 |
| Susan Gerbic |
Actually, I participated in a "Guerilla Encyclopedia Update"of my own, back in the late 1970s. The Doubleday Encyclopedia of UFOs (Garden City, NY, 1980) was edited by Ronald D. Story, assisted by the late J. Richard Greenwell. Story is a "skeptical believer" in UFOs, and Greenwell was well-known as a UFOlogist and cryptozoologist (who, as I note in Psychic Vibrations, joined a scientific expedition to the South Pacific to search for mermaids). Story had sent me a review copy - I don't recall if it was the complete volume, or just certain articles (probably the latter). I replied to him that, in many cases, he was telling only half the story, and that "the rest of the story" was needed to provide a balanced picture. I offered to provide some of this balance. To my surprise, he and his editors agreed. So for a number of major UFO cases in this Encyclopedia, including "Hill Abduction," "Delphos (Kansas) Landing," and a number of others, the main article is followed by a "Postscript," attributed to me.
 | |
| Philip J. Klass, 1977. (photo by author) |
Philip J. Klass (1919-2005) was the most influential and consequential UFO skeptic of all time. He battled the UFO believers in scientific organizations like the AAAS and AIAA who wanted to bring UFOs into the mainstream of science - and won. I won't bother listing his background, his credentials, his career and accomplishments - that's all now on Klass' Wikipedia page. It's quite long, and highly detailed, ably written and edited by Susan Gerbic and Shane Vaughn. Missing sources were filled in, unsubstantiated material was removed, and a great deal of new material was added. As someone who knew Klass quite well, I am impressed by its accuracy and completeness. I certainly learned things I didn't know about Klass. This is just one example of what a talented team can accomplish. Here is Susan's write-up of their accomplishments.
Susan and I will both be at TAM in Las Vegas, The Amazing Meeting sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation, July 11-14. We will be presenting at one of the workshops, Preserving Skeptic History. I hope you can make it to TAM. It's going to be awesome.
Anyone who is interested in joining the Wikipedia project is encouraged to contact Susan for more information.
Thanks Robert for this informative post. Klass's wikipedia entry was a good read.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to list James Carlson's efforts with correcting wikipedia's listing of the Malmstrom UFO incidents of 1967. James has been instrumental in providing an alternative view (the correct view in my opinion) towards both incidents and his efforts seemed to have paid off.
Tim
I read somewhere that Stan Friedman accepted Klass's $10,000 offer as well, but maybe they agreed to drop the contract after two or three years (or maybe it was after Klass paid him the $1000 when Klass lost the 'typeface' bet). I believe one other person accepted Klass' offer as well. I do not know the final outcome, or whether either of them went the full 10-year term.
ReplyDeleteIt was an attractive offer at the time, and ran parallel to James Randi's similar (but a bit different) offer of $10,000 to anyone supplying proof of psychic phenomena, to be judged by an independent panel.
Chris, I believe that is true, I recall Klass saying something about it. As I recall it, supposedly STF made one or two payments, then dropped it. But I don't have documentation on that. Maybe we can find some.
DeleteSusan does wonderful work, and is well liked by everyone. Drama free and productive!
ReplyDeleteUh, are you reading the same Wikipedia I am? Almost every UFO-related article is clearly believer-slanted. While I don't expect Wikipedia to be a purely skeptical resource, equal consideration to both sides would be nice; in a lot of cases there is a point-counterpoint-rebuttal/refutal pattern that makes it seem like the skeptical view has been considered, evaluated, and discarded as wrong. A lot of the cases listed don't seem to be major events and have almost no investigation or documentation linked to them.
ReplyDeleteYour complaint is an expression of the fundamental problem with Wikipedia: it caters to the lowest common denominator, the mostly uneducated crowd; and it is the work of insular self-styled non-expert editor-bullies. Take its definition of "UFO" as an example. As I understand the meaning of "UFO," it's an abstract at best, the mere subject of a report of the failure to identify, that report being a subjective, confabulatory narrative. But the all-knowing Wikipedia describes a "UFO" as an "anomaly," committing the Believer's logical error of assuming the answer, and even referring to observation by radar! As if it's a fact in the world that there are real UFOs. Continuing with Believer language of "anomalies," "sightings" and this uncritical suggestion, "observations have been reported throughout history," as if quantity of tales of human perceptual failures, irrationality, ignorance, superstition and media manipulation are evidence of something more than human wishfulness.
Delete@ BVR,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to Ufology. However, most of the wiki debates tend to take place in the "talk" section of the targeted article. I've seen certain wiki UFO related articles "morph" overtime based on others providing good evidence to either refute or defend a particular premise.
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but a good example of this "sausage factory" is James Carlson's tireless efforts to basically force wiki to list alternative (skeptical) views for the alleged Malmstrom AFB UFO incidents back in 1967. BTW, this appears to be a constant battle as others attempt to skewer the article to their perceived point of view, hence the article's UFO section tends to change like the wind.
Good points. As I understand it, sites such as Wikipedia that consist of user-generated (and edited) content often experience those constant battles to slant a preferred point of view. I recall Wiki has suspended some accounts over users with religious interests constantly editing and re-editing the posts of one another.
DeleteA challenge, of course, is that few people such as Mr. Carlson have the extents of motivation and stamina as are typically demonstrated by their less rational counterparts. Those of us who have spent resources debating with those who draw their conclusions through circular logic and wishful thinking indeed understand why perspectives held in the UFO community are so frequently compared to religious fanaticism.
The UFO Believer's Prayer
DeleteOur UFO up in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
your aliens will come,
your abductions will be done,
on Earth, and in our sleep.
Give us this year our UFO conventions,
and lead us not into critical-thinking
but deliver us from debunkers.
For UFOlogy is a business, and entertainment, for ever and ever.
Amen
Further to my comment about Klass's $10,000 offer:
ReplyDeleteMy edition of Klass' book "UFOS EXPLAINED" contains a 1976 postscript at the very end which says that 3 people had taken up this offer. They were Stanton Friedman, James McCampbell and Robert Matheny. It is not stated whether any of them completed the 10-year term of the contract.
