UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

You never did get round to reading those posts of mine in the other thread did you?

Well I apologise Steven... I was referring solely to your post that I quoted in this forum. I am finding that I have to reply to so many post right now that posts in another forum simply get lost in the whole. But if you have a particular point you wish to draw my attention to, then please reference or state it and I will try to give it due attention.

 

[FramerDave]

There seems to be a confusion here about the relationship of quantity and quality of evidence. Rramjet thinks that the sheer number of eyewitness accounts, anecdotes, blurry photos and crop circles makes up for their weaknesses. That's not the case.

Let me put it this way: If you have one cow patty, that's a little bit of manure. If you have a truckload of cow patties, you just have a lot of manure.

 

[StevenCalder]

Well I apologise Steven... I was referring solely to your post that I quoted in this forum. I am finding that I have to reply to so many post right now that posts in another forum simply get lost in the whole. But if you have a particular point you wish to draw my attention to, then please reference or state it and I will try to give it due attention.

Don't worry! It wasn't a real sad face!

In my early posts I detailed the presumptive mundane position and why I hold it.

 

[Rramjet]

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case728.htm

You can see the drawings here. They look like many UFO claims and not unlike a blimp of the time. They also look a bit like an airplane when viewed at an angle.

Note that it was "wrinkled" like a blimp might be.

Yes...but WHERE are the blimps? That is, is there ANY credible evidence that blimps were in the area at the time? I have seen no such evidence and certainly no-one has presented any.

The "blimp argument, so far, is simply the argument: "It possibly looks like it, so therefore it is!"

 

[MattusMaximus]

Moreover I have posted a number of speculative hypotheses. For example:
ET
Indigenous "aliens"
Inter- or intra-dimensional
Jungian consciousness
Time travellers
...and the list could go on - but these are MERE speculations. All I CAN conclude, on the evidence, is that we are dealing with true unknowns.

Okay, now there's something we can hang our hats on. Thank you.

Now, Rramjet, would you please outline what would constitute confirming or - just as importantly - disconfirming evidence that said UFOs were, for example, an inter-dimensional being?

In other words, how could the inter-dimensional being hypothesis be falsified? And please don't refer to an argument from ignorance, because by such an argument I could just as easily insist the UFOs were leprechauns...

... which, of course, they were

 

[Nonpareil]

Moreover I have posted a number of speculative hypotheses. For example:
ET
Indigenous "aliens"
Inter- or intra-dimensional
Jungian consciousness
Time travellers
...and the list could go on - but these are MERE speculations. All I CAN conclude, on the evidence, is that we are dealing with true unknowns.

...And here, ladies and gentlemen, is where I would encourage exiting the ride. There is nothing good that can come out of a discussion with a person who honestly believes these hypotheses based on nothing but "I don't think it was a blimp". Down this road madness lies, and it is a very short road.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes...but WHERE are the blimps? That is, is there ANY credible evidence that blimps were in the area at the time? I have seen no such evidence and certainly no-one has presented any.

The "blimp argument, so far, is simply the argument: "It possibly looks like it, so therefore it is!"

Where were the blimps?

I guess they were where the witnesses saw them if that's what they were.

I'm not aware of a blimp tracking system in place at the time that would allow me to know where a given blimp might have been at a particular time.

Let's remember (again) who has the burden of proof here.

The most likely explanation is not "alien spacecraft".

 

[Rramjet]

Okay, now there's something we can hang our hats on. Thank you.

Now, Rramjet, would you please outline what would constitute confirming or - just as importantly - disconfirming evidence that said UFOs were, for example, an inter-dimensional being?

In other words, how could the inter-dimensional being hypothesis be falsified? And please don't refer to an argument from ignorance, because by such an argument I could just as easily insist the UFOs were leprechauns...

... which, of course, they were

Well, for example many UFO reports (and you'll have to take my word on it for this post) seem to have a "nuts and bolts" feel to them (they look solid and three dimensional, they are opaque, they physically affect the environment around them) and then they "disappear" or even "fade out". Where did they go? I am loathe to conclude "invisiblity cloak" (although energising themselves to levels beyond our perception is a possibility) but one hypothesis is that they moved into another dimension.

