UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Now we need to stop this nonsense.

There are only two conclusions to be reached here:

Either the posts above (Tapio and Astrophotograper excepted) are a deliberate ploy to cause "thread drift", that is posted merely to obstruct debate on the issue at hand

OR maybe I am trying to get you to commit on the various questions about UFOs that you seem to want to desperately avoid. That being, what makes one UFO case more special than the other? You are listing these cases and we discussed Rogue River, which you now seem to state is simply an "unidentified" and nothing more.

Has no-one anything rational to say about The Iranian Jet case
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

I have stated:

What I find compelling is:
First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")
Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "weird" (unlike ANYTHING that could be labelled a "blimp" and it exhibited aspects that could NOT be explained as anything like a possible secret US weapons system or program etc...
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)

So these are some of the primary aspects of the case I find compelling. WHAT do others think?

Are you stating this is not a normal UFO case and is extremely exotic? Otherwise, it is simply "UNIDENTIFIED" with insufficient information. No actual evidence and just more anecdotal reporting. It could be anything. Others have speculated about the potential source of the UFO and causes for failure in the aircraft. You can not state positively that the "UFO affected its' surroundings" without some sort of positive proof these effects were not from something else. I suggest you get off your waffling and tell us what you really about the case. Otherwise, we just list it as "UNIDENTIFIED" and move onward.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, yes, we've read all that.
Your quotes refer to (and I repeat from my last post), ACTIVE WARTIME NAVY AIRWINGS.

There is absolutely no argument that they were decommissioned by 1949.

The NEW squadrons formed in 1949 were navy RESERVE squadrons.

Two totally different miltary services.


http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf
I do not accept that the eyewitness testimony is accurate. There are a number of discrepancie between their estimates of size, distance, elevation and speed... or 2-1/2 or 4 or..... There was no consensus opinion on this between the witness testimony that I have read.
There is nothing theoretical about the drawing. YOU put them forward as evidence drawn by the eyewitnesses.You'd only dismiss the numbers, I'm not going to bother. But since you are a published scientist, given the last diagram I provided, you should be able to calculate the angular separation of a 30ft circle at 1 mile.
Here's a Wiki article with the formula. Simple trig.<snip>
Now… do you dispute these findings and if so How and Why?

The first sentence says it all.

Since there are so many unknowns in the equation, no calculation of speed, size, distance, elevation can be made to validate or support the eyewitness estimates. The HUGE difference in distance estimates, 1, 2.5, 4 miles does not allow any valid "margin of error" allowances. THe differences are too great.

This certainly was the case for "regular" Navy squadrons at the end of the 2nd WW.

In 1949 8 new Naval Air RESERVE squadrons were formed and continued use of the WWII blimps. 3 were on the west coast.
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf

[/QUOTE]

*********************** Sorry..can't get the quote facility to work correctly. ALL the above was the original post by EHocking.*******

Ughh.. so now we know you have either not read or not understood the implications of what I have posted above. My post was in direct answer to the many assertions you have just repeated. Please look at that post above and look at my responses to the many assertions you have just repeated. I have ANSWERED all this before!

However, YOU have NOT answered a critical question of mine - which goes to the very heart of the issue. I have posted compelling evidence, from the Navy historians themselves - that state quite cleraly the dates and places and even number of blimps that operated on the West Coast. You say "Oh but NEW squadrons were created".

If NEW squadrons WERE created then you should be able to point to exactly WHERE they were based and what dates they occupied those bases and how many blimps and of what kind, etc.

Can you do that? WILL you do that?

Of course you will not, you will merely re-post assertions I have already answered (PLEASE look at my answers to your assertions in my previous post. It really was quite a detailed and comprehensive reply to your assertions).

 

[Belz...]

So, you're as likely to believe it is a Denebian child slave vessel as it is to be a school bus? Really? Here's the evidence again: It's big and yellow and full of children and has flashing red lights and is heading towards a school.

Don't forget the "school bus" letters all over it.

 

[Belz...]

Now we need to stop this nonsense.

There are only two conclusions to be reached here:

Either the posts above (Tapio and Astrophotograper excepted) are a deliberate ploy to cause "thread drift", that is posted merely to obstruct debate on the issue at hand

OR

People really are not understanding their own logical fallacies.

Either way we NEED to move on.

So everybody disagrees with you means everybody is either a liar or an idiot ? Now, who does that make me think of, I wonder ?

 

[AWPrime]

Actually that is incorrect.

What I am doing right now...have been forced into the position of doing - is trying to debunk some pretty glaring logical fallacies.

The "extraordinary hypotheses..." fallacy for example. And many many others propagated in thus forum (the reversal of the burden of proof...All cats are balck... and so on).

For if we cannot get paste those fallacies, we cannot have a rational debate on UFOs and the evidence for or against "aliens". A debate based on logical fallacies gets us absolutely nowhere - as you might have witnessed.

