PDA

View Full Version : [UFOs and Observers]



Don J
2011-Oct-16, 07:35 PM
You're 'options' all leant towards a particular interpretation, a clear attempt to 'lead the witness' in the direction you wanted things to go. This sort of contamination by, let's say 'interviewers' for convenience, when questioning witnesses is one of the things that makes eyewitness testimony so unreliable, but then you've rejected such ideas in the past Don J so I doubt you will accept them this time.

But the Bugs Bunny at Disneyland you given in another thread for trying to demonstrate about how eyewithness testimony are supposedly so unreliable is all about a clear attempt to 'lead the witness' in the direction the study group wanted things to go.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1

The first group read an ad about the theme park that made no mention of cartoon characters.

The second group read the same ad, but a 4-foot-tall cardboard cutout of Bugs Bunny was placed in the room.

The third group, which the researchers refer to as the "Bugs Group," read a fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny.

In the present case ANDIRAZ simply tell us what he saw.

Where do you find in his account that he was in some ways manipulated to see what he saw ?

The fact that I ask him about his feeling do not change the description of the observation.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-16, 07:42 PM
No, the way I ask is rather giving a choice of answers to the question "What was your feeling about the observation ?" the response may very well be nothing of the sort .


No !Never heard about that expression.

This response "What was your feeling about the observation ?" makes it look like you're quoting what you asked ANDIRAZ. That's not what you asked. You asked:


Tell me if I get this right...

You were in some ways shocked by what you have experienced and probably get the feeling that something more than the simple observation may have happened . (strange impression...feeling...something like an hypnotic fascination when observing the object)

Garrison had the right term. It's called leading the witness (a legal term) and is something UFO "investigators" have a nasty habit of doing. It's planting their predisposed idea in the mind of the witness and that is exactly what you were doing.

Garrison
2011-Oct-16, 07:47 PM
But the Bugs Bunny at Disneyland you given in an other for trying to demonstrate about how eyewithness testimony are supposedly so unreliable is all about a clear attempt to 'lead the witness' in the direction the study group wanted things to go.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1

The first group read an ad about the theme park that made no mention of cartoon characters.

The second group read the same ad, but a 4-foot-tall cardboard cutout of Bugs Bunny was placed in the room.

The third group, which the researchers refer to as the "Bugs Group," read a fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny.

And it worked, which was rather the point, did you really not understand that? And do you not see how it parallels your earlier post? Oh and Bugs at Disneyland is about memory manipulation, which is what you were doing, probably unwittingly, the 'invisible gorilla' was the experiment I referenced that showed how poor eyewitnesses were.

Don J
2011-Oct-16, 07:47 PM
This response "What was your feeling about the observation ?" makes it look like you're quoting what you asked ANDIRAZ. That's not what you asked. You asked:



Garrison had the right term. It's called leading the witness (a legal term) and is something UFO "investigators" have a nasty habit of doing. It's planting their predisposed idea in the mind of the witness and that is exactly what you were doing.

But UFO investigators have asked him nothing of the sort.He was not even interviewed by any of them.

Garrison
2011-Oct-16, 07:57 PM
But UFO investigators have asked him nothing of the sort.He was not even interviewed by any of them.

We are talking about you, and your comments, your attempt to manipulate eyewitness testimony, which I'm becoming less inclined to believe was innocent.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-16, 07:59 PM
But UFO investigators have asked him nothing of the sort.He was not even interviewed by any of them.

That was an example. I'm talking about what you did. You were acting as an investigator in that post. You really have no idea of your biases do you?

ETA: Or as Garrison implied -- perhaps you do.

Don J
2011-Oct-16, 08:02 PM
And it worked, which was rather the point, did you really not understand that? And do you not see how it parallels your earlier post? Oh and Bugs at Disneyland is about memory manipulation,


Yes.i understand this very well.And applied to the UFO observation you think that the sole mention about "flying saucers" which followed Kenneth Arnold observation was enough to create all those observations since 1947.



the 'invisible gorilla' was the experiment I referenced that showed how poor eyewitnesses were.


It demonstrate that once the mind is concentrated to a particalar task in that case counting the basketball pass made by the team in white an individual may not be conscious about other thing which is happening during that time.

Don J
2011-Oct-16, 08:04 PM
That was an example. I'm talking about what you did. You were acting as an investigator in that post. You really have no idea of your biases do you?
After that i have reread the way i formulate it....

Maybe it is an involontary bias.

But if you say that by giving a choice of answers to which" he can say nothing of the kind" is an attempt at a manipulation of the mind i dont think it is.

Garrison
2011-Oct-16, 08:19 PM
Yes.i understand this very well.

Good so hopefully we are closer to you understanding why unsupported eyewitness testimony will never be compelling evidence for any exotic explanation.


And applied to the UFO observation you think that the sole mention about "flying saucers which" followed Kenneth Arnold observation was enough to create all those observation since 1947.
The point was that many later sightings conformed to the mistaken description of the Arnold sighting, again suggesting that a preconception influenced what witnesses saw, they thought they should see a disk shaped craft so that influenced how they interpreted what they actually saw.


It demonstrate that once the mind is cocentrated to a particalar taskin that case counting the basketball pass made by the team in white an individual may not be conscious about other thing which is happening during that time.

Exactly, someone focused on a 'UFO' might miss other details that would provide a mundane explanation, and will in fact be adamant that those things did not occur, glad to see you are finally understanding some of the points other posters have been making.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-16, 09:17 PM
No, the way I ask is rather giving a choice of answers to the question...

Then the simple fact is, you are "biasing the question"* by giving (what you consider to be) possible answers.
The answers received from such questions can not be verified unless you allow for that bias.

In other words, that's not how a scientific investigation "works".