Chris, is that the paperback edition? Exactly what edition is it, and what page? We need to be able to cite this for Wikipedia. My copy (hardcover, first edition, autographed to me with thanks, natch) doesn't have this note.
DeleteThe term 'scepticism' when used in relation to The UFO phenomenon, often carries with it a degree of cynicism, not entirely unwarranted, but misplaced nonetheless. I can't help but reply to the line of theoretical sentiment above, fortified by ignorance but perpetrated by apparently intelligent people, who maintain that any serious consideration of a UFO is fanciful, fictional and nothing more than a fabrication from the pop-culture imagery of the mid 20th century. I will enlighten you people to the truth of the matter. There exists a real physical phenomenon in our skies, that can be and has been scientifically substantiated. They're referred to as Unidentified Flying Objects. What is irrational and speculative is the 'belief' that this unknown physical phenomenon has it's origins in an extra-terrestrial hypothesis. NOW, this is where the militant priests masquerading as advocates of 'science' and 'rational perspective' explode out from their dormant vigilance, asserting that there exists no such evidence to substantiate any such unknown physical phenomenon. This is where I tell you that your ignorance to existing data does not mean the data does not exist.
ReplyDeleteI'm not some bored, spastic pushing unfounded assertions. Im also not in the mood to explain why you people religiously refuse the potential for substance within a well documented phenomenon. I will simply put forward some avenues through which you can acquire some pretty convincing info on the matter if you decide you would like to truly exercise scepticism as opposed to blind cynicism.
There are, and have been some extremely important and well respected people from all levels of military and Government (Internationally) who personally go on the record to define the existence of an unaccountable physical phenomenon within our skies. This has been happening for a long time and the list includes multiple US presidents, multiple Apollo astronauts, multiple military personnel from General down. Thousands of pilots from all over the world, multiple public figures I.e. politicians etc. Their experiences are consistent in that they depict an inexplicable, seemingly impossible observation of "metalic craft" performing aerial maneuvers which defy the known laws of physics.
Don't be comfortable in your misplaced belief that evidence doesn't exist to substantiate the the testimony of some credible people. Just do a little research. Name's like Leslie Kean and Edgar Mitchell have some realistic rhetoric attached to them.
Mark McF;
DeleteYou have a good point. However, be careful in your choice of 'experts' such as pilots, military personnel, politicians, etc. These people, either as witnesses or as commentators, are no better qualified to give opinions on UFOs than you or me. Likewise you may find that Leslie Kean and Edgar Mitchell were the wrong choice of 'experts'. In what way, for example, are they any more credible than, say, Keyhoe or Hynek of yesteryear?
The problem with so-called "metallic craft", as you put it, is that most, when rigorously investigated, turn out to be non-metallic. Likewise, sightings by US presidents, such as Carter, turn out to be something quite ordinary and explainable. (In case you think otherwise, see Robert Sheaffer's UFO VERDICT chapter 2). And Allan Hendry's UFO HANDBOOK goes a long way towards discounting the idea that certain categories of witnesses, such as police, pilots and military officers are any better than John Q. Citizen at interpreting strange things in the sky.
There remains a small residue of sightings that defy all explanation, and always will. Being "well respected", as you put it, implies only what it says, and certainly does NOT mean any extra-credibility or high-standing as a witness to an unusual phenomenon. Reverend William B. Gill was certainly highly respected as a person. But do you really believe that he witnessed an ET craft hovering over his mission for 3 successive nights (and for 3 to 4 hours each night) in Papua, New Guinea in the summer of 1959, and moreover got bored with one of them so much that he even went in to dinner during the sighting? (!)
There ARE some genuine unexplained UFO cases. However, the great majority fall apart upon proper investigation (which can often take time and expense). Perhaps you would care to list your 5 favorite 'best' cases and see what others make of them, or have made of them.
Precise and valid. Thanks for your reply.
DeleteThe most compelling aspect of this entire 'debate' is the nature of conjecture propagating the difference of opinion, and essentially, the difference of perspective, on whether UFO's do, or do not exist. On one hand we have those claiming the existence of something seemingly impossible, mysterious and counter cultural/scientific belief, although something definite, physical and perceptively discernible, albeit without a great deal of tangible evidence, but evidence nonetheless. On the other hand we have an established belief, which boasts the support of 'science' and 'logical thought'. This position is one which requires no change in order to remain a systematic consensus. It is imperative to understanding this conflict to recognize that this consensus will behave however necessary to ensure no such change occurs. Therein lies the nature of conventional explanation for the UFO phenomenon.
This entire matter boils down to what one is willing accept within their paradigm of belief, as one unwilling, is one unable. This is, in actuality a matter of one belief against another. Not unlike the religious toiling of primitive society.
There is a cavalcade of polluted information, assertions, testimony and belief which endorses a rational refutation of the comparatively modest but genuine thesis, which is, of course, the UFO phenomenon. This depicts a percentage of less than 10% of cases which defy conventional explanation, where the parameters of circumstance are measurable. However, there is an observed anomaly, often immeasurable in many ways but revealing in many other. This anomaly is not not vague. It is an event paralleled throughout the 20th and 21st centuries and is grounded in clear rational observation and not speculative sightings of misunderstood perceptive 'tricks' of nature. A central premise to the sceptical explanation is, of course, that regardless of the nature of observation, there MUST exist a natural or terrestrial cause. This criteria for explanation, as we have come to see, does not provide a framework through which to explain the observations. Therefore, the explanatory measures are stretched to encompass apparently irrelevant natural occurances which do not lend comparison to the observation itself. A perfect example of this is when sceptics assert that "Venus" was bright in the sky on the night of a report of a UFO. It seems a little rich to think a pilot could mistake a planet for a UFO? Well, within the framework of belief for sceptics or rather, cynics, the probability that this could occur is dramatically more acceptable than the hypothesis that there does, in fact, exist a real physical phenomenon.
