UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

ok so the question then is probably?

Rramjet, what is it that you believe ?

(in five sentences or less)

 

[Hindmost]

The strawmen is exactly what you setup. I never indicated "physics is dead."

What I am implying is that physics and engineering are a needed first step. The protons, neutrons and electrons in our star system are no different from the rest of the universe. Therefore, the aliens have to deal with the same periodic table that we have...perhaps a slightly different nuclide chart. Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and the laws of thermo apply to our alien friends just as much as they do on earth.

Chemical energy...did our alien friends get here on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. They would need a ship about the size of Jupiter. So, not very probable--we certainly would see that one coming.

That leaves nuclear. Much better. Either fusion or matter-anti-matter. Fusion has a reasonable shot at it. But the ship would still be huge..and easy to detect since all the gamma rays flitting about and the exhaust would be distinctive.

Matter-antimatter: Another reasonable possibility, but making and storing antimatter in a matter shell is really, really tough. Magnetic fields are not too perfect...just look at how difficult it is to fuse hydrogen in a tokamak. The consequences of a containment failure would be bad and very visible. The other real problem is making antimatter as it does not occur too much in nature. Making positrons is fairly easy, but antiprotons are somewhat more difficult. The energy required in an accelerator to make a few antiprotons is enormous. Then of course, matter-antimatter reactions are very easy to monitor with all the muons and gamma rays etc...we would be able to see that.

Please tell me how these huge ships got here from 20 to 50 light-years distance and somehow wink in and out of existence so quickly. Until they arrive, there is no reason to analyze poor photographs and listen to anecdotes.

glenn

You forgot Dark Matter...
You forgot, clear photos, video, radar and physical trace evidence...

But the main point is that you ARE precisely and directly arguing that "physics is dead" - that what we know now is all there is to know - and that no new discoveries will be forthcoming.

I had to quote my own post because you snipped it enough to change the meaning...please don't do that.

I am finished here and will wink out into the next dimension soon, however, before I go, I am arguing that aliens have to follow physics. All of it.

glenn

let's see your concept for a dark matter propusion system.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And you are the one deciding what is correct/incorrect because...?

Because it was incorrect.

Rramjet's claim is he believes it was a UFO. He has given back up for his belief. That's enough, at least for me. It doesn't mean his belief is a correct evaluation of 'objective' reality. But it does give us a basis for his belief. A basis we can then evaluate. And that is exactly why it doesn't matter if the proof he finds valid is not valid in our eyes as well.

Rramjet provided anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim in an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from himself. He hasn't met the burden of proof with his lame evidence, despite his belief in it. That's why I posted about the school bus, to show how inane his argument is. So, do you think that sceptics now have the burden of proof to show that it is a school bus? Or do we accept that it is equally likely to be a Denebian child slave vessel?

If someone finds the proof for someone's belief to be in some way insufficient or simply incorrect, it's their job to show why/how with the aid of proof of the contrary.

That's what the whole thread has been about.

 

[Rramjet]

A note on the Rogue River Case(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

To accept the “blimp” hypothesis as being even remotely likely, one first must:
1) Discount the veracity of the sworn, eyewitness testimony,
2) Deny the competency of the AirForce Office of Special Investigations.

My question to those who want to have “blimp” as their explanation:
Do you:
1) Discount the veracity of the sworn, eyewitness testimony?
2) Deny the competency of the AirForce Office of Special Investigations.

…and if you DO, then you MUST provide satisfactory REASONS for why you do.

It is not enough merely to state that you do, because merely stating it is so, does not make it so.

Then there is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that would suggest that blimps EVER flew in the Rogue River area. The debunkers claim that information might now be unavailable because it might have been somehow classified… again this is pure nonsense. The movements of the blimps were NOT classified information… how could they have been… think about it…

The burden of proof falls squarely on the debunkers to support their assertion with evidence. If they cannot do that, then on the evidence I presented, I maintain UFO (Unidentified... NOT "alien" not ET, merely unidentified)

Then there is a point to be made about the insertion of value judgements such as “likely” or “probably” or “possibly” into the argument.

The debunkers began with the argument:

It could have been a blimp, therefore it was a blimp.

Then, when the logical fallacy of this argument was exposed they switched to:

It could have been a blimp, therefore it was likely (possibly) a blimp.

But there is still something wrong with the logical form.

BOTH “could” and “likely” are value judgements. We can substitute “probable” for both.

It probably was a blimp, therefore it probably was a blimp.

So now the logical flaw is revealed, the argument is circular!

It becomes circular because one cannot know with certainty all the possible likelihood estimates of all possible explanations.