*Is this actually called something else?, I personally don't know.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-16, 09:21 PM
Maybe it is an involontary bias.

Ummm....no. Perhaps in the beginning, before people told you, but now...


Then again, if it was involUntary, that would explain why you keep "inserting" that bias into the discussion.

Don J
2011-Oct-17, 03:10 AM
Then the simple fact is, you are "biasing the question"* by giving (what you consider to be) possible answers.
The answers received from such questions can not be verified unless you allow for that bias.

In other words, that's not how a scientific investigation "works".

I know the scientific method need something repeatable in order to arrive to a conclusion.
So,how can you apply the scientific method to the observation made by ANDIRAZ ?Remember he is looking for an answer about his observation ?

Don J
2011-Oct-17, 03:17 AM
Ummm....no. Perhaps in the beginning, before people told you, but now...


Then again, if it was involUntary, that would explain why you keep "inserting" that bias into the discussion.
I do not believe in or not

Based on this claim made by ANDIRAZ is it possible to conclude that he mean than his observation have nothing to do with belief ?

That he was "confronted" with that observation thus his desire to know what it was.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-17, 03:34 AM
I know the scientific method need something repeatable in order to arrive to a conclusion.
So,how can you apply the scientific method to the observation made by ANDIRAZ ?Remember he is looking for an answer about his observation ?

That doesn't mean an answer must be found. You don't just pick the answer you like best and say that must be it. In this kind of case, a definitive answer is not essential. Nothing material (except maybe his peace of mind) requires a conclusion. There are so many unanswered questions when there is little or no hard evidence.

Don J
2011-Oct-17, 04:00 AM
That doesn't mean an answer must be found. You don't just pick the answer you like best and say that must be it. In this kind of case, a definitive answer is not essential. Nothing material (except maybe his peace of mind) requires a conclusion. There are so many unanswered questions when there is little or no hard evidence.

Nothing material (except maybe his peace of mind) requires a conclusion.

Exactly,I know that science which is based on the scientific method will not help him in his quest for his peace of mind and the answer he his looking for.

Thus my questionning in post 22 about some precise points which are related to a very close observation... (close encounter)

His answer may very well be that he have experienced nothing of the sort.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-17, 04:33 AM
Nothing material (except maybe his peace of mind) requires a conclusion.

Exactly,I know that science which is based on the scientific method will not help him in his quest for his peace of mind and the answer he his looking for.

Thus my questionning in post 22 about some precise points which are related to a very close observation... (close encounter)

His answer may very well be that he have experienced nothing of the sort.

What I was certainly not recommending is that we go the metaphysical quasi-religious direction with this. That is so subjective and such a psychological bag of worms that I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Don J
2011-Oct-17, 04:47 AM
What I was certainly not recommending is that we go the metaphysical quasi-religious direction with this. That is so subjective and such a psychological bag of worms that I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

I was thinking about the work of John E. Mack have made specifically about close observation and the "feeling" associated to that kind of observation.

John E. Mack
http://johnemackinstitute.org/biography-of-john-e-mack-m-d/

I dont think that there is a danger if ANDIRAZ tell them about his observation.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-17, 04:56 AM
I was thinking about the work of John E. Mack have made specifically about close observation and the "feeling" associated to that kind of observation.

John E. Mack
http://johnemackinstitute.org/biography-of-john-e-mack-m-d/

Like I said, I won't get into that area with you. If others choose to and it's deemed within the scope of this thread and this board, then have fun.

Don J
2011-Oct-17, 05:04 AM
Like I said, I won't get into that area with you. If others choose to and it's deemed within the scope of this thread and this board, then have fun.

No need to discuss late John A Mack's works here on this thread.

Like i said in my edit ,if he choose to tell them his observation what's matter.

Don J
2011-Oct-17, 05:42 AM
Good so hopefully we are closer to you understanding why unsupported eyewitness testimony will never be compelling evidence for any exotic explanation.


The point was that many later sightings conformed to the mistaken description of the Arnold sighting, again suggesting that a preconception influenced what witnesses saw, they thought they should see a disk shaped craft so that influenced how they interpreted what they actually saw.


What it demonstrate is that the use of the term "Flying Saucers" became popular at that time to describe the observation of flying discs. Now it is the term UFO's which is used.

here the drawing Kenneth Arnold have made to the USAF about the objects he saw on June 24, 1947

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_AAF_drawing.jpg

very disc shaped isn'it ?

here a photo of 8 discs shaped objects taken on July 12 1947 similar to Kenneth Arnold description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tulsa_Saucers_July12_1947.jpg

Can you explain how a misconception can appear in the form of 8 flying discs on a photo ?

Of course you can say that the pic is a hoax.Remember also the other pic of a similar object taken before Kenneth Arnold sighting.




Exactly, someone focused on a 'UFO' might miss other details that would provide a mundane explanation, and will in fact be adamant that those things did not occur, ....
Not always the case. I have presented a case where the eyewithness tried their best to determinate a mundane explanation.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm



glad to see you are finally understanding some of the points other posters have been making.

i have understand those points since the beginning but the thread became closed before i was able to make further comments.

Garrison
2011-Oct-17, 09:54 AM
What it demonstrate is that the use of the term "Flying Saucers" became popular at that time to describe the observation of flying discs. Now it is the term UFO's which is used.

here the drawing Kenneth Arnold have made to the USAF about the objects he saw on June 24, 1947

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_AAF_drawing.jpg

very disc shaped isn'it ?

And you have missed the point once again, the newspapers referred to the objects as 'flying saucers', Arnold referred to their motion as being like a 'saucer skipping'. I am suggesting that the misleading newspaper reports influenced what people saw in the sky, enhancing the likelihood of misidentifying mundane objects.


here a photo of 8 discs shaped objects taken on July 12 1947 similar to Kenneth Arnold description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tulsa_Saucers_July12_1947.jpg

Can you explain how a misconception can appear in the form of 8 flying discs on a photo ?