Over the last 5-10 years many governments around the world have systematically revealed to the public (via the varying forms of freedom of information legislation) the once secret files documenting government efforts to explain military sightings and prolonged aerial engagement, which at the time where considered and are still considered a risk to national security. Have a look on the web via official channels, its all there to be viewed publicly. Aside from official government documentation, I can, for you, reference 5 particular cases/persons which are quite literally inexplicable via conventional criteria, for which there DOES exist radar tracking recorded simultaneously by ground and air radar, video footage and qualified testimony of highly trained and highly ranked military officials. Here are some names you may want to research.
Nick Pope - fmr head of the British Defense ministry's unit investigating UFO's
John Callahan - former head of the FAA's accidents and investigation division
Major General Denis Letty
Major General Wilfried De Brouwer
Four-star Brigadier General Jose Carlos Pereira
John Podesta - fmr and current US government advisor and legal staffer.
Sergeant James Penniston
These are just five random names, they sit amongst hundreds of others equally deserving
Mr. McFarlane thinks that Leslie Kean's book is this treasure-trove of solid cases that skeptics can't - and won't - explain. But most of it is just re-heated leftovers. Obviouslyy he has never read my review of her book, published first in the Skeptical Inquirer and now on the web: "‘Unexplained’ Cases—Only If You Ignore All Explanations", http://www.debunker.com/texts/kean.htm .
DeleteAs for Edgar Mitchell, his history in Woo is a well-known one. A good place to start unraveling it is here with Phil Plait: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/22/edgar-mitchell-is-at-it-again-yawn/#.UcC2k9jhcfQ
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOk. I followed your link and realized that I had been previously brought to this website via your review, this is the second time I've read it.
DeleteIt has to be said, Mr Sheaffer, your review was as I expected it, disconnected from the the reality of observation and first hand testimony. Surely you can see that? Be that as it may, it's obvious to me that your motives aren't scientific, political or ideological, although you may disagree, they're perhaps religious? As it is a faith by which your logic is supported. I appreciate that you probably don't go to church, likewise, you probably despise religious dogma. However you are nonetheless a man of faith. How did I presume to know that? Good question. If you listen carefully you might just learn something.
We are all beings of faith. Albert Einstein encapsulated the essence of that idea all throughout his literature. Basically, you must ask yourself the question 'what makes your proposition so certain'? Why are you so convinced? Very few of your explanations, when correctly evaluated, even come close to substituting the UFO hypothesis for a more rational explanation. Despite the fact, you cherry pick particular cases which appear probable candidates for explanation, your thesis therefore appears to provide a natural explanation, but it is nonetheless a speculative alternative in in itself, which, is no more measurable in it's probability of likelihood than the UFO phenomenon. Take the "fly" UFO for example. Sure it's probably just a fly, but do we really know? No. Can you even tell given the quality of the film? No. Granted, I still agree with you. Although, many other cases are not so favourable to your 'down to Earth explanations'
I think you are fully aware that terrestrial alternatives do not account for most of what remains classified as "unexplained", but that doesn't stop your crusade against the probability of truth within the UFO phenomenon, even though you have NO WAY to measure the probable likelihood of a UFO reality. Ask yourself why you do that, Robert. It may just provide a little insight into your minds true behaviours.
I suppose you believe one of two things. Either all of these intelligent, experienced and qualified men are victims of confusion and poor perception? Or they're all simply lying? Why don't you ask yourself just how likely that scenario is. A word of advice, try to open your mind, because your eyes can only widen so far.
Thanks,
Mark
Greetings Mark,
DeleteI'm glad to have read your posts on this matter. It's good to have different viewpoints crop up.
Terminology gets in the way sometimes, and hampers understanding. UFO usually means just what it says- something that can't be conclusively determined by the viewer. Its very existence as an entity is questionable. An observer just doesn't know what they saw. Do you mean this, or do you use the term to indicate a definite, material object?
An interesting remark made by a UFO researcher was that, after explaining most sightings, there remained a residue of "unexplained" cases. These typically didn't contain enough information to satisfactorily resolve them. The conclusion was that, had the necessary information been available, the explanations most likely would have fallen into the same categories as the rest. Unexplained carried no mystical meaning, just that the sighting was too vague for anyone to make sense of it.
You mentioned religion and belief several times, which is a new slant. Yet, belief is pretty much all a UFO proponent has to go on. No ship (or whatever) or occupant has been produced. Faith is the bread and butter of the UFOlogist.
Give me a ship or introduce me to the crew and belief won't enter into it.
cheers,
Jeff
Hey Jeff,
DeleteThanks for your comment. Good points. Look, Im naturally a very sceptical person. I feel quite strongly that 99% of 'reports' of UFO's or something to that nature, are made my folk who mistook perfectly accountable events and misconstrued them into something else. Part of that 99% include massive loser weirdo's who have no care for the rational search for truth and will simply make things up or exaggerate a narrative for many a reason. Also part of that 99% are people trying to profit from the obvious opportunities within the now market of commercialized UFO'logy. These issues convolute an already merky set of circumstances.
Testimony is in no way a scientific tool. In fact, it bides closer relation with the problems mentioned above. Having said that, what this comes down to, Jeff, is what one is willing, wanting or capable to accept and integrate as a part of their belief system.
The problem with the sceptics argument isn't that it does or doesn't account for a large majority of cases. The problem is that is doesn't account for the one's that matter. If you spend the time researching the most infamous cases, they're made by extremely reputable people with everything to lose by lowering themselves into to pit of public shame and ridicule that is, the UFO phenomenon. Second to that, these people didn't just see lights off in the distance, they quite literally observed flying craft at point blank range, then watched as they shot of into space and impossible rates of speed. There does exist profound amounts of corroborated accounts from, Generals, presidents, astronauts etc.
To keep it simple. The explanation that somehow these people have misinterpreted the observation, just doesn't work with many of the biggest reports. So the question is, are they lying? Was buzz Aldrin lying when he said that their Apollo module was tracked by a glowing green UFO on the way to the moon? You know? There's nothing in space to account for that.
