PDA

View Full Version : Dr. P. A. Sturrock Report



gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 05:47 PM
Dr. P. A. Sturrock of Stanford University conducted a workshop entitled "Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports " in 1997.

They came to the conclusion that the ufo question was worth further study: "The UFO problem is not simple and should receive more attention, with an emphasis on physical evidence; regular contact between UFO investigators and the scientific community would be helpful, as also would institutional support; and the possibility of health risks associated with UFO events should not be ignored. "

The proceedings:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/

Dr. Sturrock feels that science would be advanced by studying the ufo phenomena. Same here.

soupdragon2
2004-Jun-20, 07:46 PM
Sounds like an intelligent approach on the face of it, and similar to that of the credible ufoskeptic.org 8)

Chip
2004-Jun-20, 07:55 PM
They're listed at Crank.net (www.crank.net/science.html) as "fringe." :-?

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-20, 08:13 PM
I noticed "section 13"...Analysis of debris, and immediatly thought what debris?

The investigators "seem" to assume that any debris that they've "studied" actually came from the "UFO". They do this with absolutely no evidence.

And I can agree that there would be a benefit to having scientists and UFOlogists working together...

...but that "benefit" would only go one way...to the "UFOlogists" who are desperately seeking credibility.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-20, 08:23 PM
The investigators "seem" to assume that any debris that they've "studied" actually came from the "UFO". They do this with absolutely no evidence.

And I can agree that there would be a benefit to having scientists and UFOlogists working together...

...but that "benefit" would only go one way...to the "UFOlogists" who are desperately seeking credibility.

Absolutely. I find it disheartening that groups such as this demand scientific approach and funding yet decry the mainstream for ignoring "the UFO problem", as Sturrock puts it, while simultaneously side-stepping sound scientific methodology. [-X

To their credit, the group doesn't utter cries of government conspiracy and cover up, but that notwithstanding, their modus operandi is indistinguishable from Greer et al in its disregard for proper science.

*Edited for clarity.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 08:27 PM
R.A.F.,
I see no mention of the word "ufo" in chapter 13

It clearly states:
"None of the cases presented provide clear proof of a sample that is outside present scientific knowledge."

Sturrock never states that ufos (as real and not "ours") exist.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 08:35 PM
Dr. Sturrock has solid academic credentials. Is any academic who even mentions the possibility of ufos automatically "fringe"?

What "proper science" and "sound scientific methodology" is being sidestepped? :roll:

Greer is a con man. Sturrock isn't.
http://hbar.stanford.edu/sturrock/peter/bio.html

Wolverine
2004-Jun-20, 09:12 PM
Dr. Sturrock has solid academic credentials. Is any academic who even mentions the possibility of ufos automatically "fringe"?

Simply because someone possesses credentials does not guarantee the quality of their pursuits. One need look no further than the likes of John Mack, Stanton Friedman, and countless others to note that prior academic achievement does not serve as a substitute for warranted skepticism in approaching extraordinary claims, and the methodologies of those who investigate them.


What "proper science" and "sound scientific methodology" is being sidestepped? :roll:

Philip Klass offers noteworthy critique (http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-53.html) on the subject.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-20, 09:17 PM
gzhpcu, you edited your latest post a few times -- it might behoove you to take a look at the Ground Rules (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php) in the FAQ, particularly #10.


Greer is a con man. Sturrock isn't.
http://hbar.stanford.edu/sturrock/peter/bio.html

And how do you reach this conclusion?

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 09:30 PM
Dr. Sturrock has solid academic credentials. Is any academic who even mentions the possibility of ufos automatically "fringe"?

Simply because someone possesses credentials does not guarantee the quality of their pursuits. One need look no further than the likes of John Mack, Stanton Friedman, and countless others to note that prior academic achievement does not serve as a substitute for warranted skepticism in approaching extraordinary claims, and the methodologies of those who investigate them.


What "proper science" and "sound scientific methodology" is being sidestepped? :roll:

Philip Klass offers noteworthy critique (http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-53.html) on the subject.

Stanton Friedman is over-rated, and he is not of the same caliber of Sturrock. He is just a physicist which the ufo believers have elevated to the status of a quasi-god. He comes across as pompous to me.

Philip Klass is not in the same league as Sturrock. For me he is the Friedman of the debunkers.

So the bottom line is: any academic expressing an interest in ufos is a priori a nut... :roll:

Greer: http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall3

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 09:36 PM
gzhpcu, you edited your latest post a few times -- it might behoove you to take a look at the Ground Rules (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php) in the FAQ, particularly #10.


Greer is a con man. Sturrock isn't.
http://hbar.stanford.edu/sturrock/peter/bio.html

And how do you reach this conclusion?

I apologize, will avoid in the future.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-20, 09:37 PM
So the bottom line is: any academic expressing an interest in ufos is a priori a nut... :roll:

I've never stated this. Please do not put words in my mouth, I'm quite capable of expressing myself.

soupdragon2
2004-Jun-20, 09:42 PM
I noticed "section 13"...Analysis of debris, and immediatly thought what debris?

