Mistaking the Moon for a UFO?
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
Mon ami Gilles Fernandez, a skeptic of the highest order,
placed this on his Facebook UFO page [UFO Pragmatism]:
That is, the SAROS team offers that of all the unidentified
UFO sightings reviewed, 22% could be accounted for by misperceptions of the
Moon.
This is abstract (errant) science, of the shoddiest kind.
If persons are misperceiving the Moon (or Venus, and other
planet) for a UFO, they may be put into a category of mentally ill-equipped
human beings, at least during the period of time when they are supposedly
viewing the Moon as a spacecraft or unidentified flying object.
Cognition, Gilles’ forte is, in this instance, used
malevolently, to make a case that UFOs are probably mistaken observations of
something as prominent as the Moon.
If anyone, in their right mind, thinks that mistaking the
Moon for a UFO or anything else other than the Moon is a healthy, normal mode
of cognition, they, themselves, need a dose of what constitutes reality and the
normal vicissitudes of mental health.
Persons seeing the Moon as a UFO and those allowing such a
wayward observation as a normal, or even a valid statistical anomaly, is
stretching mental reliability (and reality) much beyond what is considered
normalcy in human perception or sane sensory observation.
To foist such nonsense as the SAROS paper upon the UFO
community goes to the heart of what skeptics will resort to in order to debunk
UFO sightings (reports).
It’s shameful and fraudulent.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, June 08, 2018
27 Comments:
I agree, mainly. However, in Allan Hendry's 'UFO HANDBOOK' he relates how two (I think) of the cases reported to him over his study period of about 18 months turned out to be misperceptions of the moon. The USAF Project Bluebook also had a few, but only a small percentage, probably less than 1 per cent. So it can and does happen. As to Venus, this would be misperceived a lot more often than the moon, but even so it only occurs in perhaps 5 per cent of cases at most.
And those are my conclusions on our great 'friendly' heavenly bodies, Venus & the moon. At least as far as UFOs are concerned.
By
cda, at Friday, June 08, 2018
My point, CDA, is that anyone mistaking the moon for a UFO or anything other than the moon is lunatic.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, June 08, 2018
First, as you state to CDA: "My point, CDA, is that anyone mistaking the moon for a UFO or anything other than the moon is lunatic." An unintentional pun?
Second, the abstract itself is written poorly for a potential peer reviewed paper and said paper is not yet made available for viewing which would specify the actual methodology used and how the data was interpreted to come to a final conclusion.
Using the term, "without any doubt" detracts absent the body of the study.
By
Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 08, 2018
I agree with both. In my life, and certainly yours, I've encountered pedestrian "skeptics" who claimed that all or most "UFO" reports could be explained by misperceptions of the Moon or Venus, Jupiter or Mars, or conjunctions of those and or bright stars. And certainly some reports are, but hardly most or all.
Even a simple report is more complex than that. Creations of the human mind, narratives composed of culturally supplied motifs, are much more the substance of "UFO" reports, even if an ambiguous light in the sky was the initial stimulus.
I will say though that Venus was a major stimulus for 1896 California "Airship" reports AFTER it was suggested by newspaper stories that the "Airship" would be arriving from the East. And the same for the "Electric Star" mania, as cda knows well, having read Bartholomew's book "UFOs: Two centuries of Mystery" (Explained)
Most probably the best "UFO" book--that's not a "UFO" book--I've ever read.
Entirely Predisposed, Believing is Seeing, the PSH. "What if there are no 'UFOs'?
By
zoamchomsky, at Friday, June 08, 2018
Lunatic was intentional Tim.
Zoam....Bartholomew's book? You kid.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, June 08, 2018
Tim; My admiration and respect for you is always growing. Best, zo
>> I know you like a gumbo. But have you tried Argentinian Reds? 16-20s, deep water, sweet, flash frozen at sea, and only $7.99/lb at Kroger/Ralph's/HT this week.