The question is answered by your own comments about the photo. I look and I see a grainy image of some fuzzy white blobs that could be any number of things, you jump straight to flying disks, why? Perhaps because the picture is titled 'Tulsa Saucers'?


Of course you can say that the pic is a hoax.Remember also the other pic of a similar object taken before Kenneth Arnold sighting.

Why would I say that? I have no evidence to that effect and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, misperception memory manipulation, and your attempts to influence ANDIRAZ's statements.


Not always the case. I have presented a case where the eyewithness tried their best to determinate a mundane explanation.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

Not the place to discuss that again.

Garrison
2011-Oct-17, 09:57 AM
That doesn't mean an answer must be found. You don't just pick the answer you like best and say that must be it. In this kind of case, a definitive answer is not essential. Nothing material (except maybe his peace of mind) requires a conclusion. There are so many unanswered questions when there is little or no hard evidence.

And that's the big problem with UFO believers, they can't accept that 'unidentified' or 'unknown' mean exactly that and not; 'alien spacecraft but they won't admit it'.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-17, 05:42 PM
What it demonstrate is that the use of the term "Flying Saucers" became popular at that time to describe the observation of flying discs. Now it is the term UFO's which is used.

No...it describes what people expected to see because of the "journalistic mistake".


here the drawing Kenneth Arnold have made to the USAF about the objects he saw on June 24, 1947...snip...very disc shaped isn'it ?

Only from the side viewing angle. Not from an overhead/underside view.

For arguments sake, I'll even "give you" that one...but there is no "excuse" for the following...


here a photo of 8 discs shaped objects taken on July 12 1947 similar to Kenneth Arnold description.

Can you explain how a misconception can appear in the form of 8 flying discs on a photo ?

Well, since those "8 discs shaped objects" look to me like out of focus, point light sources, I'm very curious how you were able to determine they were "disc shaped"???


Of course you can say that the pic is a hoax. Remember also the other pic of a similar object taken before Kenneth Arnold sighting.

Not a hoax...and not similar...

JayUtah
2011-Oct-17, 05:43 PM
very disc shaped isn'it ?

No.

And the illustrations Arnold subsequently consulted on, which contain more detail, show a distinctly boomerang-shaped craft.


Can you explain how a misconception can appear in the form of 8 flying discs on a photo ?

Blobs are not discs.


Not always the case. I have presented a case where the eyewithness tried their best to determinate a mundane explanation.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

Not this one again.

There are two issues at stake. The "invisible gorilla" film demonstrates one problem in a class of behaviors that affect human perception. We cite it to show that is is real science and a real effect, not just something made up by skeptics in order to dismiss UFO reports. The film shows that events which are highly salient in a more objective sense are easily missed. It is not the only mode in which people misperceive and misremember what goes on around them. We find that if witnesses are suddenly confronted with a happenstance event of great importance (e.g., the commission of a crime), they do not remember the details accurately. In short, the contention, "If something that prominent and important had been there, I would have seen it," is soundly and conclusively contradicted by much research.

Other work and demonstrations by those authors, and much associated academic work, show us other errors that are more applicable to this occurrence. We find that people are far less able to identify objects than they believe they are. And we find that they are far less able to determine size, distance, and relative positioning. Much stagecraft and magic exploits these properties, but they have attracted academic interest only in the last 30 years or so. That's the other issue at stake. "If it had been an ordinary object, I would have been able to recognize it as such." Most of the time our recognition works. It's those few times where it doesn't that makes us pause. And UFO sightings account for such a very small proportion of overall visual sensation. If you recognize a seagull 99 out 100 times, that hundredth time -- even though it's very rare and special -- acquires more importance simply because you don't know what it is.

But I digress. The notion that any exercise undertaken at the time, or undertaken later by investigators, can identify the root cause of some ordinary occurrence is just not substantiated by data. So the converse notion, that anything which fails to be identified must therefore be extraordinary and possibly paranormal or supernatural, is also unsupported. Just because many sightings can eventually be explained in mundane ways does not suggest that those remaining unexplained must therefore not be mundane. The class of "mundane, but not necessarily conclusively identifiable as such," is a highly plausible class of explanation.

You have to consider that many things remain unexplained simply because we lack information -- even if some steps are taken to collect more at the time, and because we are unable subsequently to uncover much more information. We simply lack data toward which to apply reason. The industrial and transportation incidents I have sometimes been party to investigating do not often have conclusive root causes. We don't suspect ghosts or aliens. We just aren't able to find data by which we can rule in or out certain possibilities. We can look at certain telltales and determine that a plane's engine wasn't running when it hit the ground. We can then say that the crash was caused by loss of thrust. But we aren't always able to determine why the engine failed. There's a number of causal chains that could explain that. We might suspect a blocked fuel line, but if the fuel line wasn't recovered in the wreckage, then we can't say for sure whether it was clogged or clear.

This is how real world investigations proceed. Very often we just run out of information. And in those cases we say it's "unsolved" or "unexplained." That's not a code word for "so weird we don't wanna talk about it." It's not a code word for "little gray men and a government coverup." It really means we can't find any more information to help us reason through possible solutions. So we stop reasoning, because all that we'd have left is speculation.

Pervading all this discussion is the notion that people intuitively know the limitations of their perceptive senses. In fact they don't. That's what makes the demonstrations so dramatic. Unfortunately it's what makes the UFO proponent's claims so unconvincing; they simply reiterate the common misconceptions and then browbeat anyone who tries to bring some real science to the table.


i have understand those points since the beginning but the thread became closed before i was able to make further comments.

