Misidentification and hoax are only two of the options that remain open in the case of any unexplained sighting; also possible are currently unknown natural phenomena, misremembered mundane events and delusions or hallucinations due to medical conditions.
Perhaps if a sighting of an unusual event in the sky led to the discovery of a new, previously unknown natural phenomenon, then the study of these events would be worthwhile. But atmospheric scientists are doing quite well at the moment with the detection of new phenomena; see this interesting page about sprites, jets and elves.
http://sky-fire.tv/index.cgi/spritesbluejetselves.html
Obviously scientists have not been ignoring unidentified aerial phenomena in the last twenty years, or these sprites and elves would still be unknown.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

Something which was between the size of a bird and eighty-eight feet in diameter, and was not visible on radar, nor apparently capturable on camera, and occured at a number of different times.
In short, nothing identifiable.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

I'll apologize for my assumption that you were arguing about the existance of alien craft, but then have to ask, what is your point in making the "argument" that people have spotted things in the sky, and they didn't know what they were? That's like making the "argument" that some people eat breakfast, or that some people prefer red cars.

The fact that people see something in the sky, and cannot immediately identify it means nothing more than...well, that they saw something in the sky that they couldn't identify.

Additionally, the fact that people then investigated the fact that someone saw something, and were unable to determine what said person/persons saw, means...well, that they didn't have enough evidence to make an identification of what was seen.

So now that we're in agreement that things have been seen and people did not identify them...so then what's your point?

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

You know what, maybe it was just flares. Honest to god, that makes a certain, small amount of sense to me. Even in the video I can see how the lights might be flares. And the fact that someone has even given an explanation means that explanation has to be considered seriously. Please don't assume I blow off the flares explanation with contempt like so many others.

But, being just as honest with myself, I have to say that flares falls quite short given what I've read. If it is flares, then as a scientist, I need to understand how flares can travel across an entire state, in formation, over several hours, or else I need to know how I've been misinformed about the sighting.

But I doubt you can do either of those things anyway.

It's called being articulate. Terms like ad homimem and non sequitur are standard terms used in debate.

No, you haven't. You have given a single example of an unexplained event. Do you really not understand the difference?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You're approach, Jay...

...is eminently logical. I have pointed out why your argument is perhaps not as strong as you believe it to be. If you disagree with my analysis, you can show where my analysis is wrong. If you agree with my analysis and care about the argument, then you will fix the argument.

But if, on the other hand, you simply wish to complain about badly you're being treated... well, there we are.

You would like to speak of loaded questions...

No, loaded language. You can barely contain your disgust for mainstream science. That speaks much louder than protesting how dispassionate you think your approach is.

...and cherry-picking and all sorts of logical-fallacy-type arguments...

Yes, I do want to speak about them.

I explained why I think your emphasis on the nature of the witnesses rather than the nature of their testimony constitutes an ad hominem approach. I would like you to explain why you think it is not ad hominem, taking care to address the content of my objection.

I explained why I believe your evidence is simply carefully chosen to exhibit a set of favorable properties, regardless of whether it characterizes all available evidence. I would like you to explain why your evidence is not cherry-picked; or failing that, to explain why you think cherry-picked evidence leads to a viable conclusion.

I have pointed out why I believe that your bullet points do not lead to your conclusion that the "multitude" of sightings cannot be explained by hoax or by misidentification. It simply does not follow. I can see (and have admitted) why some bullet points might plausibly rule out hoax or optical illusion. But I would like you to go back through your bullet points and say explicitly how each one of them rules out misidentification of ordinary phenemena. That would be in order if you purport that your observations support your conclusion.

...as soon as a certain amount of respect and consideration for my opinions becomes apparent in your tone...

I have respected your opinion in that I took it at face value. I considered your opinion in that I visibly addressed the points you put forward in its defense.

However, you seem to want your opinion accepted as well-informed and putatively factual. That will come only when you can support it by means that do not include selectively chosen evidence, fallacious lines of reasoning, exaggerated language, and question begging. You have berated everyone here for their allegedly unscientific approach, but unfortunately it would be highly unscientific to accept your opinion without first testing it. If you object to the test, then you're in the wrong forum.

I have given a single example of an inexplicable event.

No, a single unexplained event. But unfortunately you were at one point talking about a class of event, the properties of which class you argued should be taken seriously. In at least one property -- uniformity of witness reports -- your example fails to fit your class.

