UFO News Discussion: Peter Davenport

[selfAdjoint]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
...Peter Davenport [director of the National UFO Reporting Center] holds degrees in Russian and biology from Stanford University in California and master’s degrees in finance, international business and in the genetics and biochemistry of fish. Originally from St. Louis, he highlighted details of his life Saturday and multiple UFO sightings in the southwestern United States and detailed the popular Arizona lights sightings of 1997. [continued]



http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?..._id=25271&rfi=6

Expert in finance and fish. And multilingual. Does that make him an expert on observations of optical efffects in the open air?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does he claim to be an expert in optics?

 

[Chronos]

Expert in finance and fish. And multilingual. Does that make him an expert on observations of optical efffects in the open air?

Hmm, the fish part makes sense, given the smell.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What exactly do you know about him? He has financed the reporting center from his own pockets for two decades. I certainly don't see him making any money. Do you object to collecting data?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe I gave the wrong impression with my choice of quotes. I was only pointing out that Mr. Davenport is no slouch. He may have some opinions that you don't like but he has always struck me as a class act. My take is that he is a really smart guy who saw a UFO many years ago and was hooked. Since then he has worked very hard to help log and profile critical events - that is to say, to explain the event when possible or log the data. He explains or debunks many sightings.

The National UFO Reporting Center
http://www.nuforc.org/

The National UFO Reporting Center, located in Seattle, WA, was founded in 1974 by noted UFO investigator Robert J. Gribble. The Center's primary function over the past two decades has been to receive, record, and to the greatest degree possible, corroborate and document reports from individuals who have been witness to unusual, possibly UFO-related events.
The principal means used by the Center to receive sighting reports is its telephone hotline , which has operated almost continuously since 1974. During that period, the hotline has processed many tens of thousands of calls, and the Center has distributed its information to thousands of individuals.

Several facets of the Center's operation have contributed to its international reputation. The fact that its hotline is staffed up to 24 hours a day makes it available at almost any time a sighting may occur (Please see below for preferred hours of operation.). In addition, the Center's independence from all other UFO related organizations, combined with its long standing policy of guaranteed anonymity to callers, has served to make it perhaps the most popular and widely accepted national UFO reporting facility anywhere.

The hotline is well known by law enforcement agencies, FAA ARTCC's and flight service stations, National Weather Services offices, military facilities, NASA, and many 911 emergency dispatch centers all across the United States and in many parts of Canada. Those entities routinely direct the calls they receive regarding possible UFO sightings to the Center.

One of the Center's policies, which distinguishes its operations from most other UFO organizations, is that it makes available to the public all of its data in summary form. Detailed information is made available to experienced UFO investigators. Monthly sighting report summaries are posted on this web site.

The National UFO Reporting Center is a non-profit Washington State corporation, and it is applying for federal 501 C (3) non-profit status. It supports itself through subscription revenues from its monthly newsletter, from sales of its video tapes, from sales of general information packets, and through honoraria for public presentations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Staff
Director : Peter Davenport - director@ufocenter.com
Webmaster : David Stepien - webmaster@ufocenter.com

 

[Chronos]

I am not suggesting Mr. Davenport has anything other than honorable intentions. What he does not have is compelling evidence. Degrees and reputation do not constitute proof of anything. I have no objection to anyone collecting facts. I only object to their acceptance as fact based on an article of faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Check out the center. This is not about proof; it is about information. Next, you have no idea what evidence he may or may not have. You probably have a lot of reading to do if you really want to learn about all of this.

 

[Chronos]

I did. I agree this is not about proof, given none is offered. I agree that information is not the same thing as evidence. Next, I try not to confuse the two. A catalog of anomalous observations is not convincing. As I recall, Halton Arp already tried that approach.

 

[selfAdjoint]

That somebody saw something I can accept as a fact. It's the interpretation of that fact that I find controversial. But if we have two piles of facts, and no consensus on interpreting either one, then how can we say the bigger pile is more valuable than the smaller one? Three sightings that everybody, including the science community, would accept are better than ten thousand sightings of the usual kind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How exactly is the most compelling evidence to be found if no one is looking?

It is the job of science to answer this question of UFOs. Most scientists seem to required nothing less than proof on a silver platter - no effort required.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Should we close all discussions of LQG or String theory until they are proven true?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Straw man, Ivan, straw man.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have proof of neither theory; not to mention that one is almost certainly wrong.