The investigators "seem" to assume that any debris that they've "studied" actually came from the "UFO". They do this with absolutely no evidence.

Have you actually read section 13? Your post suggests not!


They're listed at Crank.net (www.crank.net/science.html) as "fringe." :-?

These people list anything even remotely fringe as crank. Halton Arp just for one, and he is frequently quoted by credible people on here.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 09:42 PM
So the bottom line is: any academic expressing an interest in ufos is a priori a nut... :roll:

I've never stated this. Please do not put words in my mouth, I'm quite capable of expressing myself.

I did not mean for this to apply to your comments in particular, it was just a means of expressing the general feeling I am getting from this thread.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-20, 09:43 PM
Oops, I hit "submit" accidentally, rather than "preview." :oops:


Philip Klass is not in the same league as Sturrock. For me he is the Friedman of the debunkers.

Klass points out notable methodological flaws in the write-up I posted. Certainly you're not arbitrarily dismissing his legitimate points because you don't care for the man?

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-20, 09:52 PM
Oops, I hit "submit" accidentally, rather than "preview." :oops:


Philip Klass is not in the same league as Sturrock. For me he is the Friedman of the debunkers.

Klass points out notable methodological flaws in the write-up I posted. Certainly you're not arbitrarily dismissing his legitimate points because you don't care for the man?

I dismiss what blatantly biased peope write, be it Klass be it Stanton.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-20, 10:17 PM
I dismiss what blatantly biased peope write, be it Klass be it Stanton.

Herein lies the problem, gzhpcu:

By cherry-picking materials presented to the panel, selecting only pro-UFO researchers to conduct the presentation, and ignoring later evidence which refutes or contradicts the information presented, Sturrock is guilty of the very bias you allege is employed by others.

It's not a problem concerning the subject matter, it's the methodology that's problematic. All the credentials in the world cannot overcome bad science, and quite frankly I'm surprised Sturrock chose to operate in said fashion. That's why I asked previously how you would discern the difference between he and Greer -- his curriculum vitae does not absolve him of scrutiny.

Quartermain
2004-Jun-20, 10:23 PM
Responsible scientists approach UFO phenomena with a healthy dose of skepticism and allow the evidence to tell its own story. If the evidence is not compelling then no further investigation should be warranted. That has been the case thus far with every UFO study on file. As the negative results of such studies mount we have a problem when one noted scientist decides that he is not going to approach the debate with skepticism and instead ignores certain pitfalls of order and logic and produces sloppy work compelling to believers. In my own personal opinion he does this for vanity not for truth. Despite his notoriety his work is not scientifically valid.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-21, 07:23 AM
Responsible scientists approach UFO phenomena with a healthy dose of skepticism and allow the evidence to tell its own story. If the evidence is not compelling then no further investigation should be warranted. That has been the case thus far with every UFO study on file. As the negative results of such studies mount we have a problem when one noted scientist decides that he is not going to approach the debate with skepticism and instead ignores certain pitfalls of order and logic and produces sloppy work compelling to believers. In my own personal opinion he does this for vanity not for truth. Despite his notoriety his work is not scientifically valid.

Totally agree in respect to skepticism. But the time has come for a professional investigation, otherwise it only fuels the stories of cover-ups, etc.

I am not aware of any publicized report stating that for every case on file a prosaic explanation exists and we should not investigate further, other than the Condon Report. (or do you consider Condon as unbiased and his conclusion - without the consensus of the members of the committee - as scientific?).

I also doubt, in view of his achievements, that Dr. Sturrock is motivated by vanity.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-21, 09:12 AM
I dismiss what blatantly biased peope write, be it Klass be it Stanton.

Herein lies the problem, gzhpcu:

By cherry-picking materials presented to the panel, selecting only pro-UFO researchers to conduct the presentation, and ignoring later evidence which refutes or contradicts the information presented, Sturrock is guilty of the very bias you allege is employed by others.

It's not a problem concerning the subject matter, it's the methodology that's problematic. All the credentials in the world cannot overcome bad science, and quite frankly I'm surprised Sturrock chose to operate in said fashion. That's why I asked previously how you would discern the difference between he and Greer -- his curriculum vitae does not absolve him of scrutiny.

If you read the Condon report you will see there are many unexplained cases in contradiction to Condon's conclusions.

If Sturrock selected ufologists to present the case, it is because nobody else was really looking into the phenomena. If what was presented was totally ridiculous, this would be apparent to the panel. This was not the case. The conclusion was reached by a panel and not a single person like the Condon report. Are all members of the panel unscientific?

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-21, 10:48 AM
How about the Society for Scientific Exploration? Is this group considered unscientific?
http://www.scientificexploration.org/index.html

TriangleMan
2004-Jun-21, 11:02 AM
I thought Sturrock's report was of the opinion that UFOs are not 'aliens' but that research into the events were not heavy on the scientific method. He called for increased funding into investigations because in doing so we could learn about phenomena that we do not know much about (such as ball lightning and those lightning storms in the upper atmosphere).

