UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

(...)
remember, this is the one you said was the most convincing, I looked into it properly, I researched the rogue river area, I researched the blimp base at portland, I researched the directions the blimps went when leaving there, I researched the date that they did that, I researched what blimps look like head on and in profile from a distance and it all matched, now if youd like to present evidence of the same quality that it was not a blimp then go ahead
because if you can't....................

Um no...I never claimed it was "the most convincing" - I have consistently denied that ANY case, on its' own is "convincing".

You seem to be pushing the "blimp" hypothesis...yet you provide no evidence to support your contention. My evidence is the witness descriptions. I have provided that. You on the other hand have provided no evidence (read none) to support your "blimp" contention.

Again...(and again)...Merely stating that something is true, does not MAKE it true...

 

[arthwollipot]

Simply stating something is true, does not MAKE it true.

Except in the case of UFO sightings, apparently, where the simple statement that someone saw something is sufficient to make it true.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, I'm really disappointed. You indicated that you were posting physical evidence and there was absolutely not one single thing I could examine for myself. No hard physical evidence at all. Why is there nothing there?

Actually no...I did NOT post that link...Pantaz did... it is therefore NOT "my" preferred evidence that you discuss. Perhaps ask Pantaz about it.

The link I DID post is not working correctly so that we cannot currently access the relevant documentation. I have contacted the webmaster at that site and have asked if it would be possible to fix the broken links in the page I posted...so stand by...I'll let you know when they are up and running...

 

[arthwollipot]

Once again, with feeling.

Stories are not evidence. Eyewitness reports are not evidence. Videos and photographs are not evidence. All they are is hearsay. In a court of law, if the prosecution had exactly as much evidence as you have, the defendent still would not be convicted.

Show me evidence that isn't hearsay and I MIGHT be convinced.

 

[Rramjet]

I was being facetious.

Seriously?

I don't understand what you mean by, "became implacable^dict in their approach".

Hmmm... perhaps the term was used a little loosely in that connection.... Certainly the debunkers are "implacable" in their approach... but perhaps not the best term for the military industrial complex... perhaps "consistently using and applying techniques and methodology that would cause unfounded disbelief in UFO witnesses and researchers" might be a better phrase...

 

[Rramjet]

Surely, you've speculated, no?

Point to ANY part of my statement that is speculative...

What's going on here? You put up a link for physical evidence and there was no physical evidence? Why did you do that?

I have already explained that as far as I knew the links WERE working when I posted the reference. I DID test the sites I posted...if they go down in between the time I post and the time you examine...then that is hardly my fault... I have already asked the webmasters if they could fix the links. I merely then ask for your patience kitikaze in the meantime...

 

[Rramjet]

Except in the case of UFO sightings, apparently, where the simple statement that someone saw something is sufficient to make it true.

Actually that is fallacious reasoning. No-one said anything about "a simple statement" making ANYTHING true, let alone a UFO report.

My contention is that there seems to exist a body of evidence that points toward phenomena (a phenomenon perhaps) that defies our realist theories on "objective reality". I contend that there is something occurring that would cause many people to sit up and say "Wait on...what IS going on here?"

The body of evidence I point to in my references in my original post. THEREIN lies the evidence. "Proof" either way cannot, indeed must not and should not rely on a "single" report. That being said there are some pretty interesting ones in there

 

[Rramjet]

Once again, with feeling.

Stories are not evidence. Eyewitness reports are not evidence. Videos and photographs are not evidence. All they are is hearsay. In a court of law, if the prosecution had exactly as much evidence as you have, the defendent still would not be convicted.

Show me evidence that isn't hearsay and I MIGHT be convinced.

Actually, science and law apply different standards of evidence. And it is NOT "hearsay" when it is a first hand report. I think you might be confusing "anecdote" with "hearsay"?

 

[Stray Cat]

Are we looking at the same phenomenon that makes Wikipedia a better, more accurate reference source, the more badly researched pages people sling up onto it?

A big list of famous UFO cases and other UFO related websites was posted and now we must presume it's our job to look at them all and critically examine each case individually... when he claims that it's weight of evidence that's the real turning point?

Well just some of the cases he's listed are easily blown out of the water... if not completely then enough to cast a lot of doubt over the (usually very biased) findings.
Roswell, No Physical Evidence. The most major UFO story ever and yet completely ignored from the 50's til the late 70's early 80's... not even important enough to get a mention in the Condon Report.
McMinville, Contentious photos. Again enough doubt has been thrown on the event by Sheaffer, Klass, Printy to name a few and again we have a long and detailed thread about it active here and now, where another examination of the evidence is falling flat of anything conclusive.
Phoenix Lights, Conclusive video evidence that the second event was flares. Mundane explanations are consistent with knowledge available and nothing has been shown that can't be accounted for within this framework for both Phoenix events.
Rouge River - No Physical evidence. Mundane possibility already covered.
Zamora Incident - No physical evidence, prototype balloon company nearby, already covered recently.
Tehran UFO incident - No Physical evidence, plenty of signs of minor inconsistencies in witness accounts.
Need I go on?...