The question was: How exactly is the most compelling evidence to be found if no one is looking?

edited: copying error

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact that a simple news thread evokes such reactions is the reason that UFO research remains a taboo subject. One would almost think that the news is a threat to science.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Ivan, I didn't object to your practice of amassing facts. Look back at my post. I just said that facts by themselves don't amount to evidence in the absence of an interpretaion that holds water. And I will say that to radical empiricists in any field of study. String physics notoriously has no observed facts to back it up, so it is exactly the reverse of the shortcoming I see with radical empiricism. LQG is still in more basic development; the Rovelli generalized diffeomorphisms idea hasn't yet blown through the community and been properly vetted. See Marcus's posts on "chunkymorphisms".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I see it there are three primary modes of research re UFOs: collecting and deseminating raw data and information, interpreting that data, and finally making a conclusion about the event. The collection of data may take hours, days or even years. Interpretation is often a very lengthy process due to obvious concerns about hoaxes. Unlike a lab experiment, we can't just collect the information and draw conclusions. We may spend decades working just to determine the credibility of the information or data. When it comes to UFO research, one needs the patience of a saint. Next, obviously, the events cannot be reproduced. Finally, researchers must work under these most difficult conditions, often in the field, all while fending off personal attacks from spiteful and hateful debunkers. This is not exactly a friendly research environment.

Through interpretation of the data, if the information appears to be credible we can begin to identify the key details: Were discernable crafts, balls of light, or was some other kind of "manifestation" observed. Was exotic or fantastic behavior or capabilities displayed by the UFO? Was there "interaction" with witnesses; military or civilian aircraft? Were physical effects observed or measured - such as weapons or other [electrical] systems failures? Was radiation detected? Were there physiological effects on people, plants, or animals? Did the UFO apparently act in a random, or in a controlled manner? Is there photographic, video or RADAR data to coordinate with eyewitness accounts. What were the atmospheric condition during the event - was the atmosphere conducive to mirages or RADAR ducting? If so, what mirages might have been detected? After these and often hundreds of other supporting details get sorted out, we might begin to identify patterns or specific information consistent with other sightings.

From this I think a good bit of evidence surfaces that is consistent with the existence of an unknown, highly energetic, electromagetic [plasma] phenomenon. Maybe this will eventually come under the heading of earthlights [whatever those are] or it may be completely unrelated, but I believe that UFO research has pretty well established this as fact. This information can be coupled with theoretical models - as is done with ball lighting - to try to paint a reasonable picture of what happens; then to test any suggested physcial model against the best eyewitness information. Eventually someone may produce "real" UFOs in the lab.

A scientist in Japan has allegedly created "artificial ball lightning". But his little microwave balls are only a shadow the real deal. In fact, if it weren't for the ball lightning data and information collected over the years which was previously lumped in as more UFO-like nonsense in many scientific circles, btw, he would have almost nothing by which to gauge the success of his model. So here we see a direct benefit of amassing raw data exactly as is done with UFOs. Again, ball lightning was once considered a subject closely related to UFOs - as nonsense. So much for the track record on objectivity but we do see the benefit of the data.

It may be that UFO research will lead to other conclusions. On the other hand, unless ET lands at the White House lawn the subject may always remain enigmatic. How can we know? If it is possible to kill ET I think we should make every effort to do so. This will only happen if and when a reasonable explanation is found that explains the experiences that people know they have had. Right now, science pretty much says; you're lying or you're nuts. You can see where this has gotten us - how the "UFO thing" has gone away after 50 years.

Minor edits and spelling.

 

[Chronos]

All good points, Ivan. The big problem with UFO evidence is it's too subjective. Qualitatively, it is not much better than that for ghosts, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, or esp. No doubt some of it is due to physics not yet understood [e.g., ball lightning]. But lacking objective evidence [such as a bigfoot corpse], scientists will be reluctant to accept witness accounts as anything other than anomalous observations. I am very willing to accept that people observe things that appear to be inexplicable, I am very unwilling to accept they are evidence of extraterrestrial visitors.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread looks a lot like some of mine...

How exactly is the most compelling evidence to be found if no one is looking?

Its a catch-22 Ivan, and I'm sorry, but you're on the short end of it: if the evidence is compelling, it'll stand up and be counted on its own. If you have to look for it, interpret it, etc., that means it is not compelling on its own.

It is the job of science to answer this question of UFOs.

Is it? Who gets to define that? Most scientists seem pretty uninterested...

Most scientists seem to required nothing less than proof on a silver platter - no effort required.

So what's the problem with that? Like UFOs, astronomy is virtually all observation: when an astronomer finds a supernova, it pretty much smacks him across the face and says HEY - I'm a supernova! No effort required.