N C More
2004-Jun-21, 01:38 PM
I don't think that there's anything wrong with taking a scientific approach to subjects considered to be fringe. However, to do this properly one has to go into it with no preconceived notions. A lot UFO investigators seem to start with the assumption that UFOs are ET space craft and then dash about to find support of this rather than investigating in a logical, scientific, objective manner.

I think that UFOs most likely have many different explanations from simple misidentifications to atmospheric anomalies that we as of yet do not understand. Investigation of events like the Mexican UFOs should be conducted but if the findings are lacking this doesn't mean that we now assume ET has to be the answer. Sometimes one has to accept that the answers to some things just aren't easily found.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-21, 03:30 PM
I don't think that there's anything wrong with taking a scientific approach to subjects considered to be fringe. However, to do this properly one has to go into it with no preconceived notions. A lot UFO investigators seem to start with the assumption that UFOs are ET space craft and then dash about to find support of this rather than investigating in a logical, scientific, objective manner.

That's exactly the problem that I have with "UFOlogists". They are looking for evidence of "aliens" when they should be letting the evidence speak for itself.

And, (so far), there is no evidence to support the idea that "aliens" have been visiting us.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-21, 04:18 PM
The belief in ufos is very high among the general public. Science refusing to take a serious look at the phenomena is counter-productive. This leaves the field open to those elements the scientific community apparently does not approve of. If we have such a chaotic situation regarding the topic today, the scientific community can only blame themselves. This is why to the public the words "ufo" and "flying saucer" have been come synonymous, instead of ufo just meaning "unidentified flying object". To conduct a serious investigation in this area with unbiased scientists (multinational) should help to dispel most (if not all) of the rumors which abound IMHO. And in addition, why not have one national organization which specifically looks into anomalous aerial phenomena and where investigations like the Mexican military ufo can be centrally placed and the coordinated? It can also promote air safety.

TriangleMan
2004-Jun-21, 04:36 PM
And in addition, why not have one national organization which specifically looks into anomalous aerial phenomena and where investigations like the Mexican military ufo can be centrally placed and the coordinated?
Die-hard alien devotees wouldn't believe the organizations findings if it goes against ETUFO beliefs. "Government cover-up" and all that.

Personally I don't have a problem with Sturrock's contention that more funding should go towards doing investigations because as far as I can tell he is not advocating that aliens are zooming all over the planet, I think he feels that we may be ignoring unusual natural phenomena that could be worth studying.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jun-21, 04:47 PM
Something is not necessarily true, or even likely, because people believe it. You know what urban legends are, do't you?

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-21, 04:55 PM
The belief in ufos is very high among the general public.

So what!...I don't let the "general public" do my thinking for me.


If we have such a chaotic situation regarding the topic today, the scientific community can only blame themselves.

I just don't see the "chaos" that you're speaking of...unless you mean all the "crying" that the "UFOlogists" do because they are not taken seriously. Let me be "crystal clear" about this...when the "UFOlogists" have some actual evidence to present, then I will take them seriously.


This is why to the public the words "ufo" and "flying saucer" have been come synonymous, instead of ufo just meaning "unidentified flying object".

Sorry, but no! The "alien hunters" have taken the term "UFO", and used it to bolster their repectability...it was a nice try that didn't work.


To conduct a serious investigation in this area with unbiased scientists (multinational) should help to dispel most (if not all) of the rumors which abound IMHO.

"Unbiased scientists" don't have any interest in wasting their time on such a fruitless endeavour. (added) Yet I do agree with TriangleMan's post...IF they are looking for "unusual natural phenomena"...and that's a BIG IF!


And in addition, why not have one national organization which specifically looks into anomalous aerial phenomena and where investigations like the Mexican military ufo can be centrally placed and the coordinated?

Perhaps because it would be a waste of money that we do not have???

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-21, 05:55 PM
R.A.F.,

OK, you are of the opinion the ufo phenomena should not be investigated. I am of the opposite opinion. I think we can cordially agree to disagree.

P.S: When I referred to the public's beliefs, I did not, of course, mean to imply we should let them do our thinking for us, but that we should see to it that the public receives correct information.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-21, 06:13 PM
...you are of the opinion the ufo phenomena should not be investigated.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that there's really nothing to be investigated...but...

I do think that we can learn something by studying, psychologically, the folks who have seen these "things".


...we should see to it that the public receives correct information.

I agree, and the best way we can do "this", is to make sure that no one is allowed to make claims that are unsupported by evidence.

(Well, "they" can make all the claims they want...it's a free country...but at the "end of the day" they will have to provide evidence or it's just so much hot air and a waste of time.)

N C More
2004-Jun-21, 08:09 PM
I do think that we can learn something by studying, psychologically, the folks who have seen these "things".



