What is your "red line" that would make you unambiguously and sincerely say with full belief, "Aliens are real and are or have been on Earth"?

[Scaramanga]

I deeply believe in the scientific method, but that method often only prevails after decades of denial and gnashing of teeth when the "establishment" gets challenged with data that does not conform to their current world view.

The establishment frequently gets it wrong ( as they did with things like gamma ray bursts, sprites above thunderstorms, and a host of other things )...but that same establishment is open to new data. Thus the scientific community has accepted the existence of sprites, for example, because there is now a huge amount of data for them. It looks like the science establishment is also well on its way to accepting the reality of earthquake lights.....again due to an increase in data.

The reason science does not accept UFOs is twofold. Lack of substantive data is the main one. But also, UFOs suffer from a categorizing issue precisely because 'unidentified' tells one precisely nothing. At least a sprite can be categorized as some form of strange upwards lightning....but a 'UFO' could be a balloon, or an airplane, or a bird, or....a host of 'unidentified' things. Well, yes, people do see 'unidentified' things in the sky. But so what ? Most scientists would rightly dismiss it as a perception issue....and just as the ARRO reports say, will likely be identified as something prosaic upon further investigation.

 

[Ann K]

But we are not in a battle over objective facts, we are in a battle of persuasion.

But we ARE concerned with objective facts. They are ultimately what matters. You've already explained that you want to elevate consensus over facts, and I strongly object to that. You used this description of your aims before:

But really the goal is not to convince the most avid skeptics. It is simply to convince enough of the general public that the ridicule factor diminishes to a level that well known respected scientist don't feel like analyzing the existing mountains of evidence is a career ending move.

No scientist should feel coerced by public opinion to find the answers the public demands, and no scientist should have his career threatened because he doesn't see any merit in an evidence-free field, no matter how popular.

 

[Ann K]

When 3 or 4 posters I most respect on Metabunk post about evidence they believe is proof, that will be my "oh sh*t" moment and go a long way to making me believe.

Has that happened yet? Don't you think in such a case you should take a good hard look at what is called "evidence", and hang fire until others get the chance to post a rebuttal?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I mean I have 2 degrees in science. But ok.

That's interesting. We need more experts. What are these 2 degrees?

 

[tobigtofool]

My soft red line would be a video that was as crazy as the MH370 and everyone here just agreeing it must be an extremely well done fake.

My hard would be peer reviewed science that isnt like, "these are alien grains of sand from 3000 years ago." I'm talking like, this is an alien gun we found.

There isn't any video/photographic evidence that I can't argue myself into not believing out there.

I do like that weird (ball lighting?!) video though. (is it bunked?)


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSQqbPWMGYU

 

[Mendel]

I deeply believe in the scientific method, but that method often only prevails after decades of denial and gnashing of teeth when the "establishment" gets challenged with data that does not conform to their current world view. Germ theory being the perfect example mentioned above.

Remember: to be Galileo, you have to also be right!

Sure, but the PROCESS of science is designed to weed that stuff out -- independent top universities freely researching and coming to a consensus is not a guaranteed "True Answer," but it would carry weight, and it is not what happened with the couple of guys Maussan found to gush over his "mummies," or the Ivermectin as a COVID cure huxsters.

Ivermectin is a good example:
• promise of salvation
• scientific studies in favor
• but the studies showed no plausible mechanism
• and they didn't reproduce well
(The most logical explanation we have now is that people with worms get more severe cases of Covid than people who have been dewormed.)
If Ivermection had worked, steps 1 and 2 would've looked exactly the same. (And there's a lot of irreproducible science still out there.)

But aliens visiting Earth isn't really a science question. Like the moon landing, or Russia invading Ukraine, it'd be a current event. If you asked a "scientist" back in 1969 if the moon landing was real, they'd not do a study, they'd turn on the TV.

Framing it as a science question contains the assumption that the unexplained evidence would explain aliens, if only someone could explain it.But that's not logical, nor do I recall any precedent. Neither germ theory nor relativity were ever "unexplained" in the way the UFO reports are.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

the existing mountains of evidence

these mountains are not in evidence
they do not exist

Well this is a good place to start...

Project Blue Book Special Report #14
https://archive.org/details/ProjectBlueBookSpecialReport14

But I think the whole point of this thread is the above type of evidence is not considered evidence by the skeptics here. So we are at a impasse re. "is there any evidence".

It would be more accurate to say there is no incontrovertible physical evidence that is publicly available that ETs are visiting earth.

I'm not sure why you cited Project Blue Book Special Report #14. What was the point?

It was a violation of the no-click policy, btw. I've done the work for you.