At the risk of discussing moderation in-thread, the thread was closed because it was going in circles. That opinion arose from your apparent inability to reconcile your claims with the rebuttals that were being made. Hence I don't have much faith that you understand these points; you fail to incorporate them into your propositions.

CJSF
2011-Oct-17, 06:04 PM
I have another personal example of how our perception can fail us, and how our brain "fills in the blanks." As a graduate student, I was driving out "in the county" - that is, outside Morgontown, WV, in rural Monongalia County - and came to a "T" intersection. I had to choice to go either left, or right at the stop sign. To my left, the road rose away from me in a slight but steady incline before cresting a ridge over 1/4 mile away. To the right the road was mainly level for about 1/4 mile, before declining out of sight.

I checked BOTH sides of the road at least twice before proceeding to the right, because the road appeared to be clear. Just as I touched the accelerator, a BRIGHT RED sports car drove past, just missing the front end of my car. If I had hit the accelerator even a fraction of a second earlier, I would have been hit by this car, which was going about 40-50 mph.

Here's the thing. From the time I last looked left (the last direction I looked before hitting the gas) to when this car drove past me at 40-50 mph, there was no way this car could have covered the distance if they were behind the ridge at the top of the incline to the left. After the near-incident, I went back to that intersection to see how long it took cars to come over that ridge and to the intersection. That leaves 2 conclusions: 1) The car popped out of a wormhole just to the left and forward of my car's front end, at 40-50 mph, or 2) My brain, "knowing" it was early Sunday morning and no one was around in this peaceful country road, didn't perceive the car until it almost hit me. My brain basically "filled in" the red sports car with empty road, happily matching my view to my expectations.

I still wonder how often this sort of thing happens.

CJSF

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-17, 09:17 PM
I have another personal example of how our perception can fail us, and how our brain "fills in the blanks."

I have mentioned my "UFO sighting" around here somewhere, but haven't a clue as to how to find it....so I'll repeat is as an example of "failed perception".


Happened about a few years ago, after we had moved to Northern Ca. in 2001.

I was out observing the stars and such, when I saw what I took to be a light aircraft, ie. a pipercup...just a small plane with a red and green lights blinking. Thing was, I couldn't hear it at all.

As I realized this, I begin to notice the red and green lights were moving away from each other...something right out of CE3K.

It took me a few seconds to understand what it was I was seeing...2 jet airliners which were very far away. They just happened by coincidence to be aligned with my eye line when I first saw them...so the momentary confusion.


I can very easily imagine people not thinking things through and reaching inaccurate conclusions....because I almost did...as I said, it did take a few seconds to figure it out.

Don J
2011-Oct-18, 04:16 AM
That opinion arose from your apparent inability to reconcile your claims with the rebuttals that were being made. Hence I don't have much faith that you understand these points; you fail to incorporate them into your propositions.

Thanks for your explanation !

The only point in which I really have difficulty to "integrate" (believe) -because of its implication- is the notion that all these reports about Flying Saucers and reported physical effect are only a creation of the mind as resumed by RAF ...to describes what people expected to see because of the "journalistic mistake".following Kenneth Arnold observation in 1947.

And that these "observations" IE "creation of the mind" continue 60 years later .

That mean this was the most powerfull and influent suggestion of all time in the history of humanity.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-18, 04:42 AM
The only point in which I really have difficulty to "integrate" (believe) -because of its implication- is the notion that all these reports about Flying Saucers and reported physical effect became into existence as resumed by RAF ...to describes what people expected to see because of the "journalistic mistake".following Kenneth Arnold observation in 1947.

As "resumed" by RAF?? I'll assume you mean assume, and I have assumed nothing. Follow the evidence and look at the sightings before and after 1947.


And that these "observations" IE "creation of the mind" continue 60 years later

Yep... .



That mean this was the most powerfull and influent suggestion of all time in the history of humanity.

Not that "powerful" since there really is no evidence for the existence of saucers, and (I assume you mean influential) only to people who mistake lights in the sky for flying saucers.

Don J
2011-Oct-18, 04:53 AM
And that these "observations" IE "creation of the mind" continue 60 years later .

As "resumed" by RAF?? I'll assume you mean assume, and I have assumed nothing. Follow the evidence and look at the sightings before and after 1947.


Resume ,because that phrase resume well your position...

to describes what people expected to see because of the "journalistic mistake"



Not that "powerful" since there really is no evidence for the existence of saucers, and (I assume you mean influential) only to people who mistake lights in the sky for flying saucers.

what about electromagnetic effect caused by a UFO ? for example

http://www.openminds.tv/ufo-in-ny-buzzes-car-causing-electromagnetic-effects/

JayUtah
2011-Oct-18, 05:31 AM
That mean this was the most powerfull and influent suggestion of all time in the history of humanity.

I think that's an exaggeration. But the problem remains that UFO enthusiasts continue to downplay the clear effects of predisposition in UFO reports throughout the past 60 years. They aren't all predisposed to follow the same journalist error as followed Arnold, but they do take clear cues from the vernacular culture, and from popular entertainment.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-18, 05:31 AM
Resume ,because that phrase resume well your position...

"Represents"? Is that you're trying to say??


what about electromagnetic effect caused by a UFO ?

What about it?...there is no credible evidence for any "electromagnetic effect" caused by UFO's. There are cases where people take one occurrence, and try and tie it to another, but no evidence for causation.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-18, 05:35 AM
They aren't all predisposed to follow the same journalist error as followed Arnold...

In my zeal, I did kinda make it sound like that...oopsie...:)

Don J
2011-Oct-18, 05:36 AM
"Represents"? Is that you're trying to say??

Yes,

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-18, 05:39 AM
Thank you...

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 11:01 AM
Then the simple fact is, you are "biasing the question"* by giving (what you consider to be) possible answers.
...
*Is this actually called something else?, I personally don't know.

