Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[SnidelyW]

I really wish this were the case.

Unfortuantly there appears to be quite an anti-sceptical market willing to propagate these images regardless if they have been debunked thoroughly many years ago. The scepticism found on a sceptical forum is not indicative in the slightest of the scepticism found in the general public, let alone Ufology circles.



A worthy goal, however photograph's alone will not conclusively establish or 100% refute the alien origin of UFO's.

I agree, but if people can agree a photo is genuine, then surely other aspects of an 'event' can then be explored. such as testimony from eyewitnesses.

 

[SnidelyW]

I don't think this is necessarily true; couldn't a print be retouched, and then rephotographed?

Yes, in the digital age, I am sure that could be done.

I failed to elaborate that certainly, due diligence regarding a photo would involve inspection of the negative and/or the original print, if so archived.

 

[SnidelyW]

There has been quite a deal of garbage floating around about the McMinnville UFO. Please view the research outlined at (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) and then COMPARE that with the "debunking" Sheaffer's effort. You will quickly discover what legitimate (Maccabee) v. illegitimate(Sheaffer) research looks like! And if Hartmann was "persuaded" by Sheaffer, then that simply shows his own lack of credential in, and understanding of, the nature of legitimate scientific research.

Very cool and seemingly thorough research. I would also note that the link also specifically addresses the similarity of the Rouen photo I posted to the McMinnville one posted by Stray Cat.

 

[Akhenaten]

Micro UFO sighted at Pi-Broadford, 1513 hr, 6 October 2009.

Object is a bright silver dome shape with a tripod undercarriage. Approximately one metre in diameter and moving at about 9.8 metres per second.

The photographer has a degree in aerospace maintenance techniques and many years experience in military aviation.

All my his cats saw it too. Really truly


ETA: Also note the presence of the Mother Ship at the upper right of the pictures.

 

[StevenCalder]

There has been quite a deal of garbage floating around about the McMinnville UFO. Please view the research outlined at (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) and then COMPARE that with the "debunking" Sheaffer's effort. You will quickly discover what legitimate (Maccabee) v. illegitimate(Sheaffer) research looks like! And if Hartmann was "persuaded" by Sheaffer, then that simply shows his own lack of credential in, and understanding of, the nature of legitimate scientific research.

Very cool and seemingly thorough research. I would also note that the link also specifically addresses the similarity of the Rouen photo I posted to the McMinnville one posted by Stray Cat.

This is exactly what I was referring too in my previous post. Does Maccabee shown that the object is of alien origin? No, Have others thoroughly shown reasons for reasonable doubt on the event? Yes. What gets ignored? The reasonable doubt.

If aliens really are visiting us, I really despair that people fixate on the easily explained ones.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is exactly what I was referring too in my previous post. Does Maccabee shown that the object is of alien origin? No, Have others thoroughly shown reasons for reasonable doubt on the event? Yes. What gets ignored? The reasonable doubt.

If aliens really are visiting us, I really despair that people fixate on the easily explained ones.

Heh. I'd never thought of it like that. While the UFOistas are trying to analyse my vegetable steamer the Imperial Star Cruisers are forming up behind the trees on Greenham Common.

 

[StevenCalder]

Heh. I'd never thought of it like that. While the UFOistas are trying to analyse my vegetable steamer the Imperial Star Cruisers are forming up behind the trees on Greenham Common.

As we all know Imperial Star Cruisers, much like birds, spend most of their time in trees. I believe its where they build their nests.

 

[Akhenaten]

Quite correct. Most people don't give tham a second glance because they assume they're just some seagulls. That got lost. Or seasick. Or something.


Damn! You can't really parody UFO nuts, can you?

 

[Marduk]

Heh. I'd never thought of it like that. While the UFOistas are trying to analyse my vegetable steamer the Imperial Star Cruisers are forming up behind the trees on Greenham Common.

1. there are no trees on greenham common as it was the site of a USAAF airbase.
2. it is no longer an airbase but a business park and was renamed New Greenham Park 12 years ago

why would the aliens be forming up on a business park ?
is someone validating their parking ?