From Project Blue Book Special Report #14 - May 5, 1955:

SUMMARY

Reports of unidentified aerial objects (popularly termed "flying saucers" or "flying discs"), have been received by the U. S. Air Force since mid-1947 from many and diverse sources. Although there was no evidence that the unexplained reports of unidentified objects constituted a threat to the security of the U. S., the Air Force determined that all reports of unidentified aerial objects should be investigated and evaluated to determine if "flying saucers" represented technological developments not known to this country.

In order to discover any pertinent trends or patterns inherent in the data, and to evaluate or explain any trends or patterns found, appropriate methods of reducing these data from reports of unidentified aerial objects to a form amenable to scientific appraisal were employed. In general, the original data upon which this study was based consisted of impressions and interpretations of apparently unexplainable events, and seldom contained reliable measurements of physical attributes. This subjectivity of the data presented a major limitation to the drawing of significant conclusions, but did not invalidate the application of scientific methods of study.

The reports received by the U. S. Air Force on unidentified aerial objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means of logically .developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures. Evaluation of sighting reports, a crucial step in the preparation of the data
for statistical, treatment, consisted of an appraisal of the reports and the subsequent categorizing of the object or objects described in each report. A detailed description of this phase of the study stresses the careful attempt to maintain complete objectivity and consistency.

Analysis of the refined and evaluated data derived from the original reports of sightings comprised ( 1) a systematic attempt to ferret out any distinguishing characteristics inherent in the data or any of their segments, (2) a concentrated study of any trends or patterns found, and (3) an attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers".

The first step in the analysis of the data revealed the existence of certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified and those not identified. Statistical methods of testing were applied which indicated a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS
represent observations of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers" necessitated a thorough re-examination and re-evaluation of cases of objects not originally identified; this led to the conclusion that the probability was very small.

vii


Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

It is emphasized that there was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

viii

CONCLUSIONS

It can never be absolutely proven that "flying saucers" do not exist. This would be true if the data obtained were to include complete scientific measurements of the attributes of each sighting, as well as complete and detailed descriptions of the objects sighted. It might be possible to demonstrate the existence of "flying saucers" with data of this type, IF they were to exist.

Although the reports considered in this study usually did not contain scientific measurements of the attributes of each sighting, it was possible to establish certain valid conclusions by the application of statistical methods in the treatment of the data. Scientifically evaluated and arranged, the data did not show any marked patterns or trends. The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident. This absence of indicative relationships necessitated an exhaustive study of selected facets of the data in order
to draw any valid conclusions.

A critical examination of the distributions of the important characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally the reported maneuvers of the objects and the unavailability of supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon-launching records, resulted in the failure to identify ·as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS.

An intensive study, aimed at finding a verified example of a flying saucer" or at deriving a verified 'model or models of "flying saucers" (as defined on Page 1), led to the conclusion that neither goal could be attained using the present data.

It is emphasized that there was a, complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since
the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends. Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

94

Basically the same conclusion that the Condon Report came to in 1968. You can't prove a negative, but the subjective nature of the data can't support rejecting the null hypothesis, which is: Unidentified aerial objects examined in this study do not represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

The Condon report did not conclude that UFO folklore is malarkey. It concluded that there was little chance that further scientific studies would come to any conclusion. Therefore it was recommended that no further scientific studies should be done on the taxpayer's dime.

The True Believers have been trying to discredit the Condon Report like forever. The committee's main crime has been one of "wrong thinking." In other words, not being True Believers. Any further study by a government or government sponsored agency will suffer the same fate. I base that conclusion on History. I can't get into the entire history of private UFO organizations, but historically even they have been full of in-fighting and soap opera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee

Astronomer J. Allen Hynek wrote that "The Condon Report settled nothing."[4] He called Condon's introduction "singularly slanted" and wrote that it "avoided mentioning that there was embedded within the bowels of the report a remaining mystery; that the committee had been unable to furnish adequate explanations for more than a quarter of the cases examined."[4] Hynek contended that "Condon did not understand the nature and scope of the problem" he was studying[4] and objected to the idea that only extraterrestrial life could explain UFO activity. By focusing on this hypothesis, he wrote, the Report "did not try to establish whether UFOs really constituted a problem for the scientist, whether physical or social."

What Hynek was saying is that the Condon Report folk were concentrating on the old outdated 1950's Little Green Men Flying Saucer hypothesis and not on the new 1960's à gogo Inter-dimensional Being hypothesis. Thus they were missing the whole point.

So Hynek formed his own investigative agency: CUFOs. He hired a full time investigator: Allan Hendry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hendry

Hendry was hired for CUFOS by the organization's founder, J. Allen Hynek, who was seeking a full-time investigator with scientific expertise and an open-minded attitude, and who was neither a debunker nor a "UFO believer".