That would be a "leading question". This is why lawyers in court are not allowed to ask things like, "did you see the murder [gestures to the defendant] walking down the street carrying the murder weapon?". Instead they have to ask a series of "open questions": "did you see anything unusual", "was there anyone else on the street", etc.


The only point in which I really have difficulty to "integrate" (believe) -because of its implication- is the notion that all these reports about Flying Saucers and reported physical effect are only a creation of the mind as resumed by RAF

You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what was said. It is not that these are figments of the imagination, that people saw "saucers" when there was nothing there. Rather it is their interpretation of what they saw that is affected by their expectations.

To provide a concrete example: you linked to a photo of some fuzzy blobs and described them as "disks". Why disks? Why not spheres? Or out of focus cubes? Because you have become used to the idea of flying saucers.

My impression from that (very poor quality) image is that the photograph was not taken looking straight up and therefore the one thing they cannot be is "disks" (unless they are more like wheels - that just happen to all be sideways-on to the photographer - not likely).

Garrison
2011-Oct-18, 12:13 PM
Thanks for your explanation !

The only point in which I really have difficulty to "integrate" (believe) -because of its implication- is the notion that all these reports about Flying Saucers and reported physical effect are only a creation of the mind as resumed by RAF ...to describes what people expected to see because of the "journalistic mistake".following Kenneth Arnold observation in 1947.

You're failing to account for the fact that the reporting of the Arnold sighting helped to create the popular image of an 'alien spacecraft' that would appear in magazines and movies for years to come, a feedback loop that would shape many an 'encounter'.


And that these "observations" IE "creation of the mind" continue 60 years later .

Except they don't; if you compare the detailed reports of the 40s and 50s and those of a more modern vintage you'll see they are significant differences in the type of craft, the 'crew', their behaviour, and even the claimed origins of the craft. Most of these changes can be traced to significant cultural events, social changes, or new technology, the release of 'Close Encounters' or the testing of the F117-A to name just two examples.


That mean this was the most powerfull and influent suggestion of all time in the history of humanity.

A bit of an exaggeration but it certainly acted as a catalyst for what came after it. Barring any better evidence its reasonable to treat the UFO phenomenon as a cultural rather than physical one.

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 12:17 PM
Barring any better evidence its reasonable to treat the UFO phenomenon as a cultural rather than physical one.

I assume the emphasis there is on the "phenomenon" being a cultural effect; i.e. the interpretation of unidentified sightings, rather than the reality of the sightings themselves (even if those sightings are not caused by physical "objects" they are still real sightings).

Garrison
2011-Oct-18, 12:59 PM
I assume the emphasis there is on the "phenomenon" being a cultural effect; i.e. the interpretation of unidentified sightings, rather than the reality of the sightings themselves (even if those sightings are not caused by physical "objects" they are still real sightings).

Yes it is, and wasn't that my comment in post #68 not R.A.F.?

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 01:02 PM
Yes it is, and wasn't that my comment in post #68 not R.A.F.?

That's weird - dunno how that got credited to R.A.F. ...

Garrison
2011-Oct-18, 01:22 PM
That's weird - dunno how that got credited to R.A.F. ...

OMG! Aliens! :)

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-18, 05:48 PM
That would be a "leading question".

Yeah...I thought it was something like that

Don J
2011-Oct-18, 08:16 PM
You're failing to account for the fact that the reporting of the Arnold sighting helped to create the popular image of an 'alien spacecraft' that would appear in magazines and movies for years to come, a feedback loop that would shape many an 'encounter'.



Except they don't; if you compare the detailed reports of the 40s and 50s and those of a more modern vintage you'll see they are significant differences in the type of craft, the 'crew', their behaviour, and even the claimed origins of the craft. Most of these changes can be traced to significant cultural events, social changes, or new technology, the release of 'Close Encounters' or the testing of the F117-A to name just two examples.



A bit of an exaggeration but it certainly acted as a catalyst for what came after it. Barring any better evidence its reasonable to treat the UFO phenomenon as a cultural rather than physical one.

i just came about a listing of reported observations around the world since 1868 you will notice than they report observation of strange crafts and strange beings long before the modern UFO culture.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/magoniacomplete.html

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-18, 08:28 PM
i just came about a listing of reported observations around the world since 1868 you will notice than they report observation of strange crafts and strange beings long before the modern UFO culture.

So?...people have "witnessed" things for centuries that have no basis in reality, so what is your point??

Garrison
2011-Oct-18, 09:09 PM
i just came about a listing of reported observations around the world since 1868 you will notice than they report observation of strange crafts and strange beings long before the modern UFO culture.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/magoniacomplete.html

Which refutes the point that reporting and popular culture have influenced the content of modern UFO reports how exactly? No one is saying that people haven't seen unidentified things in the sky for a long time, just that the interpretation of what is being seen is influenced by cultural factors. Are you denying that?

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 10:48 PM
i just came about a listing of reported observations around the world since 1868 you will notice than they report observation of strange crafts and strange beings long before the modern UFO culture.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/magoniacomplete.html

Thanks for proving the point.

Look at how people described things in the first few of those cases:

a giant bird covered with large scales producing a metallic noise
an object resembling a haystack
a "strange balloon"
resembling a fully lighted ship
shaped like a cigar


and so on...

See? Not a "flying saucer" among them. People describe things in terms they are familiar with. Currently, people are familiar with flying saucers and so that is how they interpret/describe what they see.

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-18, 11:29 PM
Thanks for proving the point.

Look at how people described things in the first few of those cases:

a giant bird covered with large scales producing a metallic noise
an object resembling a haystack
a "strange balloon"
resembling a fully lighted ship
shaped like a cigar


and so on...