I my opinion somehow, somewhere the members of this forum have been brainwashed into not thinking critically about the nature of evidence, science and logic. All I am asking is that they examine the precepts of those disciplines and apply it to their own thought processes. I my opinion what we have here is akin to a cult mentality. Members brook no outside opinion and will not examine their own opinions very closely for fear they might have invested money on the wrong horse. Don't take my word for it. Ask qualified professionals for their opinion.

I am trying my best to jar forum members into some sort of rational assessment of their own points of view. I NEED rational, logical, scientific, critical thinkers to examine the UFO issue. At the moment I admit the task seems impossible. But as a skeptic and critical thinker I must at least try.

So all this, as you can see, IS PRECISELY RELEVANT to the subject under discussion.

Rramjet, you are acting like you have no clue of what you are talking about.

The people of this forum are in general highly educated qualified professionals. However the only people who would use your methods are people for example the Electric Universe cult.

It seems quite clear to me that you are either desperately trying to find excuses or are poorly self-taught in logic. Please seek help.

 

[Rramjet]

OR maybe I am trying to get you to commit on the various questions about UFOs that you seem to want to desperately avoid. That being, what makes one UFO case more special than the other? You are listing these cases and we discussed Rogue River, which you now seem to state is simply an "unidentified" and nothing more.

Are you stating this is not a normal UFO case and is extremely exotic? Otherwise, it is simply "UNIDENTIFIED" with insufficient information. No actual evidence and just more anecdotal reporting. It could be anything. Others have speculated about the potential source of the UFO and causes for failure in the aircraft. You can not state positively that the "UFO affected its' surroundings" without some sort of positive proof these effects were not from something else. I suggest you get off your waffling and tell us what you really about the case. Otherwise, we just list it as "UNIDENTIFIED" and move onward.

No, not trying to avoid anything at all. I am engaging with you and trying as best I can to answer any questions you might pose.

I presented Rogue River first up to support my contention that UFOs exist. Some agreed, some did not.

Then I post the Iranian case to point out that there are cases that seem to defy ALL mundane explanations - even if there is debate about Rogue River (i'd like to see someone ratianally propose a blimp for this case for example).

So compared with Rogue River (a MERE UFO ), in that light, YES it IS extremely "exotic".

I posted the reasons why I find the case "compelling". You stated some assertions that seem to refute my opinions about the case, but again, you provide no evidence for those assertions.

You could begin by stating "I believe Your first assertion is not compelling because ..." and so on. Merely stating that my assertions are not compelling.. oh you know the rest . Even a link would do, a link and a quote even better...

 

[LTC8K6]

Then I post the Iranian case to point out that there are cases that seem to defy ALL mundane explanations

Well, it only seems that way to you as far as I can tell. Why don't you preface your remarks by saying you don't want to discuss mundane explanations for the incidents?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Don't forget the "school bus" letters all over it.

I took that to be a clever ploy on the part of the Denebians.

 

[Rramjet]

Don't forget the "school bus" letters all over it.

Perhaps then you can rationally and calmly explain how RoboTimbo got from:
"All hypotheses are equal" to
“So, you're as likely to believe it is a Denebian child slave vessel as it is to be a school bus”?

No? I did not think so.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I presented Rogue River first up to support my contention that UFOs exist. Some agreed, some did not.

Please give a link to the post that states UFOs don't exist. Thanks in advance.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wait wait wait wait...

Jocce at post 850 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5227227&postcount=850) shows that the Iranian sighting reconstruction was partially based in data from a National Enquirer UFO investigator?

National Enquirer?!

National Enquirer?!

Are we talking about the same Bob Pratt who produced the article at the following link? http://www.maar.us/1977_ufo_article_by_bob_pratt.html
Crap, I remember seeing that mothership pic -and the article- back then. Boy, what a nutcase I was...

I thought we were supposed to be trying to apply scientific methods...

Rramjet, using your alleged scientific training- what is a researcher (I mean, the serious ones) supposed to do with data sets of dubious origin?

 

[TjW]

Perhaps then you can rationally and calmly explain how RoboTimbo got from:
"All hypotheses are equal" to
“So, you're as likely to believe it is a Denebian child slave vessel as it is to be a school bus”?

No? I did not think so.

Okay.

One hypothesis is that the described object is a school bus. Another is that it is a Denebian child slave vessel.
l
According to you, both of these hypotheses are equal, and should be assigned equal weight. If you believe these hypotheses to be equal, then you are as likely to believe that it is a Denebian child slave vessel as to believe that it is a school bus.

If, however, you do NOT believe that it is as likely to be a Denebian child slave vessel as it is to be a school bus, then you are not holding both hypotheses to be equal, and it is unreasonable to hold other people to a standard which you do not follow yourself.

 

[Jocce]

Now we need to stop this nonsense.

