents, I should add]. I think people report honestly and sincerely what their perceptual brainware produce in response to highly unusual stimuli. I don't see any mental malfunctions at work in most cases, it sees to me the visual cortex is functioning as it evolved -- and was trained -- to do. It's just sometimes the input doesn't fit the expected options and it has to guess. It's not a deliberate process, that's why the wrong answers can be so seductive.

a reply to: JimOberg

The only generalization I put forward on this is that it refutes the pro-UFO argument that by elimination of all known possible prosaic causes, a report can be certified as inherently unexplainable.

So lets say in the Ravenna police chase, there were no possible Venus/satellite explanation due to them not being visible that night, what would you say of the case? I would assume at some point, not the same for each person, but at some point one would consider the alien solution the most likely.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: JimOberg

The only generalization I put forward on this is that it refutes the pro-UFO argument that by elimination of all known possible prosaic causes, a report can be certified as inherently unexplainable.

So lets say in the Ravenna police chase, there were no possible Venus/satellite explanation due to them not being visible that night, what would you say of the case? I would assume at some point, not the same for each person, but at some point one would consider the alien solution the most likely.

The point here is that there is a difference between a strong argument and proof. As Jim says, no amount of elimination will prove that it must be a flying saucer. (Equally, no amount of prosaic explanations will disprove the existence of flying saucers). To prove the thing you have to get an unambiguous smoking gun.

However, the more the prosaic causes are eliminated, the more we are obliged to investigate whether there is something extraordinary up there, especially in view of the evidence that there is.

Also, in the absence of proof, evidence can become so compelling that some people are convinced that there really is something extraordinary in this. Ufologists, such as Keane, are convinced and so they may be eager to stick the label on before it is fully checked. But she might be right anyhow, or at least 99% right, as far as these 1300 cases are concerned.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: JimOberg
Thanks for the links.
False reports? I mean falsely(?) reported as flying saucers.

I've really found very little 'falseness' or 'craziness' in this field, truth be told, from witnesses [somewhat more among proponents, I should add]. I think people report honestly and sincerely what their perceptual brainware produce in response to highly unusual stimuli. I don't see any mental malfunctions at work in most cases, it sees to me the visual cortex is functioning as it evolved -- and was trained -- to do. It's just sometimes the input doesn't fit the expected options and it has to guess. It's not a deliberate process, that's why the wrong answers can be so seductive.

Ok, but what about when the visual cortex is functioning correctly and there is no expected option to match it with and the evidence is clear and unambiguous (there's a flying saucer parked on the ground and a strange creature is talking with the witness)? What must happen here is that a new option needs to be created. This option is labelled 'space critter' and when he comes in contact with them again, as has often happened, he has his stored option and knows what is happening!

a reply to: EnPassant

The point here is that there is a difference between a strong argument and proof. As Jim says, no amount of elimination will prove that it must be a flying saucer. (Equally, no amount of prosaic explanations will disprove the existence of flying saucers). To prove the thing you have to get an unambiguous smoking gun.

no, but as discussed before, absolute proof isn't necessary for someone to move on. I have personally moved on from the Yukon, even though there is no way to know for sure. For me, the Ravenna case is solved, I dont have absolute proof, but once you rule out Venus, there really isn't much else.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111....
, but once you rule out Venus, there really isn't much else.

I'm curious about how you rule out Venus -- would that process also do it in the famous Barnaul airport pilots case [2001]?
ufologie.patrickgross.org...

a reply to: JimOberg

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: EnPassant

The point here is that there is a difference between a strong argument and proof. As Jim says, no amount of elimination will prove that it must be a flying saucer. (Equally, no amount of prosaic explanations will disprove the existence of flying saucers). To prove the thing you have to get an unambiguous smoking gun.

no, but as discussed before, absolute proof isn't necessary for someone to move on. I have personally moved on from the Yukon, even though there is no way to know for sure. For me, the Ravenna case is solved, I dont have absolute proof, but once you rule out Venus, there really isn't much else.

I am talking about proof and evidence in terms of the whole phenomenon, not just individual cases.
What I have noticed is that there are themes that have emerged from people's experiences. Here are some-

1. Flying saucers are said to ascend to a certain height and wobble a bit before taking off.
2. Car engines stall prior to an abduction
3. The 'medical examination' in abduction cases.
4. The ambiguous dialogue that goes on between the beings and their witnesses. For example, 'scientific' information is given that seems coherent but then they drop a clanger 'We grow cabbages on Venus' or some such nonsense. This nonsense is designed to drive scientists and academics away. It is a plant.
5. The 'broken down' flying saucer or dirigible. This is another ruse, they are not broken down.

There are many more themes and I am of the opinion that these could not have emerged spontaneously as a result of hallucination or even hoaxery. They have a hallmark of reality to them. They exist because they are components of a real phenomena. These themes are among the many things that, for me, constitute compelling evidence.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

They are UFO reports. Over 90% of UFO reports turn out to be misidentifications of some sort upon further investigation, leaving some percentage unexplained.

I hear this statistic tossed around casually by people who try to deny a UFO and alien connection. Sometimes they say it is 95% of UFO cases, in this instance the claim is 90%. And this statistic is often just accepted without being questioned. Well, I have a few questions.

Who came up with it? Based on what lists of sightings? Most sightings go unreported, so you must mean reported sightings?

Reported to who, to the police? Most police wont take a ufo sighting, they tell you to call the airport, or local military, neither of which take ufo sightings either. So what agencies compiled the reports?

And who selected which cases were examined and identified, did one organization or agency examined ALL sightings? Or was it the combined research of various private, or military, or aviation investigative agencies and organizations that determine a sighting "solved"? Was MUFON allowed to participate?

Was this an international effort? Over what period of time was this statistic compiled? Before the internet, the ability to even report a UFO sighting was severely limited, so are these statistics from the 1950s?

To whose satisfaction were these sightings identified? Did the actual witnesses agree with the "official explanation"?

For example, what about the Phoenix triangle? Was that case considered "solved"? Or is it in the 5% of unsolved cases?

You watch, folks.

The closer we look at the statistic that 95% of UFO sightings are solved, the more it will prove to be unsubstantiated.

Like Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."