As the chief investigator for CUFOS during most of the 1970s, Hendry personally investigated over 1000 UFO reports. He was able to find mundane explanations for the vast majority of UFO cases, but he also judged a small percentage of cases to be unexplained. One of the most famous "unexplained" cases he investigated was the Val Johnson Incident in 1979, in which a deputy sheriff in Minnesota experienced a "collision" with an unknown object which damaged his patrol car and left him temporarily unconscious. Hendry was the primary ufologist to investigate the case; in 1980 he debated the incident with well-known UFO debunker Philip Klass at a symposium held at the Smithsonian Institution.

He was reluctant to speculate as to origins of the unexplained cases, and argued they might be explainable with further data, leading some researchers to label Hendry a "closet skeptic".[1] At the same time, a few noted skeptics and debunkers who had praised Hendry's scientific rigor subjected him to strong criticism for his conclusion that a handful of well-documented UFO reports seemed to defy analysis, and might represent genuine anomalies. Hendry suggested that the criticism from both camps were little more than ad hominem attacks, since they typically paid little or no attention to the substance of his research.
Hendry's magnum opus was The UFO Handbook,[2] a guide for other UFO investigators.

In the book, Hendry castigates many mainstream scientists for what he sees as their neglecting UFO studies, but he also had strong criticism for many amateur UFO investigators, who he thought did the subject more harm than good. Clark characterized Hendry's appraisal of ufology in general as "deeply pessimistic", concluding that the subject was all but paralyzed by infighting, a lack of cooperation and standardization, and dubious claims. The UFO Handbook even earned the praise of arch-skeptic Philip J. Klass, who in a review published in The Skeptical Inquirer described the book as "one of the most significant and useful books on the subject ever published."

Hendry reported that there was no fundamental difference between solved and unsolved cases.

This was the time that Hynek turned away from Nuts and Bolts UFOlogy (flying saucers) and toward the more mysterious Invisible College hypothesis of Extradimensional Intelligence (EDI) (or something). But how on Earth do you do a scientific study of beings from another dimension (or whatever)? Is this just a preservation of belief? Turning away from a disappointing Aliens hypothesis to an even more elusive idea?

At this point it just seems like people are just trying to prove their own vision of reality.

I suggest that concerned people across the globe get together and form your own investigative agency. Think of what you could accomplish if like 100,000 people band together and tithe 10 percent of your income.

But what I wonder is... What is your mission statement? To find the Truth, I suppose. But after you find the truth? What do you do with it? If the Alien Beings hypothesis is true, they don't seem to be interested in revealing themselves. If any of the other various explanations are more true, what do you do with it?

 

[Arthur 33]

I'm not sure why you cited Project Blue Book Special Report #14. What was the point?

My point is that it contains a LOT of evidence if you actually examine the body of the report and not just the conclusion. Skeptics have been ignoring the body and simply citing the conclusion for decades.

Also fun fact Special Report #14 is the first recorded use of the term UAP. Battelle like 60 years ahead of the rebranding of the rebranding lol

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Not correct. A lot of thought has gone into this. You're concentrating on the unsolved cases. Have you considered what the solved cases mean?

After the Condon Report, the notion that all solved cases are simply noise that should be thrown out became a hardened position among UFOlogists. Hynek really pushed that. He expressed frustration that so much attention was being paid to the solved cases. Taking away, in his mind, time and energy from the "real" cases. Which assumes that the cases that remained unsolved required an extraordinary cause.

That is antithetical to the scientific method. If 95% of all cases are solved, that supports the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis being that no extraordinary explanation is needed to explain all reports.

By about 1970 some Skeptic coined the term "postcard rack."



As old cases are solved and removed by Skeptics standing on one side of the rack, new cases are being put into the rack on the other side by UFO True Believers. The rack is always full. The Skeptics point to the pile of discarded postcards on the counter. The True Believers say, "So what? Why are you talking about that junk? Look at that full rack!"

The solved cases are "The UFO Message."

BTW, 1955 was early days. Decades of experience with solved cases have piled up. Many of the unsolved cases in that Blue Book Report can now be solved. By the time Allan Hendry was hired by Hynek to be the full time investigator for CUFOS, he had the accumulated knowledge, and resources, to solve ~95% of the cases that came his way over the CUFOS hotline.

Solved cases are not noise. They are evidence. If 95% of cases can be solved, that's evidence that humans are entirely capable of producing UFO sightings with nothing extraordinary behind them.

Unsolved cases have no unique qualities. Not perceived motions, extraordinary appearance, or the emotional reaction of the witness. Or the conviction of the witness that something very extraordinary and life changing was involved. Solved cases can have all the qualities of unsolved cases. The reasonable conclusion is that unsolved cases remain unexplained due to lack of information. And this is the crucial bit. You have to expect that there will be unsolved cases due to the quirky method of collecting data. If you haven't studied experimental design and analytical statistics, this is hard to understand. Experiments are designed to prove that the scientist is wrong. It's called the Null Hypothesis. In a statistical test, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error.