And you're changing horses. You started off by hyping the "sheer multitude" of reports, which you said exhibited certain properties that made it "highly improbable" that they could be plausibly explained by hoax or misidentification. Now you're trying to talk about this specific sighting or that specific sighting.

I wish that all of you would stop wasting time with my approach...

I'm sure you do, now that it has been entirely picked apart and rejected. Unfortunately until you withdraw your line of reasoning or defend it further, it's fair game. I'm sure you would love to bog down in the thises and thats of some particular sighting, at which none of us was present. Unfortunately we're not going to do that. You're proposing that our approach to unexplained sightings is wrong and that yours is right. I'm testing that proposition. Either defend it or withdraw it, but don't try to make me out to be some evil agent simply because I engaged you in the way you weren't prepared for.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Thenick: It would help if you used the English Language correctly. One has to understand that there are terms used by English speakers that are Latin. These are used often in Science, Law and Logic. It does not advance an argument to attack this particular convention.

The Phoenix lights were aerial flares, and a fly over of F 16 aircraft. Scientific parsimony makes this the most likely explanation for this widely reported sighting.

The persons posting here are not attacking you because of your beliefs, rather they are asking for evidence. If UFOs are are a widespread occurance, then it is up to those who advocate for a particular position, to come up with evidence for their beliefs.

Dale in Ala

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"

They didn't, but they were dropped from high up enough that they were visible for considerable distance. Parachute flares are bright. Keep in mind they weren't dropped over, or even near, Phoenix. Just within line of sight until they dropped under the mountain chain's horizon.)

A few nights ago, I saw a UFO. It blinked like it was really close, it hovered (or seemed to), and generally behaved unusually.

I concluded that it was the local air service on its regular run and, for some reason or another, had to circle the airport. The airport is 24kms (I'm guessing about 18 miles) away and in the right direction of what I'd seen. So when it was coming towards me, or going away, it seemed stationary. When it was going laterally, it was doing so slowly enough that the motion wasn't obvious.

I found out this morning, however, that there was another skidoo accident at some point this weekend. (I don't have details yet.) It stretches probability a bit, but what I saw might have been a search and rescue flight circling a lot closer.

My point is this: identifying objects at night seems intuitive, but really isn't. We're not good at telling size, distance, and altitude of objects we can't fully see, even when we have decent reference points for comparison.

Drop objects in formation, they'll fall in formation. Basic high school physics.

They didn't stay up for several hours, although parachute flares dropped from a high altitude do stay up longer than most people might expect.

[edit]: I should also point out that "I saw the ISS go by around 9pm" and "Huh, I saw it too, but around 10pm" doesn't mean the ISS was visible for an hour. It means one or both eyewitness reports incorrectly guestimated the time, misremembered the event on later retelling, misidentified another satellite for the ISS, or one or both is outright lying.

Especially when the relevant schedules for that night clearly show the ISS passing at 7:45pm and overhead for two minutes.

Can't help you there. Only you can figure out exactly how you got misinformed. I'd suggest it may have had something to do with insufficient skepticism when reading web pages written by people with pro-UFO axes to grind.

The world is under no obligation to conform itself to your doubts.

__________________

New! It combines the power of science with the gentleness of your mother's best intentions!
A new miracle technique, we apply homeopathic methods to achieve scientific efficaciousness
for dilutions WAY beyond Avogadro's Limit. It's New! It's Fresh!
It's Placebo^[tm] Brand Power Drink! *[Use as directed. May increase kidney function.]

That is because a lot of people are not that well informed about the event. I continue to post my evaluation of what happened that night. The videos, except for one, showed the flares dropped around 10PM. Many UFOlogists still contend they were not flares, which is just plain stupid IMHO since there is so much evidence they were flares that it isn't funny. The 8PM event, the one everyone else saw flying across the state, was nothing more than a formation of lights seen by observers. Some saw lights and others saw a dark triangle behind the lights. The only video of this event shows clearly that the lights were shifting positions in flight and therefore could not be attached to a single large object. What was missing was some good eyewitnesses to the event who had the equipment to evaluate what happened. It just so happens there was a witness that was ignored by the media and MUFON (as well as all those websites about the phoenix lights). His name was Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer with a 10" dobsonian reflector. He was observing the sky that night and saw the formation. His scope revealed them as aircraft flying in formation with lights. Despite him going to a MUFON meeting and explaining his observation, he was ignored (and in some cases called a debunker) and the more spectacular stories published.
You can read all about the Phoenix event and the principles involved at my website on the matter. Enjoy:

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/AZUFO.html

Isn't it funny how critical information is never given out by all these UFO groups that might shed light on the source of the UFO? As I state on my web page, it seems highly likely the source of the 8-8:30PM event was a formation of aircraft with lights. Uncritical witnesses, who were widely interviewed as seeing something extraordinary, set the tone for how the event was perceived and reported.
I regret that many skeptics confuse the flare event and the flyover 2 hours earlier but that was because the second event received the most publicity and had video evidence to back it up. Some are unaware there were two events that night. Anyway, you can read my evaluation on the webpage if you wish. To me, the event is essentially solved but, because poor investigative procedures by UFO groups, the actual aircraft were never identified and no radar evidence was gathered before the tapes had been erased.

I think if UFOs (alien visitors) did come to earth it would be like something out of Independance Day.
Not necessarily great sfx and an interplanetary war, but it would be on thousands of tv stations across the world with hundreds of thousands of observers.
Running up and down and making beep beep noises in front of lone witnesses seems to be going to a lot of trouble for traversing millions of miles of space. And to what end? A good laugh! Highly unlikely to say the least.

And if they didn't want to be seen - then we havn't seen them.
With the technology we have with stealth bombers and fighters, I can't see how a species that much more technologically advanced than us wouldn't have that capability to - and more so.

What gets me with all these sightings as stated above, is the lack of clear evidence to support them. A bit like ghosts and ghouls and things that go bump in the night.

Yep, you can call me Mr. Skeptic, but unless it taps me on the shoulder with multiple limbs or parks on my front lawn and radiates my grass, I'm not going to be convinced by blurred pictures and a few unsubstantiated reports.

When they come - if they do - it will be the biggest newsflash since man landed on the moon.

__________________
I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein

Biologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female. Desmond Morris.

Quantum analysis is scientific dithering

Professor Frink: My observations n'hey, n'hey, show the universe could be a torus Weh, uh, or toriod it may like the typewriters and bananas and the monkeys with big teeth the biting the screaming Mm-hai!

Homer: mmmmm... doughnuts!

It is, isn't it?

If by hoax you mean someone is intending to deceive observers, that rarely happens--although it does happen.

Still, we see many instances of optical illusions. The single most-often-reported UFO is actually easy to identify: Venus. Even with people who say that they know the night sky and can identify Venus--sometimes, they will report a UFO and give time and specifics that make it clear that it was in fact Venus. If it weren't they would've said that the object was near Venus, that's how good the report can be. It is mind-boggling what they say Venus did, flashing and zooming about.

The moon illusion is another good example, although it is seldom mistaken for a UFO. I myself do not experience the moon illusion, but I remember one time that I did. It was partially hidden behind some trees, and I actually commented that it couldn't possibly be the moon, it was too large. When I was able to make it out as the moon, the illusion was gone.

Are you satisfied with the treatment of the two examples you have given, the Phoenix lights, and the O'Hare sightings? Some of the observers at O'Hare say it was like a bird?Interesting example, because I personally have seen the ISS in the sky above my neighborhood twice, about an hour apart.

Because the ISS takes about an hour to go around the world

Yeah, I'd thought of that as I posted it, but that's still pretty uncommon for a single spot.

__________________

New! It combines the power of science with the gentleness of your mother's best intentions!
A new miracle technique, we apply homeopathic methods to achieve scientific efficaciousness
for dilutions WAY beyond Avogadro's Limit. It's New! It's Fresh!
It's Placebo^[tm] Brand Power Drink! *[Use as directed. May increase kidney function.]

And if you're going to lie about when you saw the ISS, that's pretty lame.

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

Just covering all the possibilities, KaiYeves.

__________________

New! It combines the power of science with the gentleness of your mother's best intentions!
A new miracle technique, we apply homeopathic methods to achieve scientific efficaciousness
for dilutions WAY beyond Avogadro's Limit. It's New! It's Fresh!
It's Placebo^[tm] Brand Power Drink! *[Use as directed. May increase kidney function.]

Check, Moose.

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

__________________

New! It combines the power of science with the gentleness of your mother's best intentions!
A new miracle technique, we apply homeopathic methods to achieve scientific efficaciousness
for dilutions WAY beyond Avogadro's Limit. It's New! It's Fresh!
It's Placebo^[tm] Brand Power Drink! *[Use as directed. May increase kidney function.]