 

[Stray Cat]

"1956-Rosetta/Natal, South Africa. July 17. Photograph was taken by a well respected member of South African society. Her husband was a major in the South African Air Force, and Elizabeth worked for Air Force Intelligence. Seven photographs were taken in all. There were also two witnesses to the taking of the photos. Taken in the foothills of the Drakensburg Mountains, and so-dubbed the Drakensberg photos. If these are real, they are extremely impressive. She never changed her story. She died in 1994, at the age of 83."
About.com

Is this the same Elizabeth (Klarer) who also claims to have had an alien lover who fathered her son?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Klarer

"Well respected" seems a little overstated.

 

[Stray Cat]

Quite correct. Most people don't give tham a second glance because they assume they're just some seagulls. That got lost. Or seasick. Or something.


Damn! You can't really parody UFO nuts, can you?

 

[BlackKat]

Damn Stray Cat... there goes my morning coffee out my nose from an uncontrollable laugh. It burns! "Dowsing the picture..."

 

[Rramjet]

Maccabees rather overly complex analysis method is specifically designed to be so confusing that it is rendered useless.

The ONLY criticism of Maccabee’s research is that it is an “overly complex analysis” ?

Obviously Stray cat you have never read many scientific research reports (if any at all!) if you think Maccabee’s research “overly complex”! Wow! Words and phrases like “scientific”, “technical”, “thorough”, “wide ranging”, “standard scientific methodology”, properly constituted”, “well researched”, “covering all the issues” and so on, might be applied - but “overly complex” is, in this case, the refuge of the ignorant.

..and “specifically designed to be so confusing that it is rendered useless”? Oh Stray Cat, if you find yourself unqualified to pass judgement, my advice would be to keep quiet about it, for in statements like you have made above, you merely show your ignorance of properly constituted scientific analysis.

It has been addressed by Sheaffer in as much as it can be shown that a dirty lens can have exactly the same effect.

Again we’re back to the illogic of “It MIGHT be, therefore it IS.”

Also when the negatives were rediscovered, they were in particularly poor condition as is obvious by the poor prints we see from them

Poor condition… if I was to argue that (someone) were a poor specimen of a human, would that make (them) any less human?

And Stray Cat… what has the “model-construction” photo got to do with the real world? Someone obviously spent some time constructing an extremely poor replica of the McMinnville photo… so what? The “replica” looks like the original only in so far as SOME the elements are POSITIONED in approximate positions, but nothing like the original in almost EVERY other characteristic. For example the lighting conditions in the “replica” are particularly different (To be blunt, NOTHING like the original - and in particular from multiple sources). Many elements are so obviously a either “composite” from other photos (eg; the “hills” in the background) or plainly models (the fence, the telephone pole, tree, house, tank, etc). The element supposed to represent the UFO is COMPLETELY the WRONG shape and even then it’s aspect is wrong (plus it looks like a two dimensional cardboard cutout). Further, the dimensions and aspect of ALL the other elements are WRONG, bearing only a “passing resemblance” to the real thing. My 10 year old could construct a better representation! So WHAT exactly do you propose was the PURPOSE of such a clumsy “replication”? I can see none. Perhaps you can enlighten me Stray Cat, because at this point, you seem to be descending into farce.

I agree, but if people can agree a photo is genuine, then surely other aspects of an 'event' can then be explored. such as testimony from eyewitnesses.

Unfortunately Snidely you are in the wrong place for getting people to consider the “evidence” for UFOs. The implacable fundamentalism of the “debunkers” here is exactly like a religious belief set, they simply CANNOT be persuaded by reason because their belief system does not stem from reason. Just like any other religion it stems from emotion – fear, uncertainty, doubt and insecurity are the drivers of this emotion.

No matter how many “solid” cases you throw at them, they will always counter with a “hoax” or a “misperception” because THAT is all they can see. The evidence that you and I and others might present, to their mindset, are easily “explained away” as an endless series of anomalies in the equipment or the witnesses, using the (il)logic of “It MIGHT be explained this way, therefore it IS this way.

But I DO encourage you to press on, the fundamentalists are not your audience, for THEY will never change. Rather it is the open minded reader, the logical mind, the rational debater, the critical thinker that might take a second look. And the fundamentalists realise this also. They realise it is a battle for “hearts and minds” – they will go to the wall on this one, figuring to win the hearts is to win the mind – for they too FULLY realise they have no rational position. We can only hope that in winning the mind with rational debate, precise logic and scientific argument, the heart may follow.