If the Null hypothesis is rejected, that is support for the scientist's notions. The scientist's notion, (the thing he wants to be true) is called the alternative hypothesis. Our Null Hypothesis could be: No extraordinary causes are needed to generate UFO cases.

The alternative hypothesis seems to be: An extraordinary cause is required to explain at least some UFO cases.

True Believers don't include known or unknown quirks in human perception, memory and psychology in the category of "extraordinary." They mean aliens or extra-dimensional beings... or whatnot.

There are also quirks in instruments, such as radar and cameras.

Accepting the Null Hypothesis only supports the idea that it's not necessary to resort to extraordinary explanations to explain all UFO cases.

But accepting the null hypothesis should rule out the idea that an extraordinary cause is necessary to explain at least some UFO cases.

Basically...

In experimental psychology it's expected that 5 percent of the data you collect during an experiment is bogus, because of the quirky nature of human psychology and the difficulties in collecting data from humans. You reject or support the null hypothesis with that in mind.

We're not even doing a controlled experiment here, which makes it even more quirky. If 95% of UFO cases can be solved we should conclude that it's not necessary that something extraordinary must be going on out there. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that there's any hard core of cases.

This whole thing has been going on a long time and nothing definitive has ever happened. But we have learned something. We've learned something about human psychology. Which is what piques my interest.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

From Hendry's book:

Hendry, A. (1980). The Ufo handbook: A guide to investigating, evaluating and reporting Ufo sightings. Sphere.










-Witness testimony is often very surprising. E.g.: They don't know what stars look like? They don't mention apparent size. Weird motions. Illustrations of stars with complicated shapes. Witnesses grasp at every explanation except the simplest one. Witnesses will deny it was a star.

In other words, solid proof that "Solid Citizens" can be terrible observers.

A few more pages, just to give an idea of common mistakes solid citizens can make. Also an example of the way solved cases can lead to a body of knowledge about what to look for when evaluating new sightings.

 

[Mendel]

My point is that it contains a LOT of evidence if you actually examine the body of the report and not just the conclusion.

Please provide evidence for this claim.
Preferably in a new thread for each piece of evidence.

 

[Bob Jase]

My point is that it contains a LOT of evidence if you actually examine the body of the report and not just the conclusion. Skeptics have been ignoring the body and simply citing the conclusion for decades.

Also fun fact Special Report #14 is the first recorded use of the term UAP. Battelle like 60 years ahead of the rebranding of the rebranding lol

"I don't know" is not evidence no matter how you try to make it so.

 

[Scaramanga]

As old cases are solved and removed by Skeptics standing on one side of the rack, new cases are being put into the rack on the other side by UFO True Believers. The rack is always full. The Skeptics point to the pile of discarded postcards on the counter. The True Believers say, "So what? Why are you talking about that junk? Look at that full rack!"

I think the real issue is that many believers simply do not realize that a huge portion of 'best ever' UFO cases have indeed been solved. And the solved cases actually form the very bedrock of there even being a UFO phenomenon in the first place.

Most believers simply don't know that Stanton Friedman's 'best ever' Yukon UFO case has been resoundingly shown to be the re-entry of a Soviet satellite. Or that in the infamous Japan Airlines case over Alaska, the location of the UFO exactly matched the location of a conjunction of Mars and Jupiter in the sky. They don't know that one of the main protagonists in the Travis Walton case even admitted the whole thing was a hoax, and that it has been fairly conclusively shown that the 'UFO' was a fire observation tower. And so on, with many cases that form the 'best evidence' for UFOs.

The whole of UFOlogy is a house of cards where the bottom level of 'best evidence' long since collapsed.

 

[Arthur 33]

I think the real issue is that many believers simply do not realize that a huge portion of 'best ever' UFO cases have indeed been solved

I would properly respond to this but I think this is starting to get off topic for this thread, and just arguments that have happened over and over again between skeptics and believers for decades. Suffice it to say I disagree.

 

[Mendel]

The whole of UFOlogy is a house of cards where the bottom level of 'best evidence' long since collapsed.

Hence the "postcard rack" metaphor.

 

[Scaramanga]

Suffice it to say I disagree.

What is there to 'disagree' about ? In the case of the Japan Airlines case in Alaska, for example, you can get hold of Stellarium software ( it is free ) and can go to Alaska at that date and time and see for yourself that a conjunction of Mars and Jupiter is rising on the horizon in the exact place where the 'UFO' was first spotted.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Here is the most telling thing of all about UFOs. Every single time there is a news item on UFOs and they show some sample UFO videos or photos while some 'UFO expert' is waffling away..........every single sample case they show has been debunked !

I expect to be roasted, but some of these cases still have existing evidence that we simply have not seen due to the US government keeping it classified.