After you get a taste for just how inexplicable some of these stories are, and from some extremely powerful people, it leaves a very curious feeling in the base of one's belief. So again, it comes down to what one is willing to accept as part of their belief.
Sceptics have worn the same sword throughout the millennia, it is not their logic which restricts their beliefs, it is their beliefs which restrict their logic. I feel there are too many accountable people who have reportedly observed things which simply have no terrestrial explanation as we understand it. Just too many.
So, as a proudly rational person I choose to believe that there is a strong likelihood that something is happening and we are not quite privy to the details. Which to frank, has and will always be the case throughout history.
Finally, I must say that we can't assume anthropological behaviours of potential extra-terrestrial engagement. We can't assume if they were here they would make themselves known. And we certainly can't assume that if highly secret compartmentalized parts of our governments knew about a UFO presence that they would make it public. Just saying!
Cheers
Mark
|| Aldrin told David Morrison...that the documentary cut the crew's conclusion that they were probably seeing one of four detached spacecraft adapter panels. Aldrin confirmed that there was no such sighting of anything deemed extraterrestrial, and said they were and are "99.9 percent" sure that the object was the detached panel.||
DeleteAldrin went on tv and radio several times over a period of two decades to discuss the specifics of what happened. It doesn't matter what you think the documentary did.
DeleteThe point which should be made clear before anything else is - for nearly two decades before Aldrin suddenly changed his story, it was made clear that Houston had given the coordinates of the detached booster to the module crew. It was in fact, according to Command, Aldrin repeated, 6,000 nautical miles away from the module. "We were certain we weren't looking at something that far away" said Aldrin. If the 4th stage was that far off, what does that say for the previous three stages? What your apparent explanation doesn't account for is, the fact that these sightings were not a rarity for astronauts. They were in fact observed, reported and even filmed quite often. You can view the official NASA transcripts which detail Gemini and Apollo astronauts discussions, in space, while they talk about "another UFO at 11 o'clock high" for example. This phenomenon is well documented in space
But I'm sure you have a totally rational, terrestrial explanation for that as well?
Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing July 31 1969
DeleteAldrin: "We thought it could have been a panel...."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYPCKIL7oVw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
ReplyDeleteWatch this. If by the end you are not somewhat curious whether there is an element of truth, then you truly are a priest. Some of it is sentimental rubbish and some of it is blatantly dodgy, but most of it is fascinating
What is the physical evidence that there is a common physical phenomenon behind unexplained sightings?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, "intelligent, experienced and qualified men" are still human, and so are still subject to the limitations of human sensory perception and human memory.
I don't recall physical evidence being a prerequisite to substantiate a hypothesis. Is particle theory supported by 'physical' evidence? Downer. Radar recording is a form of physical evidence if you would like to get technical.
DeleteOf course, we are all subject to the limits of human perception. What is not a given is how some individuals lose sight of context and reason when drawing mention to limits. The nature of UFO observation in most cases, is not an example of testing the limits of human perception, despite your regurgitated rhetoric. Most "unexplained" cases are full frontal experiential events. Hardly a context to question the limits of perception.
Jeez you guys are getting old
"I don't recall physical evidence being a prerequisite to substantiate a hypothesis."
DeleteLet me quote you (Mark McFarlane June 17, 2013 at 4:54 AM):
"There exists a real physical phenomenon in our skies, that can be and has been scientifically substantiated. They're referred to as Unidentified Flying Objects."
This is a factual claim, not an hypothesis. So, what substantiation are you referring to?
"Is particle theory supported by 'physical' evidence?"
The theory called "Standard Model" is supported by physical evidence. That is why it is accepted by physicists.
And the limitations of human perception and memory are also supported and tested experimentally.
"Radar recording is a form of physical evidence if you would like to get technical."
And technically, you do not need a solid, metallic object to have a radar return. That's why weather radar works.
"Of course, we are all subject to the limits of human perception. What is not a given is how some individuals lose sight of context and reason when drawing mention to limits. The nature of UFO observation in most cases, is not an example of testing the limits of human perception, despite your regurgitated rhetoric."
That UFO sightings that have been solved prove otherwise.
"Most "unexplained" cases are full frontal experiential events. Hardly a context to question the limits of perception."
Most "unexplained" cases do not have enough information to reach any conclusion, let alone that they are caused by a common and mysterious physical phenomenon.
"Let me quote you (Mark McFarlane June 17, 2013 at 4:54 AM):"
Delete"There exists a real physical phenomenon in our skies, that can be and has been scientifically substantiated. They're referred to as Unidentified Flying Objects."
"This is a factual claim, not an hypothesis. So, what substantiation are you referring to?"
One is my opinion. The other, is of course, THE hypothesis. The substantiation refers not to my opinion of belief, but rather objectively, the hypothesis, for which substantial amounts of evidence exists, only you are ignorant to it. Not sure why that confused you
"What is the physical evidence that there is a common physical phenomenon behind unexplained sightings?"
Your question pertains to tangible, physical evidence, does it not? This is a form of evidence which does not exist in particle physics, as such. It is all perceived 'indirectly'. If you had correctly understood the analogy you would have realised this, as this relates to the circumstantial and relative evidence supporting the UFO phenomenon. This was the point. Again, if you had not assumed there was no data to support my statement you would not have asked the question. Please inform yourself.
"That UFO sightings that have been solved prove otherwise."
You are assuming they have been proven. This is simply not true. Of the 10% or so classified as 'unexplained' there is rarely a sceptical explanation which in any way resembles the first hand testimony of the witnesses. What does that suggest to you? Many are scientifically proven to have natural causes. However, you make a fool of yourself by assuming this extends to 100% of cases.
"Most "unexplained" cases do not have enough information to reach any conclusion, let alone that they are caused by a common and mysterious physical phenomenon."