Otherwise I go for fresh Mexican Whites from the Sea of Cortez or Key West Pinks!<<
Thinking of Tony B. What a FN tragedy! Haven't we suffered even loss already?
By
zoamchomsky, at Friday, June 08, 2018
LOL! I do not kid.
Robert Bartholomew is a social psychologist--not a ufxxlergist! Plus he's a native New Yorker, for which I have have a certain fondness having lived there for most of the 1980s, and he's a great friend. He's also a great social activist. That's should appeal to your sensibilities.
So yes, Robert Bartholomew's "UFO" book. He's nothing less than genius, and his book is a genius deconstruction of the "UFO" myth and collective delusion.
Luv ya, Rich!
By
zoamchomsky, at Friday, June 08, 2018
Zoam...I will get his book and because you vouch for him, I will treat it academically.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, June 08, 2018
Zoam, I'll still stick to the gumbo, but thanks for the heads up. A co-worker has been trying to give me sea bass that he caught off the coast of San Diego. He hits Cabo frequently with good success.
Rich, I read some of Bartholomew's past papers/essays and found them interesting especially looking at the mass hallucination effects. Haven't read his book, but may have to get it myself.
Going back to your post. I'm wondering if the abstract was phrased the way it was due to translation to English? That being if the original was in French. Again, as far as methods, data extraction, correlations, etc. we'll have to wait to look at the actual paper to draw any conclusions ourselves.
By
Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 08, 2018
The overall premise is flawed Tim.
No statistical refinement will correct that.
No one, who is normally sentient, will mistake the Moon for a flying craft.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, June 08, 2018
"No one..." sounds awfully close to "without any doubt."
You're an "absolutist" because you hate the concept that some individuals may mistaken the Moon as a UFO, further your pissed off that Gilles is somewhat promoting this.
And what is somewhat hyperbole should be tempered with awaiting the body of said paper. The abstract is lacking and there is no argument from my point of view.
This is similar to the arguments/personal feelings that circulated during and after the Roswell slides bullshit where I had caution "wait and see" but no, like lemmings a lot of folks went rushing off that "cliff" in Mexico City. Poor Anthony Bragalia was sent to a ufology re-education camp...
I write this as a friend and long follower of your blog. If the paper is fouled with crappy research and data, then by all rights urinate on it...I may join you...
By
Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 08, 2018
I hate, as do you, that such crap is passed off as worthy of an imprimatur from a cognitive psychologist.
My "no one" was qualified by the descriptive "normally sentient."
Nuance has to be acknowledged, Tim. You know that more than anyone.
I like Gilles, but he resorts to such phony shit like the abstract in his zeal to debunk.
You cut him some slack. I do not.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, June 08, 2018
In Gilles defense I must say, as have others, that the Moon is the visual stimulus for some "UFO" reports, however small the percentage--as are a host of lights in the sky: astronomical, meteorological, and man-made in our dazzling aerospace age.
But the importance of these various stimuli plays only a small role in what is overwhelmingly a creation of the entirely predisposed human mind. The Moon is the Moon; bright stars and planets are just stars and planets; airplane lights are just lights. It's the culturally supplied baggage resident in the human mind that creates "UFO" narratives.
In my thorough debunking of Cash-Landrum I showed that their entire "UFO" story and practically ever word they ever uttered on the subject after was appropriated from existing "UFO" mythology. As in all cases, the variations in narratives are the expressions of the individual's knowledge and experience of the "UFO" subculture.
Betty and Vickie didn't have to see stars; Captain Terauchi didn't have to see stars; and Lonnie Zamora saw something very much of this world, just as Halt and crew saw a lighthouse. But overwhelmingly their stories were products of the human imagination, culturally supplied "UFO" motifs distilled and expressed through the individual as a "UFO" report.
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
OFF TOPIC:
I hear you, Tim. You know what you like.
