From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:43:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:20:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies - Warren


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:06:21 EST
>Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:16:25 -0800
>>Subject: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

>>Having always been annoyed by the apparent hypocrisy that
>>Astronomers exibit (specically SETI folk)in regards to
>>evidence/data towards Ufology, I posed the following question to
>>Frank Drake:

><snip>

>>However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and
>>UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-
>>observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat
>>observations or experiments, best done by more than one
>>observer.

Brad,

Thanks for 'chiming-in' - your opinion is very much respected:

>Drake says best done by more than one observer, but not a rigid
>rule, so it does not always have to be the case.

>Drake should have been reminded of the various phenomena in
>astronomy and astrophysics which are validly accepted one-shot
>brief observations, not repeatable, and not repeated except in the
>sense that something similar happens again at unpredictable
>random times  -  such as meteor fireballs, gamma-ray bursts,
>and supernovas. These are like UFO incidents in that respect.

I made the point when I said, "it is a "transient uncontrollable
unpredictable event" in reference to UFO sightings, opposed to
observing a "fixed celestial body."

>>FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation
>>of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and
>>Ufology.

><snip>

>>1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces"
>>in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic
>>the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could
>>another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?

>>2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift,"
>>or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star
>>wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?

>>3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-
>>solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by
>>leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e.,( "Barnard's
>>Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of
>>51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could
>>surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and
>>affect the current conclusions?

>>IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is
>>"unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some"
>>doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar
>>planets based on the current methodologies used for their
>>reality; that said, what we're left with is strong
>>"circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-
>>solar planets."

><snip>

>After Drake read this he no doubt came away confirmed in his
>mind once again that UFO activists are typical extremist
>fanatics who can't meet a scientific argument headon with solid
>scientific facts so they nitpick around the edges arguing for
>the most extreme positions, with special pleading "it's remotely
>possible... it could be... maybe" etc. Either you have solid
>scientific evidence of UFO's or you don't. He must conclude once
>again after 40 years of similar encounters with UFO enthusiasts
>that they don't have any solid scientific evidence, and
>furthermore they are too naive even to realize that they don't.

First let me say that I don't think my correspondence with Drake
confirmed anything for him - his mind is/was made-up, and he
doesn't want to be bothered with the evidence. Very much like
Carl Sagan.

I posed the questions about "extra-solar planets," in
particular, because I feel that is what we get from them -
 nitpickism, if you will. When the subject of "evidence" was
brought up in the debate between Stan and Seth, Seth nitpicked
what Stan brought to the table, he clearly didn't want to hear
what Stan had to say, and there was nothing "scientific" about
his criticism.

Brad, I think you misunderstood the reasoning behind my
questions in regard, in this instance to "extra-solar planets,"
or better, the "evidence" for ESPs - the idea was to show the
hypocrisy that Astronomers exhibit in relationship to how they
perceive evidence to support their ideologies, and how those
rules change apparently, for Ufology.

Drake himself said: "...some things are still speculations, of
course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such
a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our
growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is
formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets
will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if
this did not occur."

He says, "it's fair to 'speculate' they exist from our growing
modeling"; yet he certainly isn't that lax with regard to
anything Ufological.

>What they want to hear about is cases where top scientists have
>made the observations, multiple observers, triangulations,
>measurements, calibrations, instruments, quantitative data,
>error bars, etc.

As I pointed out to Drake, although there are obvious advantages
in "scientific study" for a "fixed celestial body" this doesn't
negate the fact that there is "ample scientific evidence" to
study in regards to Ufology.