Where there truly exists a 'lack of information' there simply is no case to answer. Unfortunately for you and your assumption, a lack of information is not synonymous with a lack of explanation. In the eye's of a faithful cynic such as yourself, the explanation provided by the first hand testimony is simply discarded and replaced with a fabricated explanation which fits within their religious confines of possibility. Again, you assume that you know there is a lack of information. No. You are ignorant to the data - And when radar tracking is simultaneously recorded by air and ground radar, your theory crumbles at the knees. This is often also backed up with pilot sighting
Look, your arguments are a hassle to respond to because they rely on false pretenses. Why should I have to explain to you that every point you make is based entirely on an assumption?
"And the limitations of human perception and memory are also supported and tested experimentally"
Like wtf mate. Clearly that is a true statement but how does that relate to knowing empirically whether the observations of an individual under somewhat unknown circumstances are, or are not, legitimate? I thought I made that point clear already?
When you learn that one cannot argue under assumption presented as fact, I might consider talking to you. You aren't interested in discussing what people saw. You are interested in discussing the intricacies of pointless debate because this is the only platform which allows the ignorance of truth within the UFO debate.
The facts are, you didn't see shit. Nevertheless you feel it your prerogative to tell people what they saw, for the most part never having informed your self of the detail of those particular circumstances. Its just blatant faithful behavior. You believe there is no possibility that there could be truth to the reported phenomenon, so you go about trying to discredit individuals who speak to the contrary. There is no part of the sceptic agenda which relates honestly to science. It's pathetic.
Mark McF:
DeleteI think it would serve your purpose if you were to list your five best UFO cases, i.e. the five you consider truly unexplained and strongly suggestive of ET craft.
This is NOT the same as giving the names of five military men, politicians, scientists etc. who believe in ETH. It is the actual sightings that matter.
I realise that this may cause an extended debate which Robert decides against having. However, your pronouncements are the very ones that should be backed up with good sighting case evidence.
Note: I am NOT saying that if you list 5 such 'unimpeachable' cases, that I personally can give answers to any or all of them.
Mark McFarlane (June 19, 2013 at 5:27 AM):
Delete"Let me quote you (Mark McFarlane June 17, 2013 at 4:54 AM):"
"There exists a real physical phenomenon in our skies, that can be and has been scientifically substantiated. They're referred to as Unidentified Flying Objects."
"This is a factual claim, not an hypothesis. So, what substantiation are you referring to?"
One is my opinion. The other, is of course, THE hypothesis. The substantiation refers not to my opinion of belief, but rather objectively, the hypothesis, for which substantial amounts of evidence exists, only you are ignorant to it. Not sure why that confused you
So, you are claiming that there is a common physical phenomenon behind unexplained UFO sightings.
And I asked you what is the physical evidence in support of this claim.
----------------------------
Mark McFarlane (June 19, 2013 at 5:27 AM):
"What is the physical evidence that there is a common physical phenomenon behind unexplained sightings?"
Your question pertains to tangible, physical evidence, does it not? This is a form of evidence which does not exist in particle physics, as such. It is all perceived 'indirectly'.
Indirectly, as in using some instrument to observe and measure properties of the object under investigations?
Like using telescopes with detectors outside the visible-light range, recording images on film or digitally?
Or like radar, probing an object with a form of radiation and detecting and recording the return signals?
That does not stop scientists from testing theories and hypothesis against natural phenomena.
If you had correctly understood the analogy you would have realised this, as this relates to the circumstantial and relative evidence supporting the UFO phenomenon. This was the point. Again, if you had not assumed there was no data to support my statement you would not have asked the question. Please inform yourself.
Then tell me please, what is this evidence you talk about?
----------------------------
Mark McFarlane (June 19, 2013 at 5:27 AM):
"That UFO sightings that have been solved prove otherwise."
You are assuming they have been proven. This is simply not true. Of the 10% or so classified as 'unexplained' there is rarely a sceptical explanation which in any way resembles the first hand testimony of the witnesses. What does that suggest to you? Many are scientifically proven to have natural causes. However, you make a fool of yourself by assuming this extends to 100% of cases.
The 90% of explained UFO sightings show how easily a person can misidentify or not identify a mundane phenomenon. Therefore that 90% of explained case disproves your claim that the nature of UFO observation in most cases, is not an example of testing the limits of human perception.
And most of the remaining 10% of UFO sightings, remain unexplained because there is insufficient information to reach any conclusion.
At last, there is no evidence whatsoever that unexplained UFO sightings are caused by a common and still unknown phenomenon.
All of this, together, suggests to me that unexplained UFO sightings are most likely caused by mundane phenomena that could not be identified conclusively because of lack of information. Assuming that there is a common physical phenomenon is jumping to a conclusion.
Mark McFarlane (June 19, 2013 at 5:27 AM):
Delete"Most "unexplained" cases do not have enough information to reach any conclusion, let alone that they are caused by a common and mysterious physical phenomenon."
Where there truly exists a 'lack of information' there simply is no case to answer. Unfortunately for you and your assumption, a lack of information is not synonymous with a lack of explanation.
If there is not enough information, then even "It was Santa Clause!" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it!" are viable explanations. And even if these are hyperbole, they are logically just as well possible as your mysterious physical phenomenon.
In the eye's of a faithful cynic such as yourself, the explanation provided by the first hand testimony is simply discarded and replaced with a fabricated explanation which fits within their religious confines of possibility. Again, you assume that you know there is a lack of information. No. You are ignorant to the data - And when radar tracking is simultaneously recorded by air and ground radar, your theory crumbles at the knees. This is often also backed up with pilot sighting
Translation: believe the interpretation of the witnesses.
Unfortunately, it has been experimentally established that the interpretation of witnesses can be very wrong.
The problem is that you jump from "It looked like it was a metallic object." to "It was a metallic object." The first is an observation, the second is an interpretation of the observation.
Look, your arguments are a hassle to respond to because they rely on false pretenses. Why should I have to explain to you that every point you make is based entirely on an assumption?
Like the assumption that the interpretation of an observation is the same as the observation?
Or the assumption that pilots, military personnel, or police are more reliable in their interpretations of observations than "commoners", even though this was disproved experimentally?
Or the assumption that a radar return is caused by a solid object? (Remember weather radars?)