It is definitively true that for the three Navy video excerpts--remember, that's all they are, parts of the whole video--the rest of the videos remain unseen by us, and there is whatever other additional data from multiple sources exist for those events. Ryan Graves has openly discussed this several times that just from his plane alone there are something like an additional at least 4-6 recorded sets of data from things like radar(s) and other recording systems, never mind the plain old HD cameras that these jets all over. Then you have the data gathered from various systems on the various many ships in the Navy carrier strike group, anything from land and space, whatever NORAD et al may have...

A piece of evidence can be debunked to a reasonable degree, but you can't actually say "Oh, that entire 'incident' is debunked" when you know there is factually more evidence to be considered.

 

[Dan Burt]

I expect to be roasted, but some of these cases still have existing evidence that we simply have not seen due to the US government keeping it classified.

It is definitively true that for the three Navy video excerpts--remember, that's all they are, parts of the whole video--the rest of the videos remain unseen by us, and there is whatever other additional data from multiple sources exist for those events. Ryan Graves has openly discussed this several times that just from his plane alone there are something like an additional at least 4-6 recorded sets of data from things like radar(s) and other recording systems, never mind the plain old HD cameras that these jets all over. Then you have the data gathered from various systems on the various many ships in the Navy carrier strike group, anything from land and space, whatever NORAD et al may have...

A piece of evidence can be debunked to a reasonable degree, but you can't actually say "Oh, that entire 'incident' is debunked" when you know there is factually more evidence to be considered.

What you call evidence, is just hearsay, no?

 

[tobigtofool]

What you call evidence, is just hearsay, no?

Unfortunately it seems to be this is the case for the major whistleblowers.

Speaking of thin red line, a snowden, or WikiLeaks level whistle blow would be a good first step for me.

Like, if we had a smuggled USB with 1,000s of emails between parties in the military/private sector about these UAP's would be the type of thing we need to stop the he said she said cycle of all this IMO.

That'd still be hearsay, but at least it'd prove there was some kind of nonsense going on for sure behind closed doors.

 

[Ann K]

I expect to be roasted, but some of these cases still have existing evidence that we simply have not seen due to the US government keeping it classified.

That may or may not be true. First you'd have to believe the "hearsay" part, that is, someone said there was more. If the story passes that hurdle and there actually are portions redacted because the information is classified, that secrecy may be because of the object that's been sighted (I think that's your assumption) but it may also concern the ones who reported the sighting. For example, if it says "X reported it from Y vessel/aircraft at Z location", the values of X, Y, and Z may be classified information about military maneuvers, with nothing at all to do with what was actually seen.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

What you call evidence, is just hearsay, no?

The way I look at it is this:

In the case of the Fravor event, we had a FLIR video recorded by the fighter squadron that went out AFTER Fravor's crew returned. That's a hard fact. We know that we only have a small segment of that video and there is more of it in duration not yet revealed. That's a hard fact because the video we've seen begins in media res and then hard cuts; more preceded what we saw and more followed.

But more critically, multiple people have said Fravor's crew was explicitly re-tasked to go look at something on radar-type detection. That's a fact as well, and hard, or else how do they know to go there specifically?

That confirms for us that at minimum two (2) data points were recorded for the Fravor event. It is not any sort of classified secret.

But we've only seen that one excerpt, and evaluate the Fravor event on just that one lone piece of evidence.

Again, it's fine to evaluate each individual unit or piece of evidence on its own merits, but any conclusion of the broader event or incident on that one (1) piece of evidence when we know there are more is always unreasonable, and poor science.

 

[Mendel]

It is definitively true that for the three Navy video excerpts--remember, that's all they are, parts of the whole video--the rest of the videos remain unseen by us, and there is whatever other additional data from multiple sources exist for those events. Ryan Graves has openly discussed this several times that just from his plane alone there are something like an additional at least 4-6 recorded sets of data from things like radar(s) and other recording systems, never mind the plain old HD cameras that these jets all over. Then you have the data gathered from various systems on the various many ships in the Navy carrier strike group, anything from land and space, whatever NORAD et al may have...

The issue is that the data may have existed, but was not archived, and now no longer exists.
I don't see that Graves is in a position to "definitely" know this, do you have a source?

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

That may or may not be true. First you'd have to believe the "hearsay" part, that is, someone said there was more. If the story passes that hurdle and there actually are portions redacted because the information is classified, that secrecy may be because of the object that's been sighted (I think that's your assumption) but it may also concern the ones who reported the sighting. For example, if it says "X reported it from Y vessel/aircraft at Z location", the values of X, Y, and Z may be classified information about military maneuvers, with nothing at all to do with what was actually seen.

But all you posit is conjecture and not science. A common sort of skeptic refrain is you can only consider what is known.