>Instead of the tired old repetitions of Arnold, Roswell,
>Rendlesham, and other controversial cases, let's hear more about
>cases like the world's leading meteoritics astronomer who with 3
>other witnesses sighted a 200-foot white ellipsoidal object
>maneuvering at high speed in and out of clouds at known distance
>in broad daylight, with all the numerical data, date, time,
>azimuths, elevations, angular size, speeds, distance, error
>bars, etc. Or the Defense Dept.'s top R&D official who sighted a
>600-foot metallic sphere hovering in braod daylight which shot
>up out of sight, and was witnessed in part by an airline pilot
>whose plane the official saw in the sky, and who provided a
>triangulation that confirmed the DOD official's distance
>estimate. Or the supersecret ELINT (Electronic Intelligence)
>aircraft on a training mission that tracked a radar-emitting UFO
>pacing and overtaking the jet at the same time that a known
>ground radar was also detected on the ELINT equipment, thus
>providing the world's first real-time "calibration" of a UFO
>instrumented measurement which proved the accuracy and working
>condition of the equipment, and which detection was further
>confirmed by the crew's visual sighting and ground and airborne
>radar tracking of the UFO. Or the Army and AF UFO tracking
>networks that obtained multiple triangulations of UFO's, etc.

I never mentioned specific cases to Drake, only "evidence in
general," and the fact that there is more then enough for
"scientific investigation."

>It is typical of the UFO community to not have its act together,
>unable to cite the best scientific evidence for UFO's because it
>does not have the foggiest notion of what "best scientific
>evidence" looks like or what it means. Typically a UFO
>enthusiast thinks the "best" cases are simply his favorite pet
>cases, selected out of emotional sentimental attachment, without
>any rational scientific basis. A rational scientific set of
>criteria will _prefer_ scientists and engineers as witnesses
>(_prefer_ not exclude all others), sightings lasting 1 minute or
>more, multiple witnesses, angular size Full Moon or greater, and
>of course have all the damned date-time-location-azimuth-
> elevation data, too. If any of the criteria are to be relaxed
>in a given case then the rest of the case had better make up for
>it in some other way. Scientists who are genuine are not
>unreasonable and just want to have a reasonable case presented,
>and not something sloppy, ill-conceived, or scatter-brained.

Whether or not the "UFO community has it's act together" is
irrelevant. The question posed to Drake was why he and other
Astronomers like himself, seem to have "different rules" in
regards to "their" methodologies used concerning evidence
presented for their theorems about Astronomical related items,
and that of Ufology.

>Typically the UFO proponent in desperation will cite some big
>500-page or 1,000-page tome and say "All the UFO proof is in
>there! Go read it!" Whereas in fact the huge tomes are hopeless
>hodge-podges of bad cases, good cases, mediocre cases, erroneous
>cases, all intermixed according to some order (maybe
>alphabetical or chronological) that has nothing whatsoever to do
>with selecting best cases according to any scientific or quasi-
>scientific criteria ("criteria" is plural by the way, and
>"criterion" is singular). Indeed those few books were not really
>written for the purpose of presenting the best scientific case
>for the UFO to scientists. They were written for other worthy
>purposes, but let's not kid ourselves, though, they were not
>specially designed to state the case to scientists.

>Busy scientists want to read something in a familiar format with
>data presented in a familiar knowledgeable fashion, that does
>not run to hundreds and hundreds or thousands of pages. They're
>not going to read through huge books, multiple books, looking
>for something they don't even think is there, with not a clue as
>to what to look for. However if they saw a scientifically
>smartly presented case they would know it. If they were
>presented a list of scientific criteria for best UFO cases they
>could assent to them and grasp the strength of the case made
>based on those criteria.

>Another typical intellectually lazy tactic of the UFO community
>is to point to the 100,000 pages of AF UFO files and say "It's
>all in there! Go see for yourself. There's plenty of evidence of
>UFO's!" Drake is not going to set aside the better part of a
>year of his life going through 100,000 pages on a clunky
>microfilm reader! Let me tell you I've spent weeks doing that
>and after a while you literally get dizzy from the moving images
>across the screen. It's not good for your health.

>But the UFO community has had these microfilms for almost 30
>years now since their public release by the National Archives on
>July 12, 1976, and yet there has been almost nothing done to
>process and sift through these cases for what McDonald estimated
>could be about 3,000 to 4,000 Unknowns. With supposedly
>hundreds, maybe thousands, of UFO investigators and researchers
>there should have been plenty of manpower and money to
>systematically go through the 94 microfilm reels and pick out
>the best UFO cases for further study. But this was never done.