Can you explain how a person becomes a reliable witness or an expert on unexpected and unknown phenomena?
Mark McFarlane (June 19, 2013 at 5:27 AM):
Delete"And the limitations of human perception and memory are also supported and tested experimentally"
Like *** mate. Clearly that is a true statement but how does that relate to knowing empirically whether the observations of an individual under somewhat unknown circumstances are, or are not, legitimate? I thought I made that point clear already?
What is clear, is that you are willing to take the interpretation provided by a witness at face value.
What studies have shown, is that this can be seriously misleading, because of the limitations of human perception and memory.
That's why each individual case would need to be investigated to separate the observation from the interpretation.
Unfortunately when this is done, most of the cases become explained, or unexplained because of lack of information.
If you cling to a 10% or 1% of unexplained cases as some sort of proof that there is something unknown out there, then you are only adapting the "god of the gaps" excuse of creationists.
When you learn that one cannot argue under assumption presented as fact, I might consider talking to you.
If you take witness account at face value, then you are arguing under assumption presented as fact, because the interpretation (assumption) is presented as observation (fact).
You aren't interested in discussing what people saw. You are interested in discussing the intricacies of pointless debate because this is the only platform which allows the ignorance of truth within the UFO debate.
You are not discussing what people saw, you are discussing what people think they saw.
You want to discuss the interpretation of observation, not the observation.
The facts are, you didn't see ****. Nevertheless you feel it your prerogative to tell people what they saw, for the most part never having informed your self of the detail of those particular circumstances. Its just blatant faithful behavior.
Where have you presented the "scientific substantiation" of your claim that unexplained UFO sightings are the result of a common physical phenomenon?
You believe there is no possibility that there could be truth to the reported phenomenon, so you go about trying to discredit individuals who speak to the contrary. There is no part of the sceptic agenda which relates honestly to science. It's pathetic.
Accepting that humans can be wrong is not discrediting them. It is accepting reality.
In no way do I disagree with your line of reasoning, indeed I give credence to the proposition that no scientific assertion can be made by way of 2nd hand testimony to observation.
DeleteDont get me wrong here. I just want you guys to realize that the idea that human perception fails the observer, does NOT account for most of the more infamous UFO cases, despite what you assume. What these high ranking military and high level government officials are often claiming is that a CLEARLY discernible "craft" - often from extremely short ranges, have been observed for extended periods of time and more often than not by more than one person at a time. These observations are often supported by ground and air radar.
Thats my point. These people aren't saying they saw light's in the distance, they're saying, without any doubt, they witnessed aerial craft behaving in a manner which cannot be explained in current scientific terms.
How are you suggesting they're wrong in a scenario such as that? It's not up for debate, these people are proper societal leaders and they're damn well convinced.
So you need to ask yourself if you think they would lie. Because that is the ONLY reasonable explanation. As unfortunately your 'failure of human perception' hypothesis does not relate to the circumstances. And how would you even know if you haven't researched the individual cases? It's the height of faithful ignorance!
Just so you know im not just making shlt up, here are a few specific cases where my scenario is supported. I chose these as they were at the time relatively public.
Captain Ray Bowyer, April 23 2007 (English channel). The Cpt and his passengers witnessed to gigantic UFOs, picked up on radar in two locations. Estimated to be a mile long. This made international news reports and it came from multiple vantage points(other pilots and civilians). But the most detailed observation came from the piloting crew who had it through binoculars for nearly 30 minutes
Major Genral Wilfried De Brouwer - Belgian UFO wave 1989-90. Thousands of common sightings of rectangular, low flying craft. It even attracted the attention of NATO. These are also on radar
Commander Oscar Santa Maria Huertas (Peruvian airforce) - April 11, 1980 -whilst tracked by ground radar, he initiated a 'Dog fight' with a UFO, identifying its physical shape, size and color.
Once you have researched the event you will appreciate just how irrational your explanations truly are
Mark McFarlane (June 20, 2013 at 2:40 AM):
DeleteIn no way do I disagree with your line of reasoning, indeed I give credence to the proposition that no scientific assertion can be made by way of 2nd hand testimony to observation.
Actually, studies show 1st hand testimony is also not that reliable. Which is the whole point that we cannot take at face value the interpretation of the witness.
Dont get me wrong here. I just want you guys to realize that the idea that human perception fails the observer, does NOT account for most of the more infamous UFO cases, despite what you assume.
This is not an assumption. This is a reasonable expectation based on the UFO sightings that have been explained.
That is why we cannot take a witness interpretation of the observation at face value.
What these high ranking military and high level government officials are often claiming is that a CLEARLY discernible "craft" - often from extremely short ranges, have been observed for extended periods of time and more often than not by more than one person at a time. These observations are often supported by ground and air radar
Except that when the claims are investigated, it turns out that the "supporting" evidence is not that supporting. And so, in order to accept the claims, we have to take at face value what the witness says.
Thats my point. These people aren't saying they saw light's in the distance, they're saying, without any doubt, they witnessed aerial craft behaving in a manner which cannot be explained in current scientific terms.
And this means that we need actual evidence before accepting such claims.
If I told you that there is a tree where the apples fall upwards, instead of downwards, wouldn't you ask for real evidence, before accepting the claim?
How are you suggesting they're wrong in a scenario such as that? It's not up for debate, these people are proper societal leaders and they're damn well convinced
Being convinced is not the same as being right. It does not matter how firmly you believe, but apples won't fall upwards.
That's why we need actual evidence before accepting the claims.
So you need to ask yourself if you think they would lie. Because that is the ONLY reasonable explanation. As unfortunately your 'failure of human perception' hypothesis does not relate to the circumstances. And how would you even know if you haven't researched the individual cases? It's the height of faithful ignorance
You are making sweeping generalizations and projecting onto the sceptic a belief system that mirrors yours, but is not actually there.
You should ask yourself: if "reliable witnesses" keep telling that apples are falling upwards all over the place, why is there no unambiguous physical evidence of it? Why do I have to believe the witnesses, instead of seeing for myself?