Ok, here's an opportunity. 30+ years ago I saw a UFO. Now, I'm sure that this object has a very reasonable explantion, more than likely some type of military helicopter but it appeared very odd to the 15 or so of us who saw it.

I've never seen anything like it since and I don't consider myself to have lived a more "looney" life than anyone else I know. I finished college, have worked as a field biologist and 10th grade biology teacher. I got married and had kids (have been married for 25 years in Sept.). I now have my own little business training dogs (and their humans) and teach a class in basic English (as a second language) at the local library. Bottom line, I think I'm a pretty boring "normal" (whatever that means) person.

People do see things that they can't readily identify, that doesn't make them "nuts". The "nuttiness" comes into play when something unidentified suddenly just "has to be alien space craft". The media and popular culture don't help matters any either. People who don't have any science background can be readily lead to believe these outrageous claims are reasonable. Just look at how well some of these fringe ideas are accepted by folks on other web sites and how well sites like Mr. Hoaglands are doing. All the while, the more reasonable explanations are overlooked or just plain ignored.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-21, 10:39 PM
Sorry, N C More, but your reasonableness disqualifies you from participating in the "type" of survey that I had invisioned. :)

Let me explain...

I was actually talking about those "folks" that see something that they can't explain and then convince themselfs that they have seen a "alien spaceship".

You, on the other hand, are looking for explanations for what you saw, (as I would) without claiming that it was some kind of "spaceship". You said it yourself...the "nuttiness comes into play" when it "has to be an alien spaceship".

I know that it "bugs the heck" out of you...not being able to identify what it was you saw, but it seems that you've realized that you might not ever know "what it was"...and you're not saying that it was a "spaceship". (Yeah, I know...I'm repeating myself. :))

I'd call that being reasonable.


(an aside)...I did enjoy reading your mini-bio...I like to learn about other people on the board. And congrats on your up-coming anniversary...my Wife and I celebrate our 29th this august 18th.

N C More
2004-Jun-21, 11:36 PM
Sorry, N C More, but your reasonableness disqualifies you from participating in the "type" of survey that I had invisioned. :)




Thanks, I'm not at the point of slapping tin foil onto my head yet! :D

I just wanted to point out that someone can see something unusual and not leave logical, reasonable thinking behind. I honestly think that the application of the scientific method in place of "UFO conspiracy theories" will serve to get everyone much better answers. It's a shame that some people can't seem to comprehend this.

BTW, R.A.F. do you realize that being married at least 25 years actually puts us into a minority...we've beaten the odds!

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 12:50 AM
...do you realize that being married at least 25 years actually puts us into a minority...we've beaten the odds!

Beaten the odds?...from my experience it almost makes us freaks of nature!! :)

Archer17
2004-Jun-22, 01:06 AM
25 years?! good for you (plural)

A.DIM
2004-Jun-22, 01:27 AM
Klass points out notable methodological flaws in the write-up I posted. Certainly you're not arbitrarily dismissing his legitimate points because you don't care for the man?

I'll dismiss him because he is as guilty of "methodological flaws" as some he has refuted...

Consider this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc609.htm).

I'm much less inclined to believe an aviation journalist before an aeronautics scientist, aren't you?
I'd be careful in using Klass as "skeptic" since it is obvious he is as biased as those he accuses in "The Klass Files."

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 02:10 AM
Consider this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc609.htm).

I did, I went there, but more on that, momentarily...


I'd be careful in using Klass as "skeptic"...

OK...if you say so...but...

You might also be careful posting links to woowoo sites, they don't help your credibility.

And why do I consider that link a woowoo site? Well...

...like I said, I went to the site, and the very first thing that I noticed was a picture of a lenticular cloud. Now why would a UFO site have a picture of a lenticular cloud unless they thought it was some sort of "spaceship"...hmmm?

You'll find that I don't give a lot of credence to a site that doesn't know the difference between an "alien spaceship" and a cloud. :roll:

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 03:14 AM
You might also be careful posting links to woowoo sites, they don't help your credibility.

You know, after I wrote this I thought that maybe I was being too hard on A.DIM...maybe I should "check out" the site he linked to a bit closer.

So I did, and on their UFO photographs page I found
this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo217.htm) which is obviously a time exposure of the Moon and the planet Venus. (I mean GOOD GOD! you can even tell that it was a cresent Moon!!)

If this is what "passes" as evidence of UFO whatevers then I guess I wasn't being too hard...it certainly is a woowoo site.

Tensor
2004-Jun-22, 03:21 AM
...do you realize that being married at least 25 years actually puts us into a minority...we've beaten the odds!

Beaten the odds?...from my experience it almost makes us freaks of nature!! :)

Hey, count me in too. 27 next Friday. :D

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 03:25 AM
Hey, count me in too. 27 next Friday. :D

cool

OK...that settles it...I'm starting a thread in BABBling about this. :)

Archer17
2004-Jun-22, 03:30 AM
congrats Tensor 8)

Tensor
2004-Jun-22, 03:35 AM
congrats Tensor 8)

Thank you Archer17.