We're a seafood household here, and if someone was offering me sea bass I'd be eating it everyday. Nicaraguan or Mexican grouper is nearly $20/lb here. But I'm definitely more of a shrimp-head. I've driven to Koreatown for Alaskan deep-water sushi-grade and to Santa Monica for LIVE Channel Islands Spot Prawn. (I saw stars!) Anyone who thinks shrimp are just shrimp just doesn't know.
Now back to "UFOs."
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
For bing off topic I will say this, as a kind of punishment:
You skeptical types [You, Zoam, Gilles, Tim, Lance, Sheaffer, Printy, et al.] stick together in an errant camaraderie while UFO believers (even those who accept the ETH) often end up in internecine squabbles.
That is, no matter what hogwash a skeptic foists on UFOers and us agnostics, the foolish skeptic will be lauded and his/her nonsense applauded and spread like the Gospel of Mark.
I'm not gulled. nor are a few others. So there.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
Zoam,
My wife works in El Segundo at LA Air Force Base, near Santa Monica! She comes home for the weekends here in very hot Escondido. I've got my pool ready for the summer! Oh, I'm the family "pool boy." I've a degree in poolology.
UFOs: On further reflection of the proposed Moon mis-identification and 22 percent debate. The abstract appears to be using reports from 134 cases, but how many observers per case is unknown at this time. Smaller sample base could skew to a higher percentage, but we tend to shy away from small samples. Were random samples used as comparisons? Don't know.
Another way to interpret the abstract would be that out of 134 cases reviewed 78 percent of the observers did not mis-interpret the Moon as a UFO!
"Our results strongly suggests that 22% of the case must be must be understood a perceptual mistakes for the Moon..."
Usually we would phrase as "...22% of the cases could be interpreted as perceptual mistakes for the Moon..."
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
'That is, no matter what hogwash a skeptic foists on UFOers and us agnostics, the foolish skeptic will be lauded and his/her nonsense applauded and spread like the Gospel of Mark."
I respectfully disagree. Printy had spotted and called an error on one of my Minot UFO posts which I acknowledge and posted a correction, yet leaving the offending post still up in a sign of intellectual honesty to show the error. In private we question each other quiet a bit, or we seek advice via email pertaining to one's area of "expertise."
ETers, tend to fight amongst themselves like gladiators to the death...last one standing writes the book!
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
Tim:
Your posting "error" wasn't a debunking drill. just a mistake.
I'm talking about the penchant for skeptics to let slide nonsense that another skeptic may try to promote in order to defuse a UFO opinion or hypothesis.
It happens all the time, and just recently in a matter you and I were involved in.
You allow that the Moon abstract listing a 22% prevalence for a Moon misperception is okay.
I'm telling you: If 22% of those looking at the Moon and seeing something other than the Moon, then we have a serious problem with sensory perception, mental ability, or a desire to make Freudian wishes come true.
The Gilles' provided abstract is a red herring or worse.
That you keep defending it baffles the hell out of me. You know better but for some god-awful reason are being stubborn or stupid in your support of the thing.
(And, as you say, we are friends, so I think you'll permit my harshness about this.)
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
I think if you look at my comments in total you know that I do not fully support the abstract.
22% is unusually a high number however I have no information as to how this number fits into the studies narrative or in what context and neither do you at this point in time.
To say that I am supporting this abstract only shows that you are frustrated with this subject.
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
Just reread my comments on this posting and find no indication that I totally support this abstract.
Please reread my comments.
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
Tim...
I understand your position on the Gilles' provided abstract. You await to see the whole ball of wax that prompted the abstract.
I'm discounted it out-of-hand because the premise is flawed. As a psychologist with cachet in Psychometric Methods, I throw out the abstract's silly statistical presentation. It's fluky.
Yes, I'm frustrated by the ongoing stupidity surrounding the Airship wave(s) and UFOs themselves.
You seem quick to support Gilles' presentations at his Facebook page, even discounting Caravaca's "theory" to assuage Gilles or some of his Page members.
That's what I'm huffy about I think. I have always thought you to be more discerning and objective.