Jeez you are short a few, aren't you? You are completely missing the fundamental contentions upholding my argument. Completely missing them. Whilst completely missing the fundamental assumptions which corrupt the legitimacy of your position I.e. having never seen any of the information which you are claiming to hold a righteous opinion of.
DeleteFor one, you talk in theory. I talk in occurrence. You are guessing and calling it fact. I am stating data which can be verified as having occurred. You cannot refute that statement as you have never seen the data. The fact you say data does not exist proves you are as simple as your rhetoric suggests
Secondly, your position is entirely a faithful one, because, you comment on circumstances of which you have NEVER even heard of.
Thirdly, I truly have no conviction either way. Im equally open to the PROBABILITIES of either position, I am evangelical but comfortable in being pushed into a polarized position. You on the other hand, refuse any notion which you feel may conflict with your strongly held belief - that under no circumstance is it reasonable to accept a possibility that decades of data may hold truth (you cannot refuse or comment on data you have never seen, you window licker).
If you would like to know what im talking about, scroll down to the comments below where I've listed a few case studies. If you Google search them you will find enough evidence to confirm that these events DID take place. Once you have informed yourself, feel free to then discuss the inferences you have interpreted from the data. Until then, Im going to continue to talk to people who actually know how to think and reason.
Mark McFarlane (June 20, 2013 at 5:43 AM):
DeleteJeez you are short a few, aren't you? You are completely missing the fundamental contentions upholding my argument. Completely missing them.
Nope. It is perfectly clear that you want us to believe what witnesses say, even if there is no evidence supporting their interpretation.
Just like many UFO proponents, for you the eyewitness account is the end of the investigation, not the starting point.
Whilst completely missing the fundamental assumptions which corrupt the legitimacy of your position I.e. having never seen any of the information which you are claiming to hold a righteous opinion of.
Where is this "scientific substantiation" of your "hypothesis" you mentioned earlier?
For one, you talk in theory. I talk in occurrence. You are guessing and calling it fact. I am stating data which can be verified as having occurred. You cannot refute that statement as you have never seen the data. The fact you say data does not exist proves you are as simple as your rhetoric suggests
Where can we find actual evidence that unexplained UFO sighting are caused by a common physical phenomenon?
Secondly, your position is entirely a faithful one, because, you comment on circumstances of which you have NEVER even heard of.
Have you never heard that many mundane phenomena have been misidentified?
Have you never heard how unreliable eyewitnesses can be, especially when confronted with unexpected and unknown (to them) phenomena?
These have been empirically established and therefore do not need faith to be accepted.
Why should I accept that there is a common physical phenomenon behind unexplained UFO sightings, if there is no evidence?
Accepting this hypothesis of yours requires more faith than the null hypothesis (witness mistake).
I have no reason whatsoever to accept your hypothesis, if it cannot clear the bar that the null hypothesis cleared in many more cases.
Thirdly, I truly have no conviction either way. Im equally open to the PROBABILITIES of either position, I am evangelical but comfortable in being pushed into a polarized position.
DeletePlease, do not insult our intelligence with this disingenuous disclaimer.
It is painfully obvious that you have a pet hypothesis about UFO sightings that you are desperately trying to sell as "scientifically substantiated".
There is no "either position", because on one hand we the ("sceptical") null hypothesis, and on the other hand we have a large set of "hypotheses" that include your pet, extraterrestrials, time travellers (my personal pet), interdimensional beings, Santa Clause, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink elephants and upwards-falling apples.
As long the arguments in support of your pet hypothesis work just as well for Santa Clause, the null hypothesis is the only one that can be scientifically substantiated.
You on the other hand, refuse any notion which you feel may conflict with your strongly held belief - that under no circumstance is it reasonable to accept a possibility that decades of data may hold truth (you cannot refuse or comment on data you have never seen, you window licker).
Decades of data that have not given any new information. We know as much about UFOs as we did 50 years. But in the last 50 years we have learned a lot about human perception and memory, and actual physical phenomena in the atmosphere and in space.
If you would like to know what im talking about, scroll down to the comments below where I've listed a few case studies. If you Google search them you will find enough evidence to confirm that these events DID take place. Once you have informed yourself, feel free to then discuss the inferences you have interpreted from the data. Until then, Im going to continue to talk to people who actually know how to think and reason.
How about you provide the "scientific substantiation" in support of your opinion, that you mentioned some time ago?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot going to even reply to that. You ignore whatever is convenient for you. You're so far from presenting anything that even begins to resemble objectivity. It's clear you're not intellectually capable of of that.
DeleteYou want data but you want me to provide it for you? That just says it all. Ok. Here are a couple documentaries. Im willing to bet your bias on the the fact that you won't watch either doco entirely
http://youtu.be/cYPCKIL7oVw
http://youtu.be/PIeGeE0uDJg
The funniest part is, if you watch both docos you will be able to see that your dumb theories share no relation to the circumstances you claim the right to comment on. Enjoy
Mark McFarlane (June 21, 2013 at 3:26 AM):
DeleteNot going to even reply to that. You ignore whatever is convenient for you. You're so far from presenting anything that even begins to resemble objectivity. It's clear you're not intellectually capable of of that.
They say that you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house.
You utterly ignored my explanations of why I don't accept witness account at face value. You ignored the distinction between observation and interpretation of sightings. And you ignored my repeated requests for the evidence in support of your hypothesis.
Please explain what is this evidence that so compellingly substantiates your hypothesis. So far all you have asked us to do, is to believe witnesses.
You want data but you want me to provide it for you?
Of course! You make the claim, so you have the burden of proof.
Here are a couple documentaries. Im willing to bet your bias on the the fact that you won't watch either doco entirely
Do you expect me to follow blindly some links to youtube videos? Why not summarise the main points of these videos?
It would be helpful if you could actually explain in words what is so convincing, that you consider your hypothesis scientifically substantiated.
The funniest part is, if you watch both docos you will be able to see that your dumb theories share no relation to the circumstances you claim the right to comment on.