 

[GeeMack]

I find it extremely interesting that the "debunkers" in this place can find NOTHING WHATSOEVER rational to say about a comparison between the research of Maccabee and Sheaffer. Obviously they have neither the skill nor expertise to evaluate such research (otherwise they would have raised legitimate points about it). All they can fall back on is the type of derision and ridicule that all people who have no original ideas of their own resort to - as if THAT makes them experts! LMAO.

So, Rramjet, you seemed to take issue with the following question I posed originally to jakesteele...

Millions of people have seen or taken photos of things in the sky that they were initially unable to accurately identify. Thousands upon thousands of those things they saw or photo'ed, when eventually identified, were determined to be planes, helicopters, meteors, planets, satellites, and other mundane sky things. Thousands of others were determined to be faked photos or photos lacking in sufficient detail or quality to be of any evidential use at all. Yet thousands of other sightings were determined to be hoaxes or lies or hallucinations, the result of frauds and delusions and toxins/drugs/etc., errors, fictional events created to support political or religious agendas, and several other categories of not-real-things-in-the-sky.

So, jakesteele, in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

It was a fairly simple question posed in easily understood English, but for some reason, neither he nor you have been willing to offer an answer. (I did address your willful ignorance in post 280 of this thread, but you've avoided that one, too.) How about a reply, in numbers if you can, and without your usual sidestepping and anti-skeptical Truther style ranting please?

And if you're still reading the thread, jakesteele, you might venture an answer, too. And SnidelyW, since you obviously believe there's more to the UFO phenomenon than prosaic, Earthbound explanations, can you give us an answer to the question I posed above?

 

[StevenCalder]

No matter how many “solid” cases you throw at them, they will always counter with a “hoax” or a “misperception” because THAT is all they can see. The evidence that you and I and others might present, to their mindset, are easily “explained away” as an endless series of anomalies in the equipment or the witnesses, using the (il)logic of “It MIGHT be explained this way, therefore it IS this way.

But I DO encourage you to press on, the fundamentalists are not your audience, for THEY will never change. Rather it is the open minded reader, the logical mind, the rational debater, the critical thinker that might take a second look. And the fundamentalists realise this also. They realise it is a battle for “hearts and minds” – they will go to the wall on this one, figuring to win the hearts is to win the mind – for they too FULLY realise they have no rational position. We can only hope that in winning the mind with rational debate, precise logic and scientific argument, the heart may follow.

Well I'm glad to see were back to the point where your just going grotesquely misrepresent the sceptical position again to the point of idiocy.

The point is finding a case where we've completely proven the alien hypothesis.
So we can say "UFO X was of alien origin" with reasonable certainty, and back up what were saying with evidence.
That's how you convince the world.

Where a normal explanation equally explains the event and no hard evidence has been given to support the alien hypothesis then we can hardly do that.

ETA: That does not mean (as has been explain countless times to you) that the normal explanation is the correct one necessarily. It means we cannot say "The cause was aliens" with reasonable certainty, due to other explanations being possible, if not likely.

Do you really not get that alot of us would love this to be true?
But we need evidence to be sure?

 

[Rramjet]

Millions of people have seen or taken photos of things in the sky that they were initially unable to accurately identify. Thousands upon thousands of those things they saw or photo'ed, when eventually identified, were determined to be planes, helicopters, meteors, planets, satellites, and other mundane sky things. Thousands of others were determined to be faked photos or photos lacking in sufficient detail or quality to be of any evidential use at all. Yet thousands of other sightings were determined to be hoaxes or lies or hallucinations, the result of frauds and delusions and toxins/drugs/etc., errors, fictional events created to support political or religious agendas, and several other categories of not-real-things-in-the-sky.

So, jakesteele, in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

GeeMack – you overstate the case with your “millions” and Thousands”. As far as I am aware, there have only been a handful of properly constituted scientific analyses on the subject. These include the Blue Book Special report No. 14., The Condon Report, The French COMETA study and perhaps the British “UAP” report. Of these reports, the largest was of course the Blue Book SR14 where (initially) approximately 4000 reports were brought for preliminary analysis. Over 1000 were initially rejected because of their poor quality, and eventually, after rigorous scientific analysis, 22% of all reports analysed were categorised as “UNKNOWN”.

That is 22% GeeMack!
If we carry that out to your “Millions” that makes quite a significant number of “UNKNOWNS.