There are only two conclusions to be reached here:

Either the posts above (Tapio and Astrophotograper excepted) are a deliberate ploy to cause "thread drift", that is posted merely to obstruct debate on the issue at hand

OR

People really are not understanding their own logical fallacies.

Either way we NEED to move on.

Has no-one anything rational to say about The Iranian Jet case
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

Why are you ignoring me?
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5227227#post5227227

 

[Stray Cat]

Has no-one anything rational to say about The Iranian Jet case
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

Well it'll be nice to get away from photo's of blimps and hangars for while

I've had a look through the bulk of this report and although it's interesting, there is nothing to investigate.
If you are asking me to take it on face value, you don't understand that that's not the way it works. To pick through the inconsistencies in what are in effect third hand related accounts probably 'creatively' translated from Iranian into English of events which happened over 30 years ago seems like a long road to nowhere (much like the previous 800 posts on this thread). Infact it is most likely only because this information is ultimately unconfirmable in any physical way that this story is given as much importance as it is by UFOlogists. But of course it is unconfirmable and that's what makes it Unidentifiable.

The story claims RADAR confirmation yet no documentation supporting this (apart from vague references to it) exist to examine. The object was in the air for at least an hour between being seen and the fighter planes being scrambled and yet no one photographed it. It was so bright it could be seen from 70 miles away but when close enough for the co-pilot to see it was a saucer shape and it had a dome on top that "glowed orange" it apparently wasn't so bright as to blind him, whilst other 'witnesses' (further away) describe that it was so bright you couldn't determine its shape... And pilots DON'T try to eject from their planes at the first sign of danger!!!! the eject button is a last resort!

I vote sensationalist nonsense... But I did find a photo of a blimp in Iraq.

http://www.gearthhacks.com/dlfile18790/Iraqi-blimp.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

Why didn't a whole lot of people call about this object in the Iranian sky that was supposedly so bright and so odd looking? Where are the calls to the police about it, etc.?

It was supposedly so bright that it wrecked the night vision of trained pilots for a long period of time.

Why didn't the pilots use their helmet shields?

 

[JCL]

Now we need to stop this nonsense.

There are only two conclusions to be reached here:

Either the posts above (Tapio and Astrophotograper excepted) are a deliberate ploy to cause "thread drift", that is posted merely to obstruct debate on the issue at hand

OR

People really are not understanding their own logical fallacies.

(delurk) Logical fallacies, can we all play?

Who can name the one shown above?
(/delurk)

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps then you can rationally and calmly explain how RoboTimbo got from:
"All hypotheses are equal" to
“So, you're as likely to believe it is a Denebian child slave vessel as it is to be a school bus”?

No? I did not think so.

With good reason. You should ask Robo, not me.

And, all hypotheses are not equal.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I posted the reasons why I find the case "compelling". You stated some assertions that seem to refute my opinions about the case, but again, you provide no evidence for those assertions.

However, we have no evidence to indicate these compelling arguments really are true.
If left with an unknown for the cause of the aircraft failure, I am more apt to attribute the failure to bad maintenance (loose breaker, loose fuse, cold solder joints, intermittent wiring, etc.) that caused the failure under battlefield conditions rather than the UFO "affecting its environment". Recall this is during the Shah of Iran days. He had a secret police. Imagine the questions if one of his prize fighters failed in flight because of poor maintenance. Perhaps there may be a suggestion of "sabotage" by a technician. So, if they did find anything and repaired it, they might just attribute it to "gremlins" (hmmm...I recall a bugs bunny cartoon saying the same thing) or, in this case, the UFO so as not to put the light on them for the plane's failure. It certainly is a plausible scenario and much more likely than a "UFO affecting its environment".

Others have suggested the UFO might be a soviet "spoof" operation (testing Iranian airspace and defenses). It seems possible that could have started the whole event.

I also have to wonder why a UFO would launch a missile at a craft if it had a beam that could shut down the planes avionics and make it crash. It seems unlikely.

 

[IXP]

And here we have a PERFECT example of what I was just describing. First reject my contention by asserting that ALL hypotheses are equal is logically followed by the conclusion "So, you're as likely to believe it is a Denebian child slave vessel as it is to be a school bus?"

I would LOVE to see RoboTimbo explain HOW that conclusion is reached. But of course he WILL not because he CANNOT and he cannot because it is an illogical conclusion.

1. All hypostheses are equal.
2. "Debebian child slave vessel" and "School bus" are hypotheses for what RoboTimbo saw.
3. "Debebian child slave vessel" and "School bus" are equal hypotheses.

Which line do you dispute?

IXP

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Others have suggested the UFO might be a soviet "spoof" operation (testing Iranian airspace and defenses). It seems possible that could have started the whole event.

...snip...

Or Israeli, or even (why not?) American...

Assuming, of course, the event actually hapened and had some similarity with the "reconstruction". Given the (un)reliability of the sources, evn this can (should) be questioned.