That is a compulsory binding all-way street for all, the skeptic and believer and everyone in-between alike.

Science shackles and frees us all without mercy, right?

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

The issue is that the data may have existed, but was not archived, and now no longer exists.
I don't see that Graves is in a position to "definitely" know this, do you have a source?

We have no source or evidence confirming there is no other data but also no source or evidence confirming there is.

Based on available data the one and only conclusion the public is allowed to really make about the Fravor event is "unknown", as of December 11, 2023.

 

[Dan Burt]

The way I look at it is this:

In the case of the Fravor event, we had a FLIR video recorded by the fighter squadron that went out AFTER Fravor's crew returned. That's a hard fact. We know that we only have a small segment of that video and there is more of it in duration not yet revealed. That's a hard fact because the video we've seen begins in media res and then hard cuts; more preceded what we saw and more followed.

But more critically, multiple people have said Fravor's crew was explicitly re-tasked to go look at something on radar-type detection. That's a fact as well, and hard, or else how do they know to go there specifically?

That confirms for us that at minimum two (2) data points were recorded for the Fravor event. It is not any sort of classified secret.

But we've only seen that one excerpt, and evaluate the Fravor event on just that one lone piece of evidence.

Again, it's fine to evaluate each individual unit or piece of evidence on its own merits, but any conclusion of the broader event or incident on that one (1) piece of evidence when we know there are more is always unreasonable, and poor science.

My understanding of how Metabunk works, is it only uses the evidence it is presented. I look at it like "Metabunk" has declared the evidence presented as debunked. I don't see "Metabunk" saying the evidence not presented is debunked. It just doesn't consider it evidence.

 

[Mendel]

We have no source or evidence confirming there is no other data but also no source or evidence confirming there is.

Not quite.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...patrick-holds-an-off-camera-media-roundtable/

MS. GOUGH: Let’s go to Pat Tucker, Defense One.

Q: Hey there. Thanks for doing this. So, during that July hearing, there's obviously the appearance of Mr. Grusch that earned a lot of headlines. But also David Fravor, former Navy pilot. There's this 2004 video that has now become very famous because of the New York Times reporting on it.

And I wonder, I know that you don't necessarily have a priority list in terms of which of these incidents you need to get to the bottom of, like, first. But do you have any more information, or have you been able to come to any hints or – or – or inclinations about the nature of that now very famous 2004 video, purporting to show UFO taken -- or UAP, from sensors aboard an F-18 Super Hornet?

DR. KIRKPATRICK: Okay, so cases, the way we investigate cases, we really prioritize more the operational ones from today than we do going backwards in time. And the reason for that is there is no supporting data to actually analyze. Right? So, that video, that's all there is. There is no other data to put behind it. So, understanding what that is off of that one video is unlikely to occur. Now, whereas today, if we have a lot of data, somebody sees something, there's going to be a lot more data associated with it that we can pull that apart. Radar data and optical data and IR data.

As far as that particular one is concerned, there are some outstanding questions that I've had in talking with some of those pilots that we're going back to the Navy to do some research on as far as what happened with any of that other data that may have been there at that time. And a lot of that is going to be historical research. And I think one of the important things to note about that is, up until we issued new guidance to the forces to retain data, the way data is handled on these platforms is they don't retain them at all, ever.

I mean, they retain them for 24 hours, usually. If there was an incident on the platform, like there was a malfunction, they would reuse that data to analyze what that is. But then when they go back out, they essentially overwrite the data storage. They don't necessarily pull that off and keep it anywhere unless there's a reason to. Back in 2004, there wasn't much of a reason to because that wasn't part of the guidance and authority necessary to go off and do that. Right?

Content from External Source

Right now, any data that existed back then is lost, according to Kirkpatrick.
So Graves's claim that this data exists is, at best, speculation: something might turn up on investigation, or it might not.
And if data can be recovered, it might show something unusual, or it might not.

 

[Ann K]

But all you posit is conjecture and not science. A common sort of skeptic refrain is you can only consider what is known.

That is exactly my point. If you complain about not getting all the information, I'm suggesting reasons why (1) you may not get that information, and (2) it may not describe anything about the sighted entity anyway. Both those are contingent on there actually being any info in the first place, since it may not have been collected or may have been scrubbed.

A piece of evidence can be debunked to a reasonable degree, but you can't actually say "Oh, that entire 'incident' is debunked" when you know there is factually more evidence to be considered.

But you DON'T know "there is factually more evidence". As a wise man once said, "you can only consider what's known".

 

[Mendel]

A piece of evidence can be debunked to a reasonable degree, but you can't actually say "Oh, that entire 'incident' is debunked" when you know there is factually more evidence to be considered.

We don't debunk incidents, we debunk evidence.

Note also that a UFO incident becomes a UFO incident via the known evidence.