You seem to be implying that you can somehow put more effort into investigating certain claims and they'll somehow become more compelling. This isn't a chemistry experiment - you can't recalibrate your scale and weigh your reactants again for a better reading. Every observation gets one shot and it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. The best UFO evidence (and astronomy evidence) is photographic. Nothing says one shot like an exposed piece of film.

We have proof of neither theory; not to mention that one is almost certainly wrong.

But at least they are theories. At least they are based on something. Consider black holes. That they might exist was derived from GR. No evidence but a pretty strong theoretical basis. Then once astronomers knew what to look for (and had the equipment capable of finding it), finding it was relatively simple and the evidence unequivocal.

There is no theoretical basis for ETUFOs. That said, if we ever do find ET, it'll be unequivocal when we do.

The fact that a simple news thread evokes such reactions is the reason that UFO research remains a taboo subject. One would almost think that the news is a threat to science.

Careful, Ivan - you do know what that makes you sound like, don't you?

But I'll play along - if UFO research is seen by skeptics as a threat to science from crackpots, what is the other side of the coin? Skeptics defending science from crackpottery. Sign me up!

Finally, researchers must work under these most difficult conditions, often in the field, all while fending off personal attacks from spiteful and hateful debunkers.

Spiteful and hateful? Pot, kettle? If you want this to be a scientific discussion, drop the rhetoric.

Several things about that post though: first I think your modes of research are all part of the same path. Not important though: what is important is separating the UFO research from the "ETUFO" research. If people really are looking for ball lightning or a similar natural phenomena, that's fine - its scientific, and I doubt anyone (and yes, that includes me) has an objection to that.

But a quick scroll through your UFO news thread doesn't show a lot that are clearly natural (but still unknown) phenomena. You also actively argue against natural explanations. That thread seems a lot more geared toward ET than ball-lightning. And that fits with my perception of the subject(and, perhaps the scientific community's - it could explain why it is ignored).

Chronos - good post.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All good points, Ivan. The big problem with UFO evidence is it's too subjective. Qualitatively, it is not much better than that for ghosts, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, or esp. No doubt some of it is due to physics not yet understood [e.g., ball lightning]. But lacking objective evidence [such as a bigfoot corpse], scientists will be reluctant to accept witness accounts as anything other than anomalous observations. I am very willing to accept that people observe things that appear to be inexplicable, I am very unwilling to accept they are evidence of extraterrestrial visitors.

I specifically did not claim evidence of ET. On the other hand, I am not aware of military jets chasing ghosts or bigfoot. It also sounds like your mind is made up before you have really learned about the subject. Have you at least read the Iran '76 report for starters?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread looks a lot like some of mine... Its a catch-22 Ivan, and I'm sorry, but you're on the short end of it: if the evidence is compelling, it'll stand up and be counted on its own.

Russ you tire me. Are you telling me that you don't believe the US military. Did a jet chase an object over Tehran in 76 or not. If one did, UFOs exist.

Here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41378&page=2&pp=15
You said

You vastly overstate the quality of the evidence. We're not talking 75% or even 50% certainty that the best sightings were ET. The Iranian Air Force thing: very interesting, perhaps the best I've ever seen. I'd give it maybe a 2% chance that it was ET …

US intelligence says it happened.
http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00017.pdf

I am not claiming this as good evidence of ET. By default, US intelligence is claiming this as good evidence of UFOs. Your fight is with them.

Next question.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would have serious reservations about the logic used that assigns a 2% chance that ET was flying his spaceship around Iran, but at the same time only assigns a fair chance that the phenomenon ever happened in the first place! Is this your logic? I would require much greater certainty about the credibility of the event before I start throwing around ET theories.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is another interesting official report about a UFO - I didn't say ET so no ad hominem arguments please.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDING PRESIDENT

Welcome to the Society for Scientific Exploration.

Our Society was founded in 1982 by a committee of fourteen scientists and scholars who had identified the need for a new type of scientific organization, one that would foster the study of all questions that are amenable to scientific investigation without restriction. Despite the enormous advances in science in the last century, there are important areas that remain almost unexplored. Some are of great public interest and touch deep philosophical questions. Is the mind a machine or an entity that is in some sense independent of the body? Is there credible evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets near other stars in our galaxy, or that our solar system has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings? Some areas have technological potentials that could be of great benefit to mankind: Do some human beings have the capability of locating water and other life-giving resources? Are there sources of energy available to mankind other than sunlight, fossil fuels, and nuclear energy?