Yes the sheer weight of BS is astounding... and yet still inconclusive from an objective POV.
Actually that's a little unfair, when so many shreds of evidence lead up a dead end alley and you take into account all the deliberate hoaxes, jokes and misidentifications you get something slightly less credible than inconclusive. Urban Myth is a wonderful thing, I have seen it first hand with my own speciality 'Crop Circles' and the tell tale signs are all over the rest of the 'paranormal world'. Whispers of conspiracy, the military are involved and they confiscate all the evidence, they throw misinformation out all the time and employ forum trolls to muddy the waters.

Do Geller's claims get anymore objectively testable just because more people write stuff about his amazing powers?
The answer is no. Just because more people buy into the concept doesn't make it any more real in a physical way, it just make it more credible to those who have a subjective investment in blind faith based 'system belief'

Now instead of repeating the mistakes of the UFOlogists past 50 years of unprofessional/unscientific 'research', why not spend some forum time with a thread on how methods of researching UFO's could be vastly improved?
This, I'm sure would be more use than examining the past mistakes over and over again.

 

[Nonpareil]

Actually, science and law apply different standards of evidence. And it is NOT "hearsay" when it is a first hand report. I think you might be confusing "anecdote" with "hearsay"?

Either way, anecdotes aren't very convincing "evidence" either.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

But Gord…if you had read the report you would have discovered the witnesses DID provide size estimates AND estimated how high it was AND how far away it was. Your comments SHOULD be informed by the facts – at the very least.

They can estimate all they want but if they don't know how big it was, they don't know how high it was, or how far away it was. This is supposedly one of your "best" cases?

Bentwoods? Your misstatement here is telling. It is “Bentwaters” Gord. Such a misstatement leads one to conclude that you are perhaps not familiar with the case?

Ha. Ha. Is your memory so short that you forget that you agreed in another thread that I had actually listened to the Paracast episode that "revealed all" about Rendlesham? You know the one you posted in error and after misspelling Rendlesham? I have now listened to the correct episode and all it proved was that your best witness only started telling his fabulations after being "regressed" by a hypnotist?

[/quote]

<snip>

[/quote]

 

[Hindmost]

As always, I have never seen any evidence that any aliens have harnessed an energy source to accomplish interstellar travel. Just the same old anecdotes and poor photography.

There is not much within 30 light-years of the earth and the energy requirements to travel a few light-years is just huge. Just once, I would like to see something that could possibly get them here.

glenn

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

Zamora Incident - No physical evidence, prototype balloon company nearby, already covered recently.

There actually was some physical evidence reported by no bigger investigator than Hynek. He reported three triangular impressions with scuff marks as though something had been dragged along the ground. Exactly what one would see if one of the top secret experimental hot air balloons with a tripod frame had taken off from the spot.

Additional fact -- Zamora's original description of the "insignia" he saw was that it was "like an inverted V with three parallel lines underneath".

<snip>

 

[Rramjet]

Are we looking at the same phenomenon that makes Wikipedia a better, more accurate reference source, the more badly researched pages people sling up onto it?

Meaning? Wikipedia is a good, accurate source? A bad source? Who is referencing Wikipedia? Red Herrings StrayCat…red herrings…

A big list of famous UFO cases and other UFO related websites was posted and now we must presume it's our job to look at them all and critically examine each case individually... when he claims that it's weight of evidence that's the real turning point?

No… it is not your “job” to do anything… people merely asked if I could provide evidence. I did so. It is entirely up to you how you deal with it.

Well just some of the cases he's listed are easily blown out of the water... if not completely then enough to cast a lot of doubt over the (usually very biased) findings.

“entirely blown out of the water" ? …but you have not looked at the information in my references and seem to be basing you contentions on previously arrived at belief systems… THAT is not what this is about StrayCat… I posted evidence. You deal with it by replying with an ingrained, deeply held belief system. If you want to truly argue against the evidence I present… provide the counter-evidence.

Roswell, No Physical Evidence. The most major UFO story ever and yet completely ignored from the 50's til the late 70's early 80's... not even important enough to get a mention in the Condon Report.

Which is why I posted references ONLY to Dr. Jesse Marcel’s statements. THEY are interesting. “Roswell” itself is “mired deep” and probably will be now forever… I invite you to look beyond the heading at the actual content of the evidence I present.

McMinville, Contentious photos. Again enough doubt has been thrown on the event by Sheaffer, Klass, Printy to name a few and again we have a long and detailed thread about it active here and now, where another examination of the evidence is falling flat of anything conclusive.

“Enough doubt”… “Falling flat”? These are value judgements Stray Cat and many would disagree with your assessment on the matter. I simply then invite readers to go to the thread you mention and make up their own minds.

Phoenix Lights, Conclusive video evidence that the second event was flares. Mundane explanations are consistent with knowledge available and nothing has been shown that can't be accounted for within this framework for both Phoenix events.