Also...if you are inclined to the ET hypothesis, then BY DEFINITION "they" must be inter-dimensional, because our (current) understanding of physics would seem to preclude direct spatial travel over such vast distances...

So just two examples...

 

[Rramjet]

Where were the blimps?

I guess they were where the witnesses saw them if that's what they were.

I'm not aware of a blimp tracking system in place at the time that would allow me to know where a given blimp might have been at a particular time.

Let's remember (again) who has the burden of proof here.

The most likely explanation is not "alien spacecraft".

Nobody is concluding "alien" spacecraft.
The burden of proof rests squarely on those who propose the "blimp" hypothesis - no-one else.
If there are NO blimps then there are NO blimps.
Simple, straightforward logic.

 

[StevenCalder]

Actually "convince" was a poor choice of words... I merely present the evidence and hope people will examine it and then judge on that basis.

Ah you got a response in while I posted my earlier post you scoundrel Please disregard my second last post.

So your not trying to convince anyone of any hypothesis, you admit the evidence does not confirm nor logically link to any of the hypothesis you list, I assume you also understand by now that volume of non-confirmatory evidence does not correlate to reality of a given hypothesis. But you still want us to go over the evidence?

For me, personally, I'm going to go watch some TV.

 

[Nonpareil]

Nobody is concluding "alien" spacecraft.
The burden of proof rests squarely on those who propose the "blimp" hypothesis - no-one else.

Burden of proof is on you. "Blimp" is the simplest, most likely explanation. If you wish to establish that it was NOT a blimp, then the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Sledge]

I acknowledged nothing of the kind.

I contend that no single report will be enough to "convince" anyone... but taken as a whole, then something larger emerges. If you find the evidence unconvincing then, for the case under discussion...the Rogue River case, please tell me what about it you find "unconvincing".

I don't know or care about the Rogue River case. What I'm trying to understand is what you're trying to achieve here. If none of the cases are convincing by themselves, why would they be convincing when put alongside other unconvincing evidence?

ETA: which is exactly what I said in the first place. What are you disagreeing with?

 

[Rramjet]

...And here, ladies and gentlemen, is where I would encourage exiting the ride. There is nothing good that can come out of a discussion with a person who honestly believes these hypotheses based on nothing but "I don't think it was a blimp". Down this road madness lies, and it is a very short road.

Show me ANY evidence that there were ANY blimps anywhere near the area.

...and I am truly sorry you feel so close to the edge of madness. Perhaps you should indeed "exit the ride" if you feel that way.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nobody is concluding "alien" spacecraft.
The burden of proof rests squarely on those who propose the "blimp" hypothesis - no-one else.
If there are NO blimps then there are NO blimps.
Simple, straightforward logic.

Nope. Why is this always so hard?

"Misidentified Blimp" or "Misidentified Airplane" are not extraordinary explanations. They are the most likely explanations. They require little, if any, support.

"Jungian Puddlejumper" is quite extraordinary and requires extraordinary support.

I'm waiting for your proof that there were no blimps in the area, though. That should at least be interesting.

 

[Rramjet]

Burden of proof is on you. "Blimp" is the simplest, most likely explanation. If you wish to establish that it was NOT a blimp, then the burden of proof is on you.

Pure, unadulterated bunk. This is an antirational stance that flies in the face of scientific and logical enterprise.

If you say it was a blimp, then you must show me HOW it could have been a blimp. The mere fact of stating does not make it true.

 

[LTC8K6]

Pure, unadulterated bunk. This is an antirational stance that flies in the face of scientific and logical enterprise.

If you say it was a blimp, then you must show me HOW it could have been a blimp. The mere fact of stating does not make it true.

Nope.