You can't go, "I met a man on the street yesterday, he seemed normal, but I'm sure if we put a spy camera in his bedroom he'll turn out to be a lizard!" We'd point out that the "lizard incident" is based on you seeing a normal-looking man, so your claim that he's a lizard is bunk.
And then you want to go, "You guys can't say that until you've seen the spy camera footage", and "you can't actually say "Oh, that entire 'incident' is debunked" when you know there is factually more evidence to be considered." But from our view, your "knowledge" that this person is a lizard man comes from seeing the guy in the street, not from the spy camera footage that doesn't even exist. So all we do, and all we can do, is point out that the evidence you do have does not support your claim.

This then has further ramifications as to whether it's worth the effort to go through with the spy camera plan.

 

[Gary C]

That may or may not be true. First you'd have to believe the "hearsay" part, that is, someone said there was more. If the story passes that hurdle and there actually are portions redacted because the information is classified, that secrecy may be because of the object that's been sighted (I think that's your assumption) but it may also concern the ones who reported the sighting. For example, if it says "X reported it from Y vessel/aircraft at Z location", the values of X, Y, and Z may be classified information about military maneuvers, with nothing at all to do with what was actually seen.

Agreed and in addition the performance characteristics and limitations of the radars, FLIR, and other sensors may be classified as well. The military constantly updates and upgrades it's systems and their precise operating characteristics are always of great interest to foreign governments.

 

[JMartJr]

Based on available data the one and only conclusion the public is allowed to really make about the Fravor event is "unknown", as of December 11, 2023.

I'd agree with that, if we separate the Fravor Event from the "Flir1/Nimitz/Tick Tack/Et Al" video -- which is of a different, slightly later incident and does not seem particularly mysterious at this point. The Fravor Event remains unknown, and mysterious, BECAUSE there is no evidence beyond eyewitness recollections, which are fallible and mutable, which may or not be accurate -- to me, that is the Ne Plus Ultra of "Low Information Zone" destined to remain unknown forever, whether it was one or a combination of a missile, a balloon, a secret military test, shared hallucinations, aliens, or anything else.

There's no info there, just a story. With no info, they are mysterious. The bits where there IS some information seem pretty mundane. Make of that what you will.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

The Fravor Event remains unknown, and mysterious, BECAUSE there is no evidence beyond eyewitness recollections...

See, I gotta call out that language. Your sentence is not accurate. We know the public evidence and only that. There is no good faith reason to believe someone like Sean Kirkpatrick saying no other evidence exists. The Pentagon is not a good faith or appropriate source to dispute a whistleblower AGAINST the Pentagon based on all historical precedent of generations of bad acts and cover ups by the Pentagon in a multitude of situations and conflicts, later proven true.

You have to be a lunatic to trust any Pentagon denial on anything (not just UFO related).

I know seemingly half the people here use this kind of stance/language, but it's baffling and wrong, and implicit skeptic/debunker bias.

That's application of ego to fact, and ego is bad.

 

[Landru]

See, I gotta call out that language. Your sentence is not accurate. We know the public evidence and only that. There is no good faith reason to believe someone like Sean Kirkpatrick saying no other evidence exists. The Pentagon is not a good faith or appropriate source to dispute a whistleblower AGAINST the Pentagon based on all historical precedent of generations of bad acts and cover ups by the Pentagon in a multitude of situations and conflicts, later proven true.

You have to be a lunatic to trust any Pentagon denial on anything (not just UFO related).

I know seemingly half the people here use this kind of stance/language, but it's baffling and wrong, and implicit skeptic/debunker bias.

That's application of ego to fact, and ego is bad.

Evidence not evident is not evidence.

The goals of Metabunk are
To find and expose bunk
To prevent bunk from forming and spreading.
To develop and promote efficient methods of finding, exposing, and preventing bunk
To create re-usable debunkings (antibunk)
To help people escape the rabbit hole, either directly, or by giving tools to their friends
The specific form of bunk focused on at Metabunk is claims of evidence. i.e. individual points that are used to back up a broader theory. For example, the fact that high levels of aluminum are sometimes found in rainwater is used as evidence for the "chemtrails" theory.

 

[Mendel]

First of all, let me point out you're shifting goalposts. You originally claimed, "We have no source or evidence confirming there is no other data", and when I quoted one (Kirkpatrick), you shifted your point to "good faith sources" according to criteria that are not readily apparent (and that should be applied to Graves etc. as well).

But let's play on your terms.

The Pentagon is not a good faith or appropriate source to dispute a whistleblower AGAINST the Pentagon

What type of dispute would you accept?

Graves claims there is more data. What would it take for you to disbelieve that?

 

[NorCal Dave]

We know the public evidence and only that.

Correct. So, that's what we work with. Assuming that there is in fact a trove of other evidence kept hidden by the government doesn't really help. Even if it did exist, if we can't see it, we can't evaluate it or use it to evaluate the public evidence we do have.