See? Not a "flying saucer" among them. People describe things in terms they are familiar with. Currently, people are familiar with flying saucers and so that is how they interpret/describe what they see.

sure, people must refer to the known initially to describe or explain the unknown.

flying objects in the sky - of the nature described in the list DonJ provided - were certainly even more unusual before human flight machines were invented. cigar shaped ships, objects resembling a fully lighted ship in the sky? way before human flight machines were invented?

that doesn't make you wonder what they could have seen?

there seems to be some resemblance with contemporary descriptions, where explaining them away as birds or balloons can only satisfy the most hardened debunking fanatic. birds or balloons or any other natural phenomenon in the sky don't produce metallic noises, or do they? and they are not cigar-shaped, or are they? and they certainly don't resemble a "fully lighted ship", or do they?

i'm not saying there is proof of et visitation here (and amongst the debunking fanatics that always has to be made clear, otherwise you get the emotionally charged reactions so typical of fundamentalists).

but it is certainly very interesting and raises the question: what the heck did they see decades and centuries before human flight machines?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-19, 12:09 AM
sure, people must refer to the known initially to describe or explain the unknown.

That's not the point at all.

The argument goes that as soon as Arnold's description was misquoted as "flying saucers," instead of the geometry he really described, then people began to report saucers. This indicates that they're more likely to be following a cultural trend than to be reporting actual sightings. Don J posted a list of pre-Arnold sightings, not understanding that the premise of the argument is the reported shape. The pre-Arnold sightings do not report saucers. The post-Arnold sightings do. Don J doesn't realize that his list proves our point: a shift in reports based on a journal article that was actually in error. If those sightings were of actual phenomena, they wouldn't have conformed to the journalist's error, but instead to fact.


that doesn't make you wonder what they could have seen?

Naturally it does. However it doesn't make me believe that they necessarily had to have seen something nonterrestrial. The general belief that most UFO reports are misidentifications of ordinary phenomena does not require human-built flying machines.


...where explaining them away as birds or balloons can only satisfy the most hardened debunking fanatic.

Who is explaining them away as birds or balloons?


...other natural phenomenon in the sky don't produce metallic noises, or do they?

Do they? What exactly is a "metallic" noise? And how do you know that?

One of the problems in dealing with eyewitness testimony is understanding what is meant by the analogous language people must use, as you say, to describe things they've never seen or heard before.


...and they are not cigar-shaped, or are they?

Are they? The problems with discerning shape, size, and distance of objects you can't identify is part of human nature since time immemorial, even if we only recently are able to study it scientifically. The UFO enthusiast's penchant for taking eyewitnesses literally does not need to be limited to modern sightings.


...and they certainly don't resemble a "fully lighted ship", or do they?

Do they? A number of such modern sightings have been conclusively associated with known astronomical and meteorological sightings, such as of comet fragments, bolides, and meteors.


i'm not saying there is proof of et visitation here...

Of course not. But you are blatantly amplifying the "It can't possibly be natural" assertion. That is the typical premise to, "It must be something otherworldly." But we'll give you credit for not saying what you haven't said.


...and amongst the debunking fanatics that always has to be made clear, otherwise you get the emotionally charged reactions so typical of fundamentalists

Inflammatory rhetoric noted. Please don't put words in our mouths. Yes, many UFO proponents eventually walk right up to some proposition having to do with aliens, but stop short of actually claiming it. There is no "emotional charge" to simply pointing out that people are asserting or insinuating a proposition for which they have no proof.


but it is certainly very interesting and raises the question: what the heck did they see decades and centuries before human flight machines?

It's a mildly interesting question. Interesting because they are open questions. Mildly interesting because there's very little we can do at this point to answer the question. There simply isn't sufficient information. And my answer is, "I don't know," and I'm very content to leave it at that. What is the obsession among UFO fanatics for demanding an answer to it?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-19, 12:20 AM
i'm not saying there is proof of et visitation here (and amongst the debunking fanatics that always has to be made clear, otherwise you get the emotionally charged reactions so typical of fundamentalists).

You are mistaking prior knowledge of the "wedges" used by believers to promote their agenda, with a closed-minded stance...there is a difference.

Don J
2011-Oct-19, 01:53 AM
Thanks for proving the point.

Look at how people described things in the first few of those cases:

a giant bird covered with large scales producing a metallic noise
an object resembling a haystack
a "strange balloon"
resembling a fully lighted ship
shaped like a cigar


and so on...

See? Not a "flying saucer" among them. People describe things in terms they are familiar with. Currently, people are familiar with flying saucers and so that is how they interpret/describe what they see.

To the contrary it demonstrate that the term "Flying Saucers" became popular circa June 1947 .Today we say UFO's.

shaped like a cigar... is also described in the modern era,

Notice that the majority of observation listed are about circular objects

http://www.ufocasebook.com/magoniacomplete.html

4
May. 15, 1879 Persian Gulf. Two very large "wheels" were seen
2140 spinning in the air and slowly coming to the surface
of the sea. Estimated diameter: 40 m. Distance be-
tween the objects: 150 m. Speed: 80 km/h/ Duration:
35 min. Witnesses aboard the ship "Vultur" (Round
up 17; Anatomy 12)

also the allusion about people paralysed by some entities were reported long before than John E Mack make a study about that phenomena.

3
1880 Aldershot (Great Britain). A strange being dressed in
tight-fitting clothes and shining helmet soared over
the heads of two sentries, who fired without result.
The apparition stunned them with something de-
scribed as "blue fire." (FSR 61, 3; Magonia)

Which lead to .........


So?...people have "witnessed" things for centuries that have no basis in reality, so what is your point??