The Society, which now has eight hundred Members and Associates from more than forty-five countries worldwide, facilitates the investigation of these and other momentous questions providing a forum for the presentation and criticism of relevant research. It has held annual meetings since 1982 and biennial European meetings since 1992, and published a quarterly peer-reviewed journal since 1987. I invite you to become a partner in this great venture by becoming an Associate, Member, or supporter of our Society or a subscriber to the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

Peter Sturrock, Stanford University

-- Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Director of the Skylab Workshop on Solar Flares in 1977

http://www.scientificexploration.org

 

[russ_watters]

Russ you tire me. Are you telling me that you don't believe the US military. Did a jet chase an object over Tehran in 76 or not. If one did, UFOs exist.

Here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41378&page=2&pp=15

Again, you appear to be mixing the terms - let's be clear: when you say "UFO" here, you mean "ETUFO," right? Ie, alien controlled spacecraft ? The incident in question is one where ET is suggested as an explanation, so if you really do mean "UFO" and not "ETUFO" you're being misleading. But regarding the incident in question:

First, your characterization is a little misleading, isn't it? No US military personnel actually witnessed the event in question, but rather reported on what Iranian personnel witnessed.

Second, assuming the report is reasonably accurate, that does not automatically mean it was ET. Evidence that it wasn't natural and evidence that it wasn't man-made is negative evidence. To say conclusively that it was ET requires positive evidence that it was ET.

US intelligence says it happened.

Again, you're mischaracterizing the evidence. That link is the US report on an Iranian report. Sure, it says SOMETHING happened. What does not appear in there is the words "alien spacecraft ". Those words are implied by your mischaracterization.

I am not claiming this as good evidence of ET. By default, US intelligence is claiming this as good evidence of UFOs. Your fight is with them.

Huh? This makes no sense whatsoever. I have no beef with the US military over this report. But by saying UFO but not necessarily ET, you're sending up a smokescreen again - you know the division and the importance of the division (to me).

I've probably said this a dozen times now, Ivan (you're starting to tire me): what concerns me here is ET. If you're not addressing that, you're throwing up straw-men (the above). If you are, you're mischaracterizing the case for ET.

I would have serious reservations about the logic used that assigns a 2% chance that ET was flying his spaceship around Iran, but at the same time only assigns a fair chance that the phenomenon ever happened in the first place! Is this your logic?

No, that isn't my logic (the first part is more or less correct, the second part isn't). Where did you get that idea? I'm sure something happened. What, precisely, we don't know. That's why the term "UFO" is such a useless term when taken literally. Its axiomatic that if we know something happened but we don't know what, that it was a "flying" object of unknown origin - a UFO. Its so obvious, its pointless to even say it - unless something else is implied by the term, ie ET.

Here is another interesting official report about a UFO - I didn't say ET so no ad hominem arguments please.

ad hominem? don't you mean strawman? Now a baker's dozen: I'm concerned with ETUFOs, not just UFOs. If you're not responding to that issue, you're setting up strawmen.

"Dr. Peter A. Sturrock:"

Is there credible evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets near other stars in our galaxy, or that our solar system has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings?

Sounds like he's largely concerned with ET. Are you, or is this another smokescreen? If you're not concerned with ET, why post this? Why post the Iranian UFO story (its one that suggests ET)? What are you trying to pull here? Are you just arguing two sides for fun or what? I'm really at a loss here to figure out where you are coming from, Ivan - at face value, the things you are saying are contradictory and inconsistent.

Before you jump on me, Ivan, it isn't just me - the others in this thread have positions virtually identical to mine (judging by their posts). I honestly don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not, but you're misinterpreting our points:

When you stick to just plain "UFO"s, it doesn't seem anyone disagrees with you on the basic points (I don't either). Where we take issue is with the ET connection.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, you appear to be mixing the terms - let's be clear: when you say "UFO" here, you mean "ETUFO," right? Ie, alien controlled spacecraft ? The incident in question is one where ET is suggested as an explanation, so if you really do mean "UFO" and not "ETUFO" you're being misleading. But regarding the incident in question:

No Russ. In fact, if you had ever actuaully read anything that I've posted about this in the last 18 months, such as in many of our discussions, you would know this.

First, your characterization is a little misleading, isn't it? No US military personnel actually witnessed the event in question, but rather reported on what Iranian personnel witnessed

No. I stated the facts exactly. Also, they were allies back then and flying F4s. US intelligence was on the scene and declared the event as credible.