Even if one is convinced there IS secret evidence, now what. It's secret. What seems to happen in these cases, is massive speculation about what that evidence is. Since that evidence is unknown to us, I'll speculate that "it's a recording of radar tracks and communications showing that what Favor saw was an experimental balloon/drove launched from the submarine in the area. As this is a still classified craft, the information about it still classified".

That's just me. Others may speculate that the secret evidence is much more "alien" or "otherworldly" in nature. In either case, we're both just as likely to be right or wrong because we are speculating about evidence we don't know and may not exists.

Thus, the following comment:

I know seemingly half the people here use this kind of stance/language, but it's baffling and wrong, and implicit skeptic/debunker bias.

Can be just as well worded as: "I know seemingly half the people in UFOlogy are convinced the government has vast troves of UFO evidence even though they can't point to anything besides unsubstantiated stories, anecdotes and claims. It's baffling and wrong, and implicit of a UFO believers bias."

There is no good faith reason to believe someone like Sean Kirkpatrick saying no other evidence exists.

But there is good faith reason to believe Elizondo or Grusch? Jay Stratton and James Lacatski with their claim of 7' bi-pedal wolves? How about ex-CIA pilot John Lear or ex-Naval Intell Bill Cooper? Bob Lazar? One group makes claims with no evidence, the other claims there is no evidence.

 

[JMartJr]

See, I gotta call out that language. Your sentence is not accurate. We know the public evidence and only that.

I'll agree that "there is no known evidence" or "there is no available evidence" would have been more complete. But as has been posted:

Evidence not evident is not evidence.

Not sure what difference the correction makes, really, though -- in the even more complete wording the same problem remains. We can only judge and evaluate the evidence we have (while being ready to re-evaluate if/when we ever get more evidence.) At the moment, we have no additional evidence supporting Fravor et al's reports of their memories of what happened during that flight. So unless that changes, it will remain impossible to categorize what happened, or to what extent it resembled what they SAY happened. So at the moment it's just an anecdote some people reported.

And we are still left with the situation regarding other incidents where we DO have data that can be analyzed to see if the data supports the claims made. And they are pretty uniformly capable of explanation. Even if they are enough out in the LIZ that they cannot be TOTALLY explained/identified with certainty, we* can show that the Gimbal video does not show a rotating object, or the Go Fast is not going fast, or that claims that Nimitz/Flir1 shows impossible acceleration are wrong, or that mysterious green pyramids flying over a naval vessel are stars, etc...

*Well, not ME, but the site-wide "we" that includes all the folks who can do math and write software and stuff! I can occasionally say "that's a kite," or the less helpful "that's not a kite."

 

[Duke]

The Fravor Event remains unknown, and mysterious, BECAUSE there is no evidence beyond eyewitness recollections, which are fallible and mutable, which may or not be accurate -- to me, that is the Ne Plus Ultra of "Low Information Zone" destined to remain unknown forever, whether it was one or a combination of a missile, a balloon, a secret military test, shared hallucinations, aliens, or anything else.

Not sure that's an accurate syatement. Fravor and his wingman were vectored to the object by a radar operator aboard the cruiser USS Princeton. There was also an E-2, a carrier based AEW aircraft, that picked up the object on its radar. If you believe the claims of the sailors cited below, radar data from both the Princeton and the E-2 were collected for analysis. Whether the radar data provided information that was conclusive, or even usable, I don't know, but it has to be considered evidence.

On November 14, as Hughes performed this routine task, he was unaware that the E-2 hard drives he was securing away in a classified safe had just come from the Hawkeye that Day first tried to use to intercept the mysterious UFOs.

Shortly after securing the data bricks, Hughes said he was visited by his commanding officer and two unknown individuals. “They were not on the ship earlier, and I didn’t see them come on. I’m not sure how they got there,” said Hughes of the two men.

According to Hughes, his commanding officer told him to turn over the recently secured harddrives. “We put them in the bags, he took them, then he and the two anonymous officers left,” Hughes said.

Inside the Princeton, Voorhis had a similar encounter. “These two guys show up on a helicopter, which wasn’t uncommon, but shortly after they arrived, maybe 20 minutes, I was told by my chain of command to turn over all the data recordings for the AEGIS system,” says Voorhis.

Content from External Source

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/

 

[Mendel]

If you believe the claims of the sailors cited below, radar data from both the Princeton and the E-2 were collected for analysis.

Yes. But is it accessible now?
I expect that is what Kirkpatrick was talking about when he said, "we're going back to the Navy to do some research on as far as what happened with any of that other data that may have been there at that time".

 

[Landru]

This is drifting off topic again (with my help, apologies).

 

[tobigtofool]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

 

[Landru]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

Not here.