Someone then objected…but that raises the spectre of us being allowed to claim it was anything at all and thus denies scientific progress.

Well, duh… so it does, but it was not I who is making the argument thus, it is the debunkers.

I wonder if the debunkers will answer my questions above – and provide evidential support for their answers. My bet is they will not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A note on the Rogue River Case(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

To accept the “blimp” hypothesis as being even remotely likely, one first must:
1) Discount the veracity of the sworn, eyewitness testimony,
2) Deny the competency of the AirForce Office of Special Investigations.

My question to those who want to have “blimp” as their explanation:
Do you:
1) Discount the veracity of the sworn, eyewitness testimony?
2) Deny the competency of the AirForce Office of Special Investigations.

…and if you DO, then you MUST provide satisfactory REASONS for why you do.

It is not enough merely to state that you do, because merely stating it is so, does not make it so.

Then there is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that would suggest that blimps EVER flew in the Rogue River area. The debunkers claim that information might now be unavailable because it might have been somehow classified… again this is pure nonsense. The movements of the blimps were NOT classified information… how could they have been… think about it…

The burden of proof falls squarely on the debunkers to support their assertion with evidence. If they cannot do that, then on the evidence I presented, I maintain UFO (Unidentified... NOT "alien" not ET, merely unidentified)

Then there is a point to be made about the insertion of value judgements such as “likely” or “probably” or “possibly” into the argument.

The debunkers began with the argument:

It could have been a blimp, therefore it was a blimp.

Then, when the logical fallacy of this argument was exposed they switched to:

It could have been a blimp, therefore it was likely (possibly) a blimp.

But there is still something wrong with the logical form.

BOTH “could” and “likely” are value judgements. We can substitute “probable” for both.

It probably was a blimp, therefore it probably was a blimp.

So now the logical flaw is revealed, the argument is circular!

It becomes circular because one cannot know with certainty all the possible likelihood estimates of all possible explanations.

Someone then objected…but that raises the spectre of us being allowed to claim it was anything at all and thus denies scientific progress.

Well, duh… so it does, but it was not I who is making the argument thus, it is the debunkers.

I wonder if the debunkers will answer my questions above – and provide evidential support for their answers. My bet is they will not.

The ball is still in your court, burden of proof wise.

 

[Rramjet]

I'd be careful not to forget the 'probably" in your first sentence, we don't need to get the whole "Sceptics think it could be a blimp there for it IS a blimp" thing going again...

And there it IS ...as soon as the spotlight goes off, the debunkers return to the categorical and the fallacy:

It could have been a blimp, therefore it was a blimp.

Showing of course they were merely arguing for "form" and did not really believe their own arguments. Meaning of course their arguments were a sham all along!

 

[Paul2]

My question to those who want to have “blimp” as their explanation:
Do you:
1) Discount the veracity of the sworn, eyewitness testimony?
2) Deny the competency of the AirForce Office of Special Investigations.

1. Eyewitnesses, in general, are routinely shown to be mistaken, especially in cases of judging speed, etc. Do you really need us to document this? What is your understanding of the reliability, in general, of eyewitnesses?

2. Do you mean the competency of the A.F.O.S.I. in general or overall, or just in this case?

 

[StevenCalder]

Oh come on, StevenCalder, you know better than that. It'll come up again anyway.

It seems I was expecting too much.

 

[Rramjet]

1. Eyewitnesses, in general, are routinely shown to be mistaken, especially in cases of judging speed, etc. Do you really need us to document this? What is your understanding of the reliability, in general, of eyewitnesses?

2. Do you mean the competency of the A.F.O.S.I. in general or overall, or just in this case?

I need you to address this case directly ...it is after all the one under discussion.

My understanding of eyewitness reliability is based on the accepted research that shows precisely how, where and why eyewitness testimony is fallible. Knowing that, we can directly account for those factors and conditions and rule out those that do not apply and make a competent assessment of the effect of any that might have a bearing on the matter when assessing eyewitness testimony. You?

 

[StevenCalder]

Showing of course they were merely arguing for "form" and did not really believe their own arguments. Meaning of course their arguments were a sham all along!

You've caught us Rramjet!

Were all secretly holding the positions you claim, and if you ask us directly we'd only lie anyway.

I spent the better part of entire thread spelling out repeatedly in 24 foot high letters how sceptics did not reject the existence of UFO's. Something you repeatedly assigned positions to me for, ignored and argued against for ages. I'm not doing it again this time.

You either don't read peoples post fully, or read-into them what your looking for.