Yes, maybe, but if you contend that then you must show me how and why you reached that conclusion. Merely stating that something is …well, you know the rest.

Rouge River - No Physical evidence. Mundane possibility already covered.

Covered where and by whom? And “Rouge” River. Perhaps you really ARE not familiar with the case….

Zamora Incident - No physical evidence, prototype balloon company nearby, already covered recently.

Prototype-balloon company “nearby”? Now you DO make me laugh…the company – as I have already pointed out to you elsewhere- was a WHOLE CONTINENT away from the “scene of the crime”.

Tehran UFO incident - No Physical evidence, plenty of signs of minor inconsistencies in witness accounts.

“Minor inconsistencies”? Which? Where? And “minor”?

Yes the sheer weight of BS is astounding... and yet still inconclusive from an objective POV.

BS is always going to be inconclusive StrayCat – but again “BS” is just your belief system (about the matter)…

Actually that's a little unfair, when so many shreds of evidence lead up a dead end alley and you take into account all the deliberate hoaxes, jokes and misidentifications you get something slightly less credible than inconclusive.

Then I ask you to examine the EVIDENCE as I presented it StrayCat. Your attitude seems to be “Don’t bother me with evidence, my mind is already made up”. If that is the case then please move aside and let others decide for themselves – on the evidence.

Now instead of repeating the mistakes of the UFOlogists past 50 years of unprofessional/unscientific 'research', why not spend some forum time with a thread on how methods of researching UFO's could be vastly improved?
This, I'm sure would be more use than examining the past mistakes over and over again.

Oh, so Blue Book, Condon, Sturrock, Condign, et al. are “unprofessional” and “unscientific”? Please StrayCat, your opinion is at odds with, well…just about everybody on that score…

You seem to be throwing slurs against any and all here without due consideration of the facts. All I ask is you look at the evidence as presented in the links I posted. If you can provide counter-evidence, then I urge you to do so. Casting slurs and aspersions and making unfounded generalisations is not particularly helpful…really.

This is a trend I have noticed. Debunkers rarely discuss or debate the actual evidence as presented to them, relying instead on casting unsubstantiated and generalised slurs on the witnesses and the research to get by. That is a methodology that belies critical thinking and rational thought processes and incidentally is definitely anti-scientific.

 

[Rramjet]

As always, I have never seen any evidence that any aliens have harnessed an energy source to accomplish interstellar travel. Just the same old anecdotes and poor photography.

There is not much within 30 light-years of the earth and the energy requirements to travel a few light-years is just huge. Just once, I would like to see something that could possibly get them here.

glenn

Ah yes, the "physics is dead" argument - we know everything there is to know and nothing new will be discovered. Or another way. "It cannot be, therefore it is not".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ah yes, the "physics is dead" argument - we know everything there is to know and nothing new will be discovered. Or another way. "It cannot be, therefore it is not".

So are you giving up your "It can't be human powered, therefore it isn't human." argument?

 

[Rramjet]

There actually was some physical evidence reported by no bigger investigator than Hynek. He reported three triangular impressions with scuff marks as though something had been dragged along the ground. Exactly what one would see if one of the top secret experimental hot air balloons with a tripod frame had taken off from the spot.

Additional fact -- Zamora's original description of the "insignia" he saw was that it was "like an inverted V with three parallel lines underneath".

Ah yes, the "It might be, therefore it is" argument. Point to the evidence to support the "balloons" hypothesis.

I see lots of generalised statements by my "opponents" here, but not much actual addressing of the evidence... I expected as much...yet foolishly perhaps I remain optimistic.

 

[Rramjet]

So are you giving up your "It can't be human powered, therefore it isn't human." argument?

Point to ANY post of mine where I have argued that.

Now the astute reader will immediately recognise this as the "strawman argument". Set up a false statement attributable to you opponent, merely to knock it down. We are getting it all here today! Roll up ladies and gentlemen... roll up and see...

 

[FramerDave]

Rather than just dump a pile of links at our feet and expect us to spend hours, if not days, slogging through it, how about doing your own work? Can you summarize what you believe is the best evidence and why? Remember, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

A cursory read through some of your links shows them to be the same old same old stuff, explained and debunked many times over. To take just instance, there is the link which purports to show us records of alien (however you wish to define the term) visitation in artwork.

To take just two examples, the so-called red flying saucer seen in La Tebaideis just a cardinal's hat, most often associated with Saint Jerome. Then there are the two strange objects on either side of the crucifixion, supposedly astronauts/aliens/ancient pilots or whatever piloting their craft. Simply the sun and moon anthropomorphized.

Some more info: http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm

You certainly have quantity; quality is sorely lacking.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Ah yes, the "It might be, therefore it is" argument. Point to the evidence to support the "balloons" hypothesis.

And yet, just a couple of posts before, you wrote:

Ah yes, the "physics is dead" argument - we know everything there is to know and nothing new will be discovered. Or another way. "It cannot be, therefore it is not".

Notice that you are falling in the exact fallacy you criticize on others?