UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

I am perplexed by your misunderstanding of the situation here.

Likewise.

If I say that to refute the boy’s claim that “A Unicorn did it” all we need to show is that there are no such things as Unicorns AND that we can do this simply by referring to the biological and geological records and also demonstrate the oral and literary traditions that went into the “creation” of Unicorns – I would suggest that is an exemplary method of refuting the boy’s claim by reference to mundane, everyday evidence that we use all the time to support or refute other ordinary hypotheses.

You CAN NOT prove a negative. However, you can show that it is unlikely that a Unicorn did it because there are no proof that they even exist. That's what many of us are trying to do here (Alien craft=Unicorn)

Ummm no…actually Unicorns ( or the concept of them) are very much WITHIN ordinary human experience - otherwise the boy would not have even thought of appealing to a “unicorn” as an explanation.

So when did you last meet one?

No, again… The unicorn’s capabilities are “extraordinary, certainly, but the boy’s claim (hypothesis) only SEEMS extraordinary to those who have a priori evidence that unicorns do not exist BECAUSE we have mundane, ordinary evidence that points to the conclusion that “Unocorns don’t exist”.

Alien crafts=Unicorns

The boy does not have to do anything. He is a little kid, and if you expect him to understand the rules of evidence and to be able to argue cogently in favour of a Unicorn, then you misconstrue the Adult/Child relationship. WE have to show the boy the error of his claim by providing evidence to him that Unicorns do not exist. We have a duty as adults to teach him how evidence is needed to support any claim, and we can only do this by example.

Welcome to the forums. That's why we're here.

 

[wollery]

"So what?"

Is that it? You concede my points so easily? But I suppose I must be grateful that at least you DO so I guess.

So please see the post of mine immediatley above this one.

I'm sorry, where did I say I concede anything?

 

[Rramjet]

(...)To actually spend the time and energy researching stupid things like unicorns, flying saucers, and reptilian shape-shifters (unless a strong piece of evidence suddenly manifests itself) is just plain wasteful.

So you say. But you concatenate incongruous entities as if they all had the same explanation - which patently they do NOT.

Are... you... serious??? Because if you aren't you're just yanking our chain, and that I can understand. If you are, that's just sad. I refuse to split hairs with you over "common experience" in fiction vs nonfiction.

How COULD the boy have appealed to "Unicorn" if it the conception were not so common in the human experience that even a child could understands what "unicorn" represents and then appeal to it as an explanation?

And that depends entirely upon the caliber of person you're dealing with.

Well, obviously an understanding logic and the precepts of the scientific method is not exactly a strong suit among JREF members - ... so what's your point?

Oh, wow - this is a veritable gold mine. Soooooo, sooooooo tempting... But I leave it for someone else...

I guess I'll drop it at that.

You leave it because you KNOW you cannot rationally argue against it. That's all. Simple really...

 

[Jocce]

I have an opinion supported by (what I consider to be overwhelming) evidence. Evidence that you either cannot or will not refute. So my position stands until you can do that. Simple really.

The rest of the forums are of another opinion so let's just agree to disagree then.

Either you agree it was a UFO or you think a blimp “most likely”. Which is it? UFO or blimp? Please choose one. You cannot have both.

This is not an either or situation. It could have been a blimp, an alien craft, a unicorn or a cloud but we can't say for sure, thus unidentified.

Why is that “distinction” vital? An unidentified object IS BY DEFINITION and unknown object. So what exactly is your point?

For clarity! If I told my birdwatching friends that I saw an unknown bird in my backyard, they would literally drop what they're doing and rush to my backyard because they would interpret my statement as a "bird never seen before (at least in this area of the world)".

On the other hand, if I tell them I saw a bird I couldn't identify in my backyard they might be mildly interested because they know I have a long history in birdwatching. But, they also know that this happens virtually every day to all of us because the bird was far away, the sun was in my eyes, the observation time was short etc. They might pass by after work to have a look but that would be it.

I contend:
UFOs exist and that Rogue River is a case that supports that contention”.

And we ALL agree.

Second, I argue that we can go further to contend that “Aliens exist” (while noting carefully that “aliens” DOES NOT necessarily mean ET).

That's ok with me.

I presented the Iranian UFO case as partial evidence on the route to explaining why I believe my second contention is supported by the evidence.

I'm not overwhelmed but by all means, go ahead then and continue on the route.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rramjet]

You CAN NOT prove a negative. However, you can show that it is unlikely that a Unicorn did it because there are no proof that they even exist. That's what many of us are trying to do here (Alien craft=Unicorn)

Ummm... pray tell me then, if you cannot prove a negative, then what is all that following nonsense of yours stating "you can show that it is unlikely that a Unicorn did it because there are no proof that they even exist."

You people really crack me up sometimes!

So when did you last meet one?

Actually I met one in concept just now. It has been mentioned quite a number of times. The concept is quite an ordinary one. So ordinary in fact that a (apparently) a small boy infers that unicorns are real enough to be able to appeal to one as an explanation for an action (the disappearance of sweets).