A.DIM
2004-Jun-22, 04:14 PM
You might also be careful posting links to woowoo sites, they don't help your credibility.
And why do I consider that link a woowoo site? Well...
...like I said, I went to the site, and the very first thing that I noticed was a picture of a lenticular cloud. Now why would a UFO site have a picture of a lenticular cloud unless they thought it was some sort of "spaceship"...hmmm?
You'll find that I don't give a lot of credence to a site that doesn't know the difference between an "alien spaceship" and a cloud. :roll:

:-k Hmmm... so instead of actually addressing the article I pointed to regarding Klass' bias and flaws in "debunking" the woowoos, you're instead trying to establish that the site containing the article is "woowoo" and how linking to it affects my "credibility?"

Why not instead address the article and admit Klass' own shortcomings as a "skeptic?" Why not acknowledge that a scientist effectively refuted and negated a journalist's "debunking?" I mean, you're obviously all about "how science works," right? So why not wave that flag now?

No, instead you profer such rubbish as "lenticular cloud pictures" and "time exposures of moon & venus" as if that's enough to establish "woowoo." I expected as much. :-?

A.DIM
2004-Jun-22, 04:26 PM
You know, after I wrote this I thought that maybe I was being too hard on A.DIM...maybe I should "check out" the site he linked to a bit closer.

Good one, RAF.
One can easily browse your posts and notice you either post such abrasive dismissals or some other condescending quip, not much else.

eg.

So I did, and on their UFO photographs page I found
this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo217.htm) which is obviously a time exposure of the Moon and the planet Venus. (I mean GOOD GOD! you can even tell that it was a cresent Moon!!)
If this is what "passes" as evidence of UFO whatevers then I guess I wasn't being too hard...it certainly is a woowoo site.

I'm curious how you'd explain the fact that there appear no other "tracers" of the other stars in the sky... ahh, no matter...
the police officer who took the pic either "believes" in ufos or couldn't recognize a crescent moon with a very bright star nearby, right?

You have to admit though, that for a "woowoo" site they've got some good stuff under "Physical Evidence." :wink:

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-22, 04:38 PM
R.A.F.,
I see no mention of the word "ufo" in chapter 13

It clearly states:
"None of the cases presented provide clear proof of a sample that is outside present scientific knowledge."

Sturrock never states that ufos (as real and not "ours") exist.

I am still waiting for answer. Apparently you did not read the report, or if so just skimmed it superficially.

Also as opposed to the Condon report, the findings of the report were a consensus report (not just Sturrock's opinion).

Wolverine
2004-Jun-22, 09:15 PM
If Sturrock selected ufologists to present the case, it is because nobody else was really looking into the phenomena. If what was presented was totally ridiculous, this would be apparent to the panel. This was not the case. The conclusion was reached by a panel and not a single person like the Condon report. Are all members of the panel unscientific?

It seems apparent from your commentary that you did not even read the content of Klass' critique. Perhaps after you've done so, the methodological errors will become more apparent.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 09:16 PM
Why not instead address the article and admit Klass' own shortcomings as a "skeptic?"

Sure, no problemo...You "want" me to admit that Klass is not a very "good" skeptic...sure, if it makes you feel better...but the problem is that Klass being wrong would change nothing. Klass DOESN'T do my thinking for me...my opinions are from years of watching this "UFO" pheneomena and noticing that there is NO evidence that leads me to the conclusion that the planet is being "buzzed" by ET spacecraft.


Why not acknowledge that a scientist effectively refuted and negated a journalist's "debunking?"

Lets say for the moment that Klass is totally wrong! I say so what. It doesn't mean that aliens have traveled across light years of space and have been/are visiting us in unbelieveable numbers...it would simply mean that Klass is wrong about this particular case. Once again...a big so what...it proves nothing.

(an aside) I'm actually surprised, A.DIM, that you would persue this "line" of arguement...it leads to a dead end...and leads me to say...(are you ready?)...the idea of "alien visitors" is an extraordinary claim...we don't have to prove that they don't exist...you have to prove that they DO...anything else is just not the way science "works".


So why not wave that flag now?

See my last sentence...


...instead you profer such rubbish as "lenticular cloud pictures" and "time exposures of moon & venus" as if that's enough to establish "woowoo."

I was just pointing out that the site-masters don't "seem" to know the difference between "alien spaceships" and "clouds", OR the planet Venus, OR the Moon. If you want to "hang your hat" on that site, be my guest...just don't expect to be taken seriously...especially here. Perhaps you should try GLP.


I expected as much.

I'm so very happy to fulfull your "expectations" of me...I must be doing "something" right.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-22, 09:17 PM
Klass points out notable methodological flaws in the write-up I posted. Certainly you're not arbitrarily dismissing his legitimate points because you don't care for the man?

I'll dismiss him because he is as guilty of "methodological flaws" as some he has refuted...

Consider this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc609.htm).