Good point ... and the one who have probably pin pointed the true nature about all these observations is Researcher Jacques Vallee

http://www.amazon.ca/Passport-Magonia-Folklore-Parallel-Worlds/dp/0809237962

Excerpts from a review of the book

"Researcher Jacques Vallee has done an excellent job synthesizing the various reports through the ages of our contact with otherworldly entities. He especially empasizes the fairy lore of the Celtic region, as this is relatively modern and also well-documented.

Vallee points out that many of the chief characteristics of contact with fairies is coincidental of modern accounts of contact with UFOnauts. He surmises that these accounts are cultural-specific descriptions of a phenomenon that has been with us since time immemorial. It is probable that everything from demons, incubi, and jinns are one and the same as the aliens which now captivate our global attention.

Interestingly, the entities have consistantly been described as possessing technology just beyond the means of whichever society is experiencing the contact. Today, the entities appear in antigravity spacecraft, just as in the Bible they steered luminous chariots, and in the great airship sighting wave of 1897, they seemed to be manning turbine-driven zeppelins. The one constant throughout the ages has been the entities proclivity to tinker with the genetics of mankind. Vallee offers no answers to this strange phenomenon, but only wishes to point out that it did not originate in modern times"

Tensor
2011-Oct-19, 05:51 AM
... and the one who have probably pin pointed the true nature about all these observations is Researcher Jacques Vallee

Or not, considering the excerpt from 1 below. Note the bolds.


http://www.amazon.ca/Passport-Magonia-Folklore-Parallel-Worlds/dp/0809237962

Excerpts from a review of the book

"Researcher Jacques Vallee has done

snip...

modern times"

Excerpts from another review at your link:

1.) Seeing as everyone is so certain about UFOlogy, why do they call it a mystery? This book won't answer these questions, it won't explain everything (or anything) but it will leave you extremely confused. So confused that you may start laughing hysterically. You will learn how all the explanations exclude the most interesting data. You may figure it all out. I didn't. I have read it several times and I'm more confused than ever, and cheerfully agnostic. You may cease to believe in extraterrestrials, and believe in fairies instead (more rational, and better evidence) Caution: contains stories which even UFOlogists may find "a bit silly".

I especially like the part about a belief in fairies being more rational with better evidence.

Don J
2011-Oct-19, 06:18 AM
Or not, considering the excerpt from 1 below. Note the bolds.



Excerpts from another review at your link:

1.) Seeing as everyone is so certain about UFOlogy, why do they call it a mystery? This book won't answer these questions, it won't explain everything (or anything) but it will leave you extremely confused. So confused that you may start laughing hysterically. You will learn how all the explanations exclude the most interesting data. You may figure it all out. I didn't. I have read it several times and I'm more confused than ever, and cheerfully agnostic. You may cease to believe in extraterrestrials, and believe in fairies instead (more rational, and better evidence) Caution: contains stories which even UFOlogists may find "a bit silly".

I especially like the part about a belief in fairies being more rational with better evidence.
Better evidence than what?Vallee describe both as having the same root.

"Vallee points out that many of the chief characteristics of contact with fairies is coincidental of modern accounts of contact with UFOnauts. He surmises that these accounts are cultural-specific descriptions of a phenomenon that has been with us since time immemorial. It is probable that everything from demons, incubi, and jinns are one and the same as the aliens which now captivate our global attention."

"The one constant throughout the ages has been the entities proclivity to tinker with the genetics of mankind."

So confused that you may start laughing hysterically.

But it is demonstrated than laughing is good for health !

That is right the book surely don't explain everything .... Like science also don't explain everything .
Who can pretend to have all the answers ?

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-19, 06:51 AM
...Excerpts from a review of the book...

...airship sighting wave of 1897...

(my bold)
i searched for the words in bold because i had never heard of this wave. one link that came up is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship

it's a very interesting read and has relevance to the history of aerial sightings.

Strange
2011-Oct-19, 09:20 AM
To the contrary it demonstrate that the term "Flying Saucers" became popular circa June 1947 .

And that influenced what people thought they saw. Do you really not understand that the way people report these things is culturally biased (not determined)? In the past it was angels, in some parts of the world it was dragons, etc.

Also, you seem to think that what people saw was something disk/wheel shaped. If so, this would contradict what Arnold claimed to have seen. But you thought he was a credible witness... Make your mind up.


Today we say UFO's.

Only if you want to misuse the term.


Notice that the majority of observation listed are about circular objects

Majority? Really? I haven't counted them all but in those I looked at "circular objects" would form a distinct minority - unless you are going to stretch the definition somewhat. Is a saucer or wheel circular? What about a sphere or orb? What about a "cigar shape"? These shapes are not at all similar, but you could classify them all as circular in some sense.

Incidentally, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in that web site as a source as at least one of the "mysteries" has been very well analysed an explained. (Maybe more, I haven't read them all.)


"Researcher Jacques Vallee has done an excellent job synthesizing the various reports through the ages of our contact with otherworldly entities....

Well, at least he agrees with us that the perceptions of these sightings are affected by the culture and expectations of the observer. Do you still deny that?

Strange
2011-Oct-19, 09:26 AM
that doesn't make you wonder what they could have seen?

Of course. But we can never know based on the limited information available. It is not even clear that there is a common explanation for all or even subsets of them.

One could make up all sorts of "fantastic" explanations (ET, time travellers, parallel dimensions) or one could make up all sorts of "mundane" explanations. None of them would have any great credibility. Although the mundane ones would at least have the benefit of being based on things that we know exist and understand the characteristics of. On the other hand, the fantastic ones have the benefit (for the person proposing the explanation) that you can make up anything, however unrealistic, that fits the evidence.

moog
2011-Oct-19, 11:08 AM
Who is explaining them away as birds or balloons?


Me me me.
I would explain this particular UFO away as a bird:
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/10/article-1318275644217-0E50D6D800000578-623027_636x364.jpg

But do all carry on...