"Blimp" is an offered and very plausible explanation that requires little backup.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nobody is concluding "alien" spacecraft.
The burden of proof rests squarely on those who propose the "blimp" hypothesis - no-one else.
If there are NO blimps then there are NO blimps.
Simple, straightforward logic.

And here we have it, the shifting of burden of proof. "I make no claims myself so if you're going to propose some mundane explanantion, you have to prove it was mundane." Did you and KotA get together and decide to both try it at the same time?

 

[Tapio]

OK then. When I said the witnesses had "no idea", I did not mean what they thought; I meant what the could actually know with any great certainty.

Yes, completely understood now. Agreed. Thank you.

 

[Nonpareil]

Pure, unadulterated bunk. This is an antirational stance that flies in the face of scientific and logical enterprise.

If you say it was a blimp, then you must show me HOW it could have been a blimp. The mere fact of stating does not make it true.

No again.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the extraordinary claim. You claim that it was not a blimp. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to show you anything; since "blimp" is the most likely, simplest explanation, it is the default for the purposes of rational argument.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes of course, the “They are in it for the money” argument. I ask you then to examine the Rogue River case and tell me whether your contention holds true.

A conspiracy of profiteering in the Roswell case does not prove a conspiracy of profiteering in any other case. You know this already so why even try to equate the two?
The link for Rogue River is down... I can't move forward on it because the sources I'm reading are not the one you provided, which apparently is important for some reason known only to you.

Ughh… I will get back to you with Hatmann’s quotes on the issue. You again resort to unfounded assertion. If you make such assertions you should provide the evidence that what you say is at least grounded in reality.

I posted the exact quote form the Condon report... dishonest of you that Rramjet?

The first link point to an abstract that talks about “geometric angles” and “speed of rotation” – so THAT is not relevant.

Yes it is

The second link points to an article talking about “size perception based on monocular cues” – so THAT is not relevant (in Rogue River 5 sets of eyes and two of them using binoculars).

Yes it is

The third.. well let me quote the conclusions then…

“Three conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the observers were able to interpret the size change stimuli as moving in depth. Second, when making speed judgments, most observers can ignore the size change as long as it is not associated with an acceleration into depth (contracting stimulus in orthogonal speed experiment). Third, using a center-tracking strategy is the most efficient means to judge speed based on the retinal speed of the stimulus.”

So this is saying that people generally CAN discern speed. Which directly contradicts your assessment.

No it doesn't... shall we reproduce the bit you left out?
"In sum, what you perceive is not necessarily what you use to produce speed judgments."
More dishonesty?

I have no idea what then to make of you posting such links. Did you think no-one would bother to check?

No, quite the opposite, I'd hoped that people would read them and see that perception of speed/distance is unreliable.
But to most people, it doesn't need further proof because all the studies show it to be the case.

Maybe, maybe not, but you merely stating that it is so, does not MAKE it so.

No indeed, your inability to clearly state your case makes it so.
And there is beginning to be less and less "maybe" about it.

Again I ask you. Is Blue Book SR14 faulty research? Is Condon? Is the British UAP study? And so on…

Blue Book didn't overreach in it's conclusions. Though the work done was not always good quality, the results were not sensationalist.

Point to anything in the Rogue River research by Maccabee that states or even implies that he is concluding FOR an “alien craft”. You cannot because it is just not there. I really wish you would cease making false assertions before even examining the evidence. Moreover, exactly HOW is that research “unscientific”? Please…

No, I can not because the link is broken.
The 'UFO Evidence' website report on it claims Alien Craft. Other reports on it spin the usual "Unexplained means Alien Craft" implication.

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

It's all over the internet, in UFO books, videos, DVDs.
Or are you claiming that no UFOlogist has ever been caught out by a hoax?

I don’t “promote” or make anything of them. I simply posted the links and asked others to judge…based on examination of the evidence contained within them…something you obviously are not willing to do… I cannot help you there.

And they have been judged to be crap... what next?

Again with the unfounded assertions. SHOW me the money.

Sure, go read all your links, the foundation of my assertions is contained in the links you provided (well the ones that work anyway).