>For my part I have been going through what AF files I can afford
>to go through with limited time and resources. I have started a
>Comprehensive Catalog of 1,500 Blue Book Unknowns which is
>available on various websites such as CUFOS, NICAP, NIDS, and at
>least one ripoff website, but note that the latest revision is
>Version 1.7 and anything earlier is out of date. I am working
>with the Blue Book Archive Project started by Will Wise, to try
>to get the entire BB files, both sanitized and unsanitized
>versions, online on the Web for easy access by researchers
>worldwide.

>Ultimately this effort will enable a powerful scientific case
>for the UFO to be presented to the scientific community in a
>well- packaged readable format, where they don't have to be
>overloaded with too much data mixed in with so much noise, and
>won't be told to go read through 100,000 pages themselves.

Your work and thoughts are (personally speaking) very much
appreciated and respected Brad; however, I think your response
has "morphed into something else beyond the topic posed to
Drake.

It shouldn't have to be up to Ufologists to present anything to
any scientific body - the phenomena itself dictates that! The
very essence of science mandates investigation! One of two
things is going on with Drake et al., either he/they are not
being forthright in the public arena, or he/they are negligent
in their responsibilities as scientists when it comes to
Ufology; specifically those involved with SETI, as they have the
mindset that there is advanced ETI, they just apprently believe
that ETs are stuck at our level of technology when it comes to
getting from point A to point B.

>>FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the
>>criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and
>>UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:

>>1). Well-observed, calibrated data.

>>2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

>>3). Multiple observers.

>See above where I've more than answered the above points.

>>First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over
>>the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be
>>attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known
>>aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed
>>here are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a
>>conventional manner.

><snip>

>Well first off that's just not true. The "bulk of UFO reports
>over the last 60 years after thorough investigation" have _not_
>been attributed to conventional explanations, IFO's, etc. The
>bulk of reports have _not_ been thoroughly investigated or
>cursorily investigated. Most "UFO" cases are neither properly
>screened UFO cases under Hynek's screening protocol, nor
>definitely established IFO's, nor thoroughly investigated. They
>are in a limbo state.

For sake of argument, I was trying to stay on course about UFOs
that were seemingly 'structured craft' as opposed to just a
light in the sky, etc.

>In the early days of Blue Book, the IFO's and hoaxes were
>running at about only 11%. Let me repeat, there were only 11%
>IFO's and hoaxes. There were 27% Unknowns. Then they introduced
>a highly misleading statistical trick whereby all the Possible
>and Probable categories of IFO's were lumped all together as if
>they were definitely Known IFO's, and this inflated the IFO's by
>about another 40% quite dishonestly. And then they started
>shoving the 23% Insufficient Data cases into those Possible
>IFO's, and many of the Unknowns as well. Eventually they would
>say there were only a few percent Unknown or Unidentified, all
>based on dishonest statistical tricks. And we in the UFO
>community still fall prey to the same AF trick year after year
>repeating the same falsehood. We never learn.

In the end, Drake's answer to my main question was that the
rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and Ufology are
actually the same. He further stated, "In both cases we look for
well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat
observations or experiments, best done by more than one
observer." He concluded by stating, "when it comes to UFO
reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No
observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively
recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met."

I took issue with that and addressed his declaration, point by
point. I didn't use specific case studies although I was
prepared to, and had the dialogue continued it seems to me that
it would have been only natural for him to ask for examples.
That of course hasn't happened - yet.

In my view, a good portion of Astronomers, in particular SETI
folk, are biased with regard to how they measure evidence
between Astronomy and Ufology; what is good for the goose should
be good for the gander. A good many of their claims are based on
circumstantial evidence; in fact, Drake goes beyond theory
and  says there is "no doubt" even though there is argument
among his own peers, and many major Astronomical discoveries,
and/or theories in support thereof are relatively new, as well
as the technologies to discover them.

The point is that undoubtedly, as what has happened in the past,
i.e., mindsets changing with new discoveries and improved
technologies, this will again re-occur, and the theories will
change. As Sagan said, "In physics, as in much of all science,
there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations,
getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to
revise what has been, in the past, thought to be the absolute
gospel truth."

When entering the scientific arena all bias should be left at
the door, and that doesn't seem to be the case with Drake and
many of his colleagues.


Respectfully,

Frank Warrren