Alien crafts=Unicorns

Now THAT hypothesis I had not considered I must admit. But on the evidence I think it highly unlikely to be true. You have evidence to support your hypothesis?

Welcome to the forums. That's why we're here.

No, actually I think you are here to obfuscate as far as possible any argument I might mount that shows UFOs and Aliens exist.

 

[fromdownunder]

OK, I give up! Mr Roger Ramjet....naaahhh it's not worth it.

Norm

 

[wollery]

How COULD the boy have appealed to "Unicorn" if it the conception were not so common in the human experience that even a child could understands what "unicorn" represents and then appeal to it as an explanation?

What if he'd said it was a purple striped Glaxock from the planet Schlarrrrrrrghnipnipnip. Are they common in the human experience?

Well, obviously an understanding logic and the precepts of the scientific method is not exactly a strong suit among JREF members - ... so what's your point?

Your the one arguing that it's possible to prove a negative......

You leave it because you KNOW you cannot rationally argue against it. That's all. Simple really...

I love the way you keep assigning motive to your opponents, with no evidence to back it up.

Reminds me of something.......

 

[Jocce]

Ummm... pray tell me then, if you cannot prove a negative, then what is all that following nonsense of yours stating "you can show that it is unlikely that a Unicorn did it because there are no proof that they even exist."

Are you really saying that estimating a probability is the same as proving something to be 100% certain? Really?!?!

Actually I met one in concept just now. It has been mentioned quite a number of times. The concept is quite an ordinary one. So ordinary in fact that a (apparently) a small boy infers that unicorns are real enough to be able to appeal to one as an explanation for an action (the disappearance of sweets).

And you say aliens took the candy. Are you a small boy with no a priori knowledge of the world?

No, actually I think you are here to obfuscate as far as possible any argument I might mount that shows UFOs and Aliens exist.

Were you expecting everyone to bow down to your superior knowledge in this matter? Sorry to dissapoint you.

 

[Rramjet]

The rest of the forums are of another opinion so let's just agree to disagree then.

This is not an either or situation. It could have been a blimp, an alien craft, a unicorn or a cloud but we can't say for sure, thus unidentified.

what... (chuckles in genuine amusement) ... so now it IS a UFO? I asked you to choose and you have done so. Well done. Wasn't so hard was it?

Now we come to an interesting but fallacious argument.

For clarity! If I told my birdwatching friends that I saw an unknown bird in my backyard, they would literally drop what they're doing and rush to my backyard because they would interpret my statement as a "bird never seen before (at least in this area of the world)".

On the other hand, if I tell them I saw a bird I couldn't identify in my backyard they might be mildly interested because they know I have a long history in birdwatching. But, they also know that this happens virtually every day to all of us because the bird was far away, the sun was in my eyes, the observation time was short etc. They might pass by after work to have a look but that would be it.

Your first argument is predicated on the unwritten assumption that "My friends believe I am a competent enough birdwatcher so that when I say "unknown bird" they pay attention"

However, the second argument is predicated on the unwritten assumption that "My friends do NOT believe I am a competent bird watcher - so that when I say "unidentified bird" they pass it off as a mistake on my part"

Are you competent or not. What DO your friends believe about your competency in bird watching. They either believe you are competent, or they don't. WHICH is it?

 

[Rramjet]

The Issue at hand please.

Your various attempts to derail the thread have amused me thus far but one gets to a point where it simply descends into farce and illogical nonsense.

I contend:
UFOs exist and that Rogue River is a case that supports that contention”.

Second, I argue that we can go further to contend that “Aliens exist” (while noting carefully that “aliens” DOES NOT necessarily mean ET).

I presented the Iranian UFO case as partial evidence on the route to explaining why I believe my second contention is supported by the evidence

Perhaps then the following links might provide you with some better source information:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...p_ufo_iran.pdf

and this

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...ow_you_see.pdf

I have also provided a list of reasons WHY I think this case is compelling

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)

And of course the original link I posted: http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

Note also the “intelligent control” point.

NOW can we discuss the case and WHY others might not think the case lends support to (provides evidence for) either of my contentions that “UFOs exist” or “Aliens exist”.

Or has no-one anything rational to say on the point at all?

 

[wollery]

what... (chuckles in genuine amusement) ... so now it IS a UFO? I asked you to choose and you have done so. Well done. Wasn't so hard was it?

Nobody ever said it wasn't a UFO.

UFO is not an identification, it's the complete lack thereof.

Saying something is a UFO does not prevent one from offering a possible identification. It still remains a UFO, because the identification is only probable, not certain.

Your first argument is predicated on the unwritten assumption that "My friends believe I am a competent enough birdwatcher so that when I say "unknown bird" they pay attention"

However, the second argument is predicated on the unwritten assumption that "My friends do NOT believe I am a competent bird watcher - so that when I say "unidentified bird" they pass it off as a mistake on my part"

No, it is predicated on him being able to speak good