I'm much less inclined to believe an aviation journalist before an aeronautics scientist, aren't you?
I'd be careful in using Klass as "skeptic" since it is obvious he is as biased as those he accuses in "The Klass Files."

I'd be much more interested in a valid critique of Klass by a member of an organization that does not post ufo (http://www.nidsci.org/reportform.php), animal mutilation (http://www.nidsci.org/reportform2.php), and "entities" (http://www.nidsci.org/reportform2.php) report forms on their website. As I've stated previously, an impressive CV does not guarantee that the individual practices sound science, nor does it guarantee them free of the very bias you claim is possessed by others. Is Davis' rebuttal rooted in good science, or bias? Seems rather clear to me.

Wolverine
2004-Jun-22, 09:20 PM
I am still waiting for answer. Apparently you did not read the report, or if so just skimmed it superficially.

While you're waiting, would you care to answer my questions from the last page?

Wolverine
2004-Jun-22, 09:33 PM
Lets say for the moment that Klass is totally wrong! I say so what. It doesn't mean that aliens have traveled across light years of space and have been/are visiting us in unbelieveable numbers...it would simply mean that Klass is wrong about this particular case. Once again...a big so what...it proves nothing.

I agree strongly; delving deeply into the minutiae is simply unnecessary.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 09:37 PM
You know, after I wrote this I thought that maybe I was being too hard on A.DIM...maybe I should "check out" the site he linked to a bit closer.

Good one, RAF.
One can easily browse your posts and notice you either post such abrasive dismissals or some other condescending quip, not much else.

I was actually being sincere you...you...A.DIM, you!


I found
this (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo217.htm) which is obviously a time exposure of the Moon and the planet Venus.


I'm curious how you'd explain the fact that there appear no other "tracers" of the other stars in the sky... ahh, no matter...

Actually, it does matter...I would say the reason is that the Moon and Venus are the brightest objects in the night sky, and the film was not "sensitive enough" to pick up anything fainter than them.


the police officer who took the pic...

Right there you're assuming that the picture was actually taken by a "police officer". I, for one, would like to see his "report" to confirm that this is true.


...either "believes" in ufos or couldn't recognize a crescent moon with a very bright star nearby, right?

Actually my "theory" is that he "tripped" the shutter, and then went off for a while...looking for donuts...(that's a bad joke, I'm sorry I used it)...I don't know anything about the person who took this picture...and neither do you.


You have to admit though, that for a "woowoo" site they've got some good stuff under "Physical Evidence." :wink:

Do you have a "facial tic", A.DIM?...you keep winking at me.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 09:52 PM
I see no mention of the word "ufo" in chapter 13...Sturrock never states that ufos (as real and not "ours") exist.


I am still waiting for answer.

Sorry for the delay...my Wife's going in for surgery tomorrow so I've been a little distracted lately.

Now I don't know what Sturrock's motives are for participating in this "study" but are you really trying to tell me that the "UFOlogists" on the panel are not "looking" for aliens??

Sorry, but that really "cracks me up". :lol:


Apparently you did not read the report, or if so just skimmed it superficially.

And obviously you're real good at making assumptions. I really wish that "some" people would quit doing "that".

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-22, 11:16 PM
I see no mention of the word "ufo" in chapter 13...Sturrock never states that ufos (as real and not "ours") exist.


I am still waiting for answer.

Sorry for the delay...my Wife's going in for surgery tomorrow so I've been a little distracted lately.

Now I don't know what Sturrock's motives are for participating in this "study" but are you really trying to tell me that the "UFOlogists" on the panel are not "looking" for aliens??

Sorry, but that really "cracks me up". :lol:


Apparently you did not read the report, or if so just skimmed it superficially.

And obviously you're real good at making assumptions. I really wish that "some" people would quit doing "that".

R.A.F.
You are assuming I am trying to tell you the ufologists on the panel are not looking for aliens. Never said so. By the way, the ufologists made presentations to the panel but were not on the panel.

(Sorry to hear about your wife, hope all goes well..)

Wolverine,
Yes, I read Klass's snide remarks about Sturrock being a slow learner, etc. I would prefer reading a critique from a scientist and not a journalist for CSICOP. Can you provide a better source please?
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-23, 12:29 AM
By the way, the ufologists made presentations to the panel but were not on the panel.

OOPS!...perhaps I should go back and re-read that link. :)


(Sorry to hear about your wife, hope all goes well..)

Thanks...it's a simple (out-patient) procedure...but my Wife is quite anxious about it...which makes me anxious. :)

Wolverine
2004-Jun-23, 03:39 AM
Yes, I read Klass's snide remarks about Sturrock being a slow learner, etc. I would prefer reading a critique from a scientist and not a journalist for CSICOP. Can you provide a better source please?
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

There was much more to the critique than the section comparing methodological differences between Sagan and Sturrock, which I see you've chosen to avoid discussing.