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-19, 12:46 PM
But these are merely experimental (and often reasonably reproducible) methods of testing mundane hypotheses. In some cases we can use the experiment to conclusively rule out a mundane hypothesis because it reliably fails to reproduce the sighting.
An example of this can be seen in the Moore report where they tested the hypothesis that the observation might have been of one of the balloons they were releasing that day by keeping better track of the next one they released and seeing if that could reproduce the observation. This ruled out that it was one of their previously released balloons, which is an example of good followup.

To afterwards go in and use that experiment to argue that, because that specific balloon burst at 93,000 feet, the observed phenomenon had to be above that is an example of the types of flawed logic that unfortunately abounds in this field.

Swift
2011-Oct-19, 01:15 PM
Henrik,

I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you were typing when I posted my warning. I didn't want to close this thread, it isn't fair to the OP, but I'm going to do so for the moment.

Swift
2011-Oct-19, 03:32 PM
I have, as best as I could, split off all the posts about UFOs and observers from the ANDIRAZ thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/122280-UFO-very-close-observation-TURKEY-KASTAMONU-ANDIRAZ), to this one.

Having read through the original thread, I think the fault for the hijacking lies with many different members. Don J brought up a suggestion relevant to the original discussion (a fact noted by moderator Captain Swoop (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/122280-UFO-very-close-observation-TURKEY-KASTAMONU-ANDIRAZ?p=1944410#post1944410)). In spite of Captain Swoop's admonition not to self-moderate, multiple members did, and did a lot more than Don J to drag the discussion off into this hijacking. Don J did not help matters by taking up the discussion. All in all, a perfect example of how not to have a thread go on BAUT (IMHO).

I'm going to set this thread loose now, without any infractions, though several people are probably deserving of them.

In the future, in this thread or elsewhere, if you think someone's post is inappropriate, either a hijack or an advocacy of their own ATM ideas, please report the post; do not make it worse by commenting in response in thread. But then, you all should know that by now.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-19, 05:24 PM
Don J, There is a common tactic of debaters to refuse concession of a minor point in order to sidetrack a major point they don't want to address. The discussion then becomes embroiled in minutiae. This is what it appears you have been doing consistently in each thread you've participated in, whether you've started the thread or not.

When Swift split this discussion into two threads, this thread became yours. You are obviously here to promote the ETH of UFO reports (despite your frequent denials). That is an ATM position which, by the rules of this forum, requires that you make a claim and then defend it. Don't you agree that our time is poorly spent here taking up two pages to argue the history of the terms flying saucer or disk-shaped?

So please state your CT or ETH and we can discuss it.

Don J
2011-Oct-19, 06:07 PM
Of course. But we can never know based on the limited information available. It is not even clear that there is a common explanation for all or even subsets of them.

One could make up all sorts of "fantastic" explanations (ET, time travellers, parallel dimensions) or one could make up all sorts of "mundane" explanations. None of them would have any great credibility. Although the mundane ones would at least have the benefit of being based on things that we know exist and understand the characteristics of. On the other hand, the fantastic ones have the benefit (for the person proposing the explanation) that you can make up anything, however unrealistic, that fits the evidence.

In fact that is what is proposed by Jacques Vallee to explain the UFO phenomena interdimensional beings no extratrrestrials.

As for credibilty and evidence that is another matter.

Don J
2011-Oct-19, 06:10 PM
Don J, There is a common tactic of debaters to refuse concession of a minor point in order to sidetrack a major point they don't want to address. The discussion then becomes embroiled in minutiae. This is what it appears you have been doing consistently in each thread you've participated in, whether you've started the thread or not.

When Swift split this discussion into two threads, this thread became yours. You are obviously here to promote the ETH of UFO reports (despite your frequent denials). That is an ATM position which, by the rules of this forum, requires that you make a claim and then defend it. Don't you agree that our time is poorly spent here taking up two pages to argue the history of the terms flying saucer or disk-shaped?

So please state your CT or ETH and we can discuss it.

I have no ATM proposal to defend.The interdimensional aspect of the UFO phenomena proposed by Jaques Vallee is just another way to see the UFO phenomena.I have initially discussed that aspect on ANDIRAZ thread just to propose another view than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-19, 06:29 PM
I have no ATM proposal to defend.

Are you satisfied then that the most likely explanation for UFOs is the misidentification of ordinary phenomena?


The interdimensional aspect of the UFO phenomena proposed by Jaques Vallee is just another way to see the UFO phenomena.

What makes it worth mentioning over any other theory? It has no more explanatory power or testability than the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis. Or than a hypothesis that they're ghosts, elves, fairies, or transvestite space cows. If you're trying to explain sightings with any sort of rigor, you have to either limit yourself to testable hypotheses or satisfy yourself with the notion that the cause remains truly unknown. Inventing some other sensational paranormal idea to make the UFO audience salivate does not progress the investigation.


I have initially discussed that aspect on ANDIRAZ thread just to propose another view than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.

If you want to propose it on BAUT, you have to defend it. That's how BAUT works.

Swift
2011-Oct-19, 06:50 PM
I have no ATM proposal to defend.The interdimensional aspect of the UFO phenomena proposed by Jaques Vallee is just another way to see the UFO phenomena.I have initially discussed that aspect on ANDIRAZ thread just to propose another view than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.
In that case, I'm not sure I see a point to this thread. I suspect it will turn into another mess where Don J thinks he is just having a friendly discussion, and everyone else thinks he is advocating an ATM position and demands he defends it. The moderators will have to spend too much time cleaning up the huge spill of handwavium.

I'm closing this thread. If someone wants it to be reopened, then report this post and state very clearly why it should be reopened and what exactly you wish to discuss. We'll consider it.