I hope you know that the Santa Clause and the Flying Spaghetti Monster theories were just hyperbole.
"Scientific substantiation": I don't think that word means what you think it means.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteMark, your comments have become abusive. You are welcome to make whatever arguments you like about "reliabile witness sightings," but you must refrain from personal insults and abuse.
DeleteThanks, Mr. Sheaffer, for referencing your 'Unexplained Cases - Only If You Ignore All Explanations', as it is part of the reason I began reading your blog.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I always feel somewhat of an obligation to point out the following Ryan Dube work whenever the Kean/Callahan saga rears its head, as I feel it is quite relevant:
http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/04/faa-instructions-on-ufo-sightings/
Also, for what it's worth, Sheaffer's review answered absolutely no questions in any relevant terms regarding any of the significant sightings documented in Leslie Kean's book.
ReplyDeleteThe guy is a complete nut job, the way he pretends as though he's solved all these 'problems'
Read into the case studies and then read his review, it's just irrelevant if nothing else
Do you have any specific case that you find compelling from Kean's book? Many of them have been explained. See SUNlite 2-6 (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_6.pdf) and 3-5 (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_5.pdf).
ReplyDeletesomething that perhaps should be discussed is the question of what a skeptic is willing to believe.
ReplyDeleteI think context is significant. Considering unlikely events, an important discovery was made in 1938- a coelacanth was caught off S. Africa. I've never seen one personally, but the pictures I've come across are backed up with preserved specimens, scientific studies, and a general acceptance by the scientific community. While an unusual find, the coelacanth is credible.
By contrast, fossilized remains of UFOs don't exist. While the amount of anecdotal and pictorial evidence for UFOs massively outdistances that for the coelacanth, the hard evidence is utterly lacking. It's funny that a critically endangered fish found only in a few places has produced numerous specimens to study, but something seemingly ubiquitous like UFOs is as elusive as ever. A lesson is there for us all.
Ultimately, a skeptic is prepared to believe even unlikely claims, but the requirements go up commensurate to the relative unlikelihood. In the case of UFOs, it's going to take a lot more than anything the proponents have given us to date.
MM: "Dont get me wrong here. I just want you guys to realize that the idea that human perception fails the observer, does NOT account for most of the more infamous UFO cases, despite what you assume...'
ReplyDeleteComing a bit late to the party, I would prefer to modify what non-believers 'assume' about unexplained cases. Certainly, the astonishing range of already-documented misinterpretations by witnesses of all professions and experience levels forces some humility in knee-jerk believing witness narratives. But what my own experience has found, and I'm sure all other investigators have encountered this as well, is that the degree of awareness of the list of potential prosaic stimuli is ALWAYS incomplete, often spectacularly so. One is never justified in concluding, "It can't be anything ELSE but a true UFO", when the list of eliminated possibilities is incomplete. Personally, I've found such overlooked prosaic stimuli again and again in space and missile events whose documentation [even existence] was not publicly known for years or decades afterwards. Numerous categories of such candidate stimuli exist and I am far from ready to conclude that even now we have accumulated a full reckoning of them. Indeed, a good argument can be made that we will NEVER have such a full list.
Recently looked at wikipedia on Bradley Manning.Paragraph after another on his effeminate,moody,transexual,transgender,gay & childhood bullying even describing playground altercations in grade school. How did this bloke pass the armys pysche test let alone work in military intelligence- if there is such a thing.Is he a hero for exposing a war crime(colateral damage video) or a treasonous traitor. Perception of facts & witness statements seems to be a constant source of debate on this blog. US govt wants him & Snowden silenced at all costs. Rest of world think they are heros. Bolivian presidents plane was forced to land in EU thinking Snowden was on board. The points I am making is the US govt has endless manipulative power globally(most countries flatly deny assylum),can,have done & will slander & assassinate character, & will deny or try & hide sensitive issues. PROOF> Operations Mockingbird & Northwoods. A little research into Ecuador & you can see why they have given assylum to Assange in London Embassy. A few years ago there was also a "hacker" called Gary McKinnon who found such things as "non-terrestial officers" on US secret files & US has been trying to extradite him ever since. IT seems the US is scared of these secrets going public because it asks the big question - what else are they hiding? Plausable deniability seems to have entered the whole american psyche- Enron, Goldmansachs,AIG,Federal Reserve & the whole Bush administration- Bush,Cheney,Rice,Powel & all the others on Weapons of Mass Destruction. But the CIA & Intel told us this, or didnt tell us that!! IF your own govt isnt being told the full story then what makes you think they are going to go public with UFO DISCLOSURE.Fear of ridicule,pilots being suppressed by FAA,character assassinations,denial,doctored NASA footage,control of media,military personnel ordered to secrecy, & actual hiding of downed alien craft are the many methods used to keep the secrecy ongoing. Evidence they cant suppress- mass sightings,true cropcircles,cattle mutilations,ground indentations/readings/scorching,physical scars & implants, & the modern multiview/angle recordings on multiple cameras. EXAMPLES> Phoenix lights-flares from jets, Cropcircles-made by pranksters called team satan,cattle mut- is a satanic cult , ground marks-pesticides, scars & implants-victim is dillusional. These are also never covered by the media, if they are, reporters laugh & spooky X-files music plays. A recent example of multiple video shots was the UFO over the Dome of the Rock in Jurusalem. One of the videos is obviously fake- planted to doubt the rest. But this was the shot mainstream media paid most attention too. Looking at hundreds of images of videos, the factor that has made me a believer, is the methods the US govt uses to ridicule,deny,disinform,hide & actually plant hoax material. On Youtube a great image can be there one day,deleted the next. People dont go to these extreme measures unless they have something to HIDE. What is it US Intel?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Deano, you've managed to do something which most people will never. Actually observe and interpret for yourself, as opposed to following officially supported lines of authoritative consensus.
DeleteMost people would label you a conspiracy theorist, indeed pretty much everyone above. I reckon you've achieved more than most, intellectually speaking, just by asking questions no matter the intensity of opposition
Mark