And I still think that...you have a wait-and-see attitude, and I applaud that, but it goes against my nature, as you can see in my new posting [6/9/18] about the Airship muddle.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
Well the good news is that you and I are getting to the heart of the matter.
Still ruffled about the Facebook issue? Even after you and I had emailed each other? Interesting...
Please reread my comments on Gilles' Facebook page. They were all supportive of Jose's article (read my comments on Jose's article on your blog...same.) I wrote a blog posting on my own site supporting the bulk of Jose's thoughts and linked it to your site as proper manners and protocol goes.
I don't like the paranormal approach to the "external agent" which you seemed to agree detracts from the overall premise based on your reply to my comment. I choose to stick to Occam's Razor until all choices leave me with only the paranormal angle. Is that a totally irrational approach on my part?
Your beef is with Gilles not me...
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
I have no beef(s) with you Tim.
I was intellectually irritated by your taking one or two accounts, at military bases, that you seemed to think disadvantaged Jose's theory.
I don't know if you meant it that way, but that's what I got from the exchange.
I'm a little protective of Jose's "theory" and know Gilles would like to scuttle it, but Gilles wants to scuttle anything that reeks of UFO belief.
He's almost as hard-headed at Zoam.
While berating UFOers who like the ETH, I still give them the benefit of the doubt.
UFOs from outer space are possible....not probable for me but possible and so when someone "attacks" the idea of ET UFOs, I become a bit irked.
The matter remains open-ended for me. (It's those damn 1950s movies.)
Gilles goes to a lot of trouble to make his anti-UFO case(s). And I've noted his brilliance in doing so.
But he takes in a lot of junk that he'd be better to eschew.
We are fine, you and I, and both agree, I think, that mental maladies may well account for some UFO cases and observations, an area of study not fully worked upon or worked out to any great extent by UFO enthusiasts.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 09, 2018
"It's those damn 1950s movies".
Not just movies, but endless books & articles, during the 50s and 60s. Fortunately we have 'graduated' beyond this now, after the contactee, then abduction mania that followed the original ET literature.
OK so we have graduated beyond the craziness of Keyhoe et al, but in the end we are still, in effect, nowhere. Ufology is in good company with astrology, water divining, ESP, telepathy and homeopathy. Science has ignored them all. Any chance of a revival?
By
cda, at Sunday, June 10, 2018
"no matter what hogwash a skeptic foists on UFOers and us agnostics"
I'm at odds with my fellow skeptics fairly often but it's usually on some fine point or a matter of focus in a particular case. Or it's a matter of the purpose and methods of Scientific skepticism. Otherwise we're a pretty agreeable bunch.
Much unlike Believers of all stripes, who are all over the place and each other.
"What has he been telling you? He's been reading those trashy science fiction magazines. He's completely out of control." -- Invaders from Mars, 1953
By
zoamchomsky, at Sunday, June 10, 2018
"To foist such nonsense as the SAROS paper upon the UFO community goes to the heart of what skeptics will resort to in order to debunk UFO sightings (reports)."
As much as I agree that 22% seems excessive, couldn't it be that the authors actually have confidence in their study? And at least in this particular period in a certain location the appearance of the Moon coincided with increased "UFO" reports, even if it was not the cause of reports. And just the fact of a 22% correlation is exactly what is of import. However "unbelievable" you may find it.
By
zoamchomsky, at Sunday, June 10, 2018
Zoam...
If the SAROS group is indicating that the Moon is responsible for the increase in UFO sightings, my "lunatic" epithet fits them to a tee.
It's not a matter of belief on my part that the "study" is befouled. The methodology is more than iffy, it's bogus and fraudulent just on the basis of the employed statistical analysis.
One can take a 178 (or whatever it was) out of the number of sightings and deduce that in the number are 22% Moon misperceptions. It's mathematical insanity.
Moreover, I insist that people who might mistake the Moon for a UFO or anything other than the Moon have more problems than visionary misperception.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 10, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home