Can you provide a better source for criticism of CSICOP than that of paranormal advocates like George Hansen (who attempts unsuccessfully to masquerade as a skeptic)? His blatant mischaracterization of CSICOP epitomizes bad science, not to mention bias, and it's readily apparent throughout his presentation:


Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these organizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that are antagonistic to the paranormal.

:roll:

Gary Posner, among others, has experienced this (http://members.aol.com/garypos/reply_Zeiler.html).

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 09:25 AM
After a four-day briefing last fall by eight leading pro-UFO investigators on the cases which they believed offered the best physical evidence that UFOs are a phenomenon that defies prosaic explanation, a panel of nine leading physical scientists concluded that they were "not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence." The Scientific Review Panel also concluded that "It appears that most current UFO investigations are carried out at a level of rigor which is not consistent with prevailing standards of scientific research."

Yet they agreed to investigate further... Why?

One member of the panel told SUN that he believes Sturrock was surprised at the panel's reactions to the "best UFO evidence" offered by the presenters

This is a silly statement. Klass quotes what somebody thinks...



when the panel met in San Francisco over the Thanksgiving weekend to draft a consensus report, there was some spread of opinion among panel members--but no serious disagreements
"Concerning the case material presented by the investigators, the panel concluded that a few reported incidents may have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity, but there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence. (Emphasis added.) "The panel nevertheless concluded that it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations.

They said investigate further...

Dr. Carl Sagan Learned While Dr. Peter Sturrock Has Not


This is purely Klass's opinion.

Because Sturrock has been one of Dr. Condon's toughest critics, it is ironic that the conclusion of Sturrock's panel about UFOs and ETs so closely matches Condon's 1968 assessment: "No direct evidence whatever of a convincing nature now exists for the claim that any UFOs represent spacecraft visiting Earth from another civilization."

Condon's assessment was not a consensus opinion. Before the investigation his mind was made up. Sturrock's panel gathered only a few days. The two can not be compared, other than to say that the Sturrock panel agreed a consensus opion to investigate further.

The only valid point IMHO is that Sturrock should have included some ufo skeptics to make presentations. (but not Klass)

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 09:37 AM
And will somebody provide someone better than Klass to crticize the Sturrock report?

soupdragon2
2004-Jun-23, 11:03 AM
...And in addition, why not have one national organization which specifically looks into anomalous aerial phenomena and where investigations like the Mexican military ufo can be centrally placed and the coordinated? It can also promote air safety.

There is NARCAP - The National Aeronautical Reporting Center for Anomalous Phenomena. I found them via www.ufoskeptic.org

www.narcap.org

Be warned, many pilots have witnessed some seriously weird stuff that thus far defies explanation. #-o

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 01:47 PM
Soupdragon2,

This might be of interest to you:
http://www.mv-voice.com/morgue/2002/2002_07_12.ufo.html


NARCAP speaks of UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena), which I wish I would have thought of too .... :)

A.DIM
2004-Jun-23, 02:05 PM
Actually, it does matter...I would say the reason is that the Moon and Venus are the brightest objects in the night sky, and the film was not "sensitive enough" to pick up anything fainter than them.

This is your opinion; are you saying we should accept this as "proof" that it is "GOOD GOD! .... obviously a time exposure..." ?

Looking closely, one can see other "stars" in that night sky. Why have they not moved and blurred? I mean, if the film was "sensitive enough" to capture their image, surely it's "sensitive enough" to detect their movement too, no?


Right there you're assuming that the picture was actually taken by a "police officer". I, for one, would like to see his "report" to confirm that this is true.

OK, I agree.
I wonder if Cronkite saw the "report" before he presented the pic on CBS Evening News, as is claimed.


Actually my "theory" is that he "tripped" the shutter, and then went off for a while...looking for donuts...(that's a bad joke, I'm sorry I used it)...I don't know anything about the person who took this picture...and neither do you.

Right, so neither of us can really formulate a "theory," only hypotheses and speculation about what the pic is, which in turn, undermines your stance that the site is "woowoo" for cataloguing it.
Ya know, RAF, in my mind "woowoo" is "kooky," and I must say that your description of the photographer "tripping" the shutter "and then went off for awhile..." sounds as kooky as anything. :D


Do you have a "facial tic", A.DIM?...you keep winking at me.
Perhaps, and I think it has to do with all this kookiness. :wink:

A.DIM
2004-Jun-23, 02:08 PM
NARCAP speaks of UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena), which I wish I would have thought of too .... :)

I think it is Unexplained Aerial Phenomena?

Archer17
2004-Jun-23, 02:41 PM
Spirited debate .. anyway here's my two cents and it has nothing to do with whether there are ET craft or not.
How do you "study" this? The phenomenon is basically a case of objects reportedly seen that the viewer was unable to identify. UFOs don't show up on demand and an interview with the witness days after the fact usually is inconclusive. I've mentioned this before -- I recently saw a UFO that turned out to be 2 balloons tied together and, if I didn't have binoculars close by, would've had me an unexplained sighting. Now how could an investigator tell me days later what I saw or didn't see? The only way to prove this phenomena is unnatural is to produce evidence whether it's replicating unusual atmospheric phenomena or getting our hands on ET or it's vehicle.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 02:43 PM
NARCAP speaks of UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena), which I wish I would have thought of too .... :)

I think it is Unexplained Aerial Phenomena?