Now – no-one (at least not I) is claiming the “UNKNOWNS” are of “alien” in origin. They are simply “UNKNOWN”. It is disingenuous of you to imply that the UNKNOWNS are actually “alien space craft”. So you pose a question that has no answer. It is like me asking you to show me an UNKNOWN report that has been proven to be of non-alien origin. Sure, you might be able to cite cases where it has been speculated that an UNKNOWN report “resembles” something mundane…but that – as you know – is NOT PROOF. I can equally cite cases where it has been speculated that an UNKNOWN report “resembles” an alien encounter – but that too is NOT PROOF. In both cases it is mere post hoc subjective rationalisation.

So far from “ignoring” your question GeeMack, we have been providing you with the answer all along, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

And StevenCalder, aside from your repetition of the logical fallacy: “All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are likely to be black - if you really want “aliens” to be true, then you would seek out the evidence. I suspect that because you DO NOT seek out the evidence – and strenuously argue against any that is presented to you, you actually DO NOT want to acknowledge the possibility of an alien presence. (again I reiterate – I DO NOT argue that there is “proof” or otherwise of an alien presence – All I am stating is that there are a significant number of UFO reports for which we have no mundane explanation and that these should be researched – indeed MUST be researched - before ANY conclusions can be drawn about their nature.)

 

[Nonpareil]

..and “specifically designed to be so confusing that it is rendered useless”? Oh Stray Cat, if you find yourself unqualified to pass judgement, my advice would be to keep quiet about it, for in statements like you have made above, you merely show your ignorance of properly constituted scientific analysis.

I am having some serious flashbacks to yesterday's tangle with Baby Nemesis. Same aura of condescending arrogance.

Again we’re back to the illogic of “It MIGHT be, therefore it IS.”

No, that's your position. All we can do, as skeptics, is bring out Occam's Razor.

Poor condition… if I was to argue that (someone) were a poor specimen of a human, would that make (them) any less human?

False analogy. If a car is in poor condition, doesn't that make it less of a car?
This isn't a person, Rramjet. It's a photo, the negatives of which were damaged/dirty/smudged/etc. Therefore, the pictures developed from those negatives are highly suspect.

Unfortunately Snidely you are in the wrong place for getting people to consider the “evidence” for UFOs. The implacable fundamentalism of the “debunkers” here is exactly like a religious belief set, they simply CANNOT be persuaded by reason because their belief system does not stem from reason. Just like any other religion it stems from emotion – fear, uncertainty, doubt and insecurity are the drivers of this emotion.

Projecting much?

I'm not "afraid" to discover that aliens exist. In fact, I would LOVE for there to have been alien visitors to the Earth. Even if it ends up like a real-world Independence Day, aliens' arrival would be a good thing for mankind. It would prove that we can escape our solar system, so that when Sol goes BLOOEY, we can get out of here.

No matter how many “solid” cases you throw at them, they will always counter with a “hoax” or a “misperception” because THAT is all they can see. The evidence that you and I and others might present, to their mindset, are easily “explained away” as an endless series of anomalies in the equipment or the witnesses, using the (il)logic of “It MIGHT be explained this way, therefore it IS this way.

Your position is that it is, as of yet, unexplained, therefore aliens did it.



This is the Burden of Proof fallacy. You are the ones making a claim - that UFOs are of non-human origin. So it's up to you to prove this claim. Until such time as you do - conclusively - your claim will be regarded as false.
We have not asserted that the things in these photographs are smudges on the lens, or PhotoShopped in, or anything else. We are offering alternate explanations that could prove that your photograph is not of an alien craft. You must prove that it cannot be any of these things. Once you do, then you will be admitted as right, and all will welcome our alien visitors.
But you have to prove that the craft in these photos isn't a smudge on the lens, or a weather balloon, or some kind of aerial phenomenon caused by weather, or a Frisbee, or a hubcap on a string, or an F-22 flying at a weird angle. This is where the odds are against you, and why photographs have not yet been able to convince the community that aliens and Bigfoot exist. There are simply too many things that could explain it.

 

[StevenCalder]

And StevenCalder, aside from your repetition of the logical fallacy: “All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are likely to be black

Sigh.

I've never once said that, and even a brief cursory reading of my posts would have revealed that I even rejected the idea entirely several times and explained why the sceptical position is entirely distinct several times. Instead you've not actually engaged with my posts and have responded with what appears to be statements that have no connection at all.

If your not going to bother actually reading my posts I'm really not going to bother engaging with you.