In the past I have not been comfortable speculating on that, At this stage I'm comfortable concluding the latter.

 

[Rramjet]

The ball is still in your court, burden of proof wise.

I need you to walk me through the logic that allows you to conclude this.

That is, show me the logical argument that has as its' conclusion your assertion above.

My bet is you cannot logically do so!

 

[Sledge]

Still waiting on that proof...

 

[BlackKat]

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

From the first link:
"Nothing was found.... found nothing... Nothing was found..."

And my favorite paragraph:
"How can such a tale be accepted at face value? one asks. After all, the family itself was considered of "low social status" by the townspeople. Two of the men had worked for a carnival; it could be argued that they were familiar with the art of the trickster."

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tapio, note how, despite being told dozens of times that this is a strawman, he continues to pummel this strawman:

It could have been a blimp, therefore it was a blimp.

This is what I was referring to, his attempt at shifting the burden of proof. He attributes this assertion to sceptics and then demands that they defend it. That's shifting the burden of proof.

That's why I said that you were incorrect that sceptics now had the burden of proof. No disrespect intended.

 

[Rramjet]

You've caught us Rramjet!

Were all secretly holding the positions you claim, and if you ask us directly we'd only lie anyway.

I spent the better part of entire thread spelling out repeatedly in 24 foot high letters how sceptics did not reject the existence of UFO's. Something you repeatedly assigned positions to me for, ignored and argued against for ages. I'm not doing it again this time.

You either don't read peoples post fully, or read-into them what your looking for.

In the past I have no been comfortable speculating on that, At this stage I'm comfortable concluding the latter.

Steven, you may not be arguing like that but others certainly DO... and while others DO, I must point out the logical fallacies and other forms of inconsistency in their arguments.

It is therefore NOT I you should be upset with Steven, it is your compatriots who persist in arguing illogically and without evidence.

So you now accept Rogue River as "unknown" (UFO) as I have repeatedly claimed all along.

 

[StevenCalder]

I need you to walk me through the logic that allows you to conclude this.

That is, show me the logical argument that has as its' conclusion your assertion above.

My bet is you cannot logically do so!

He's probably hoping your going to try to back up your proposed hypothesis from the OP in some way. Obviously otherwise there's not much point to the thread

 

[Astrophotographer]

To accept the “blimp” hypothesis as being even remotely likely, one first must:
1) Discount the veracity of the sworn, eyewitness testimony,
2) Deny the competency of the AirForce Office of Special Investigations.

1) Nobody is denying the witnesses saw something. It is just their interpretation of what was seen that is being questioned. There is a difference. In one case, you are saying the witnesses are lying. In the other, you are stating the witnesses were simply mistaken. The ability of witnesses to accurately report what they have seen is a common problem with UFO reports. Of course, you assume all witnesses are 100% reliable. The real fact surrounding such testimony is that it is not 100% reliable.

2) AFOSI is manned by humans that can make mistakes. Perhaps the investigating officer did not think of a blimp as a source. To me, there are a myriad of possible sources with a blimp being a reasonable possiblity. I would think you would be the one questioning AFOSI. This is during the "dark days" of project GRUDGE where the whole idea was to sweep all UFO reports under the rug (if you believe UFOlogists). AFOSI would simply have stated, we looked into this and it was a blimp/kite/airplane/etc. Apparently, AFOSI suddenly becomes highly reliable when were are talking about a "True" UFO.

 

[Rramjet]

Tapio, note how, despite being told dozens of times that this is a strawman, he continues to pummel this strawman:


This is what I was referring to, his attempt at shifting the burden of proof. He attributes this assertion to sceptics and then demands that they defend it. That's shifting the burden of proof.

That's why I said that you were incorrect that sceptics now had the burden of proof. No disrespect intended.

No..the debunkers say "blimp", I am merely asking for evidential support before I can accept that assertion.

...and THAT is an entirely reasonable position. You would accept no less of me if I claimed "alien". So why the double standard?

 

[StevenCalder]

Steven, you may not be arguing like that but others certainly DO... and while others DO.

You said exactly the same thing to me in relation to 'sceptics deny the existence of UFO's'. Almost word for word.

 

[Paul2]

I need you to address this case directly ...it is after all the one under discussion.

My understanding of eyewitness reliability is based on the accepted research that shows precisely how, where and why eyewitness testimony is fallible. Knowing that, we can directly account for those factors and conditions and rule out those that do not apply and make a competent assessment of the effect of any that might have a bearing on the matter when assessing eyewitness testimony. You?

How can we do that in this case? Have you already done that? Can you share that?