Yes, it is.. that is what I meant. I should have used this word instead. And since unexplained, it is worthy of investigation.

eidted for clarity

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 02:47 PM
Spirited debate .. anyway here's my two cents and it has nothing to do with whether there are ET craft or not.
How do you "study" this? The phenomenon is basically a case of objects reportedly seen that the viewer was unable to identify. UFOs don't show up on demand and an interview with the witness days after the fact usually is inconclusive. I've mentioned this before -- I recently saw a UFO that turned out to be 2 balloons tied together and, if I didn't have binoculars close by, would've had me an unexplained sighting. Now how could an investigator tell me days later what I saw or didn't see? The only way to prove this phenomena is unnatural is to produce evidence whether it's replicating unusual atmospheric phenomena or getting our hands on ET or it's vehicle.

The only cases worth investigating IMHO are where you have eye witnesses, radar confirmation and photos/videos. Like the Mexican Military ufo case, for example, or the Belgian Ufo flap. Not when Aunt Mary sights a ballon in the sky...

Archer17
2004-Jun-23, 02:55 PM
.. The only cases worth investigating IMHO are where you have eye witnesses, radar confirmation and photos/videos. Like the Mexican Military ufo case, for example, or the Belgian Ufo flap. Not when Aunt Mary sights a ballon in the sky...I still have a problem with this. How can you prove what it is that people saw? I've heard the Belgian flap was a US spyplane for instance. Is that correct? Maybe .. maybe not. If it was, this and similar incidents wouldn't be disclosed by the military. The Mexican UFOs? There will be a test of the oil-flare hypothesis but, assuming this theory gets shot down, does it prove that these IR signatures are ET or YKH's hyperdimensional beings? No. If our Aunt Mary sees a UFO in the sky, how can we prove it was a balloon days, weeks, or months later?

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 03:22 PM
I still have a problem with this. How can you prove what it is that people saw? I've heard the Belgian flap was a US spyplane for instance. Is that correct? Maybe .. maybe not. If it was, this and similar incidents wouldn't be disclosed by the military. The Mexican UFOs? There will be a test of the oil-flare hypothesis but, assuming this theory gets shot down, does it prove that these IR signatures are ET or YKH's hyperdimensional beings? No. If our Aunt Mary sees a UFO in the sky, how can we prove it was a balloon days, weeks, or months later?

You can not prove what people saw. That is why you need radar confirmation, photos, videos, etc. The Belgian government wrote to the U.S. government which denied it was one of their planes. (Why would they fly over Belgium anyway) So maybe or maybe not, but still open. It was something. If the oil hypothesis gets shot down, it does not prove that it was an ET, just that it was not oil flames. We do not even take aunt Mary's sighting into consideration. But if you have an airline pilot and copilot sighting something unidentified in the sky and which maybe acts erratically with confirmation by a ground radar station, then investigate.

Archer17
2004-Jun-23, 03:27 PM
.. But if you have an airline pilot and copilot sighting something unidentified in the sky and which maybe acts erratically with confirmation by a ground radar station, then investigate.Investigate what? Whatever it was or wasn't is gone.

gzhpcu
2004-Jun-23, 03:49 PM
.. But if you have an airline pilot and copilot sighting something unidentified in the sky and which maybe acts erratically with confirmation by a ground radar station, then investigate.Investigate what? Whatever it was or wasn't is gone.

Well, it will always be gone (unless it crashes or lands). I see your point, but it does leave traces on radar which one can try to explain. Of course, I agree that this will never be able to explain what it was (probably just what it wasn't). It would have to be more - some kind of visual confirmation as well. (Only to show something we do not yet comprehend was out there.)

A.DIM
2004-Jun-24, 02:49 PM
Investigate what? Whatever it was or wasn't is gone.

Good question, Archer.
Then again, I think the error is in immediately applying a low a priori probability to UAP being ETI. Shouldn't "Science" as it were reserve this assumption when attempting to research an event?
I'm for uncovering the Truth, no matter what the evidence is suggestive of, and as you know, throughout all History civilizations have recorded the events of the "gods" ("those from Heaven to Earth came") and "angels" along with their various types of craft (described and depicted in texts and art) up to the modern age where they're no longer "gods" but ET in their various types of craft.
With this in mind, coupled with the other "non evidences" such as radar-visual cases, multiple witness cases, electromagnetic effects, physiological effects etc. of the UFO phenomena, and I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to view the "evidence" as suggestive of ET. Hence, hypotheses of this sort should be as valid as other more mundane explanations. In my opinion, of course.

But you're right, even with all this in mind, what exactly do we investigate now?