I honestly wish you good luck finding some evidence of the alien origin of UFO's.

 

[Stray Cat]

The ONLY criticism of Maccabee’s research is that it is an “overly complex analysis” ?

No, it's not my only criticism at all. Maccabees research is flawed on many levels, but we were talking specifically about the analysis of these Trent photos.

Obviously Stray cat you have never read many scientific research reports (if any at all!) if you think Maccabee’s research “overly complex”! Wow! Words and phrases like “scientific”, “technical”, “thorough”, “wide ranging”, “standard scientific methodology”, properly constituted”, “well researched”, “covering all the issues” and so on, might be applied - but “overly complex” is, in this case, the refuge of the ignorant.

For a scientific report it is not overly complex... as a misdirection from the truth of the McMinneville photos, it is unnecessarily complex and smacks of the same kind of 'find the test that gives the result that fits into our predetermined view' that is used by BLT in their crop circle research. When a more direct approach will do just fine.

..and “specifically designed to be so confusing that it is rendered useless”? Oh Stray Cat, if you find yourself unqualified to pass judgement, my advice would be to keep quiet about it, for in statements like you have made above, you merely show your ignorance of properly constituted scientific analysis.

You don't see the smoke and mirrors approach... that's fine, the UFOlogists depend upon people like you.

Again we’re back to the illogic of “It MIGHT be, therefore it IS.”

Actually the only conclusion I have reached is that I don't know what it is.
My own research leads me to believe it is a small object close to the camera, but certainly not proof of anything.

Poor condition… if I was to argue that (someone) were a poor specimen of a human, would that make (them) any less human?

The negatives were in poor condition. Prints were made from the poor condition negatives and analysed. This makes any analysis only as good as the raw data (in this case poor quality negatives).

And Stray Cat… what has the “model-construction” photo got to do with the real world? Someone obviously spent some time constructing an extremely poor replica of the McMinnville photo… so what?..........Perhaps you can enlighten me Stray Cat, because at this point, you seem to be descending into farce.

The Bryce rendered 3D model of the Trent's farmyard was done to approximate the position of the UFO in relation to other recognisable objects in the two photos (some measurements were taken from the drawn plan of the yard as appeared in the Condon report). It is not meant to be an exact replica, it was an exercise to check the movement of the object between the two photos. The ONLY position I could get the same results as the photos was to leave the object in the exact same place. We know that Mr Trent moved to his right to take the second shot so I moved the Bryce modeling camera to the right in a similar fashion. If the UFO were REALLY a big object at some distance, it would not have been positioned in the place it appears on the second photo unless it was traveling directly away from him in which case it would appear a lot smaller in the second photo (and he reported it was traveling right to left). Originally when I did this exercise, I rendered an animation showing this, sadly since I did this initial work, the movie file has been backed up/misplaced. If I find it again, I'll be sure to post it.

 

[Rramjet]

I've never once said that, and even a brief cursory reading of my posts would have revealed that I even rejected the idea entirely several times and explained why the sceptical position is entirely distinct several times. Instead you've not actually engaged with my posts and have responded with what appears to be statements that have no connection at all.

If your not going to bother actually reading my posts I'm really not going to bother engaging with you.

Ummm... okay, I’ve read back over your posts and while you sail pretty close to the wind on occasion, if not actually commit the fallacy (eg:

…

– and I’m still not sure you didn’t, and argued so at the time) the following quote IS actually logically sound (It is the one from your last post that I mistook in my haste for the logical fallacy).

It means we cannot say "The cause was aliens" with reasonable certainty, due to other explanations being possible, if not likely.

Now I must understand what lead me to an erroneous conclusion in this case.

I guess it was because I have been viewing statements of very similar nature that DID commit a logical fallacy - and I obviously did not read yours closely enough. It was, I guess, the ending “…due to other explanations being possible, if not likely” which threw me. This ending comes VERY close to stating (but I hasten to add, does not) “It is possible, therefore it is” and at the same time comes VERY close to restating (but I hasten to now add, does not specifically state) the “All crows are black” fallacy. I still have a feeling wherein I would like to say that, due to the language used, somehow the motive behind the statement is not the same as the face value representation – but THAT is my (possibly churlish) opinion and not logical fact.

So yes, you are right, I did not read your post carefully enough and that was negligent of me. I apologise to you accordingly.