You wanted compelling evidence for UFOs. According the the US government, you have it. Keep in mind that this is a copy of the report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It is an ad hominem argument to insist on ET discussions where I start UFO discussions. This is designed to discredit me and the good evidence for UFOs. It is sneaky and dishonest.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know how to explain events like Iran '76 or the thousands of other equally baffling events. If it turns out to be ET then there is nothing that I can do about that. I don't think that ET is the only way to explain such encounters - there may be perfectly reasonable explanations - but we will never find them by denying the evidence because it makes us uncomfortable. This in fact is why UFOs are taboo; one can't read a report like this without thinking it might be ET. This is why the skeptics fear UFOs and the debunkers have something to hide. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10376

To me it is very telling that so many try to debunk, but so few try to explain. Instead of denying the undeniable, how about some discussion about how such a natural phenomenon might exist. To my knowledge, I'm the only person here who has tried to do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think there may be a significant clue in this frequently reported fact: Certain classes of UFOs, such as the one described in the Iran encounter, appear to react to RADAR. What I have noticed is that the RADAR may be causing the UFOs to retreat; not because ET is hitting his warp drive, rather I suspect that the momentum of the RADAR's photons is somehow imparted to the UFO. It almost seems that the RADAR pushes the phenomenon away which is why air force jets in hot pursuit - with RADAR scanning - end up chasing these things all over the skies. I suspect that this is also why UFOs often retreat from ground based RADAR once painted.

Since they do sometimes show up on RADAR, clearly, photons do reflect from some UFOs. What seems significant is that this may be enough momentum exchange to accelerate the phenomenon away. This seems to give us a means of estimating the mass of the UFO.

You can't know this without reading thousands of reports like I have; at least not until someone does and then pulls this information together.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a testable hypothesis regarding UFOs.

If you want to catch a UFO, turn off your RADAR.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When in pursuit, and when the second object came out of the first “right at the F4”, consider that the F4 is in the debris trail [so to speak] of the main object. In other words, did the second object come right at the F4, or was the F4 heading straight for the second object? When the jet took evasive maneuvers and went into a dive, was the second object chasing the jet or simply falling? Did the two objects really rejoin, or did one simply go poof or disappear somehow? Did the weapons fail exactly when he went to fire, or about when he went to fire? Could the second object coming out of the first represent an energetic event that caused the weapons failure? Zooby, I think you’ll like this one: Could the high EM affect the pilot mentally; perhaps in judgment or perspective? Also, and later this will become significant to my position, if natural, could a phenomenon like this cause hallucinations that account for many accompanying ET experiences? I will try to make this argument as we go. My suggestion that this is natural is not comfortable, but as you may later agree, it’s the only escape from ET that I can see.

EDIT: Could ball lighting or something similar be much more interesting that we ever realized?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10376&page=5&pp=15

 

[Chronos]

A fierce exhange. Very exhilorating. There are logical reasons for any government to be conservative in releasing this kind of information. It is inflammatory and disruptive to social and economic behavior. The most utilitarian purpose of science is to give political decisions a factual basis to assess the risk-benefit. How is this relevant to UFO reports? To side with an extraterriastial explanation, you maximize the inflammatory potential and go 'to court' with evidence that [to date] is little more than hearsay. To side with the skeptical explanation, you minimize the inflammatory potential and go to court with solid, objective evidence. Skeptics may not win every race, but, they do finish more of them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact that the Iran documents were released - and not blacked out from top to bottom as are many documents - shows that this did not relate to any suspected classified technology programs.

Edit: It also suggests to me that the government isn't trying to hide anything about UFOs - it is merely a problem of scale. Vast amounts of information needs to be reviewed before it can be declassified. IIRC, over a billion cold-war documents are lying around with CLASSIFIED stamped on them. They are not necessarily sensitive, but they still must be reviewed before release. This may explain why this information only trickles out slowly. Also, in the case of this and most documents like it, someone had to know what to ask for in order to request a FOIA release. One must have direct knowledge of the event in the first place.

US Intelligence rated the informatioin as highly credible. It was forwarded to the White House and the Joint Chiefs as an item of interest. Conclusion: It was a credible event of interest. To play back-seat driver now and deny the likely credibitlity of the conclusions reached by intelligence in not skepticism, it is denial. Also, this event is not unique.

The concern about winning is exactly why so many skeptics and debunkers are not credible.

 

[Chronos]

Misinformation is a plausible explanation. The US and Iran have not been on friendly terms for quite a while.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We were then. Also, it was seen all over Tehran. Don't you think someone might have actually checked?

 

[Chronos]

We were then. Also, it was seen all over Tehran. Don't you think someone might have actually checked?

I might have to concede that point. I thought the Tehran report was released after the Iranian revolution, but, I do not have any supporting evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They were still part of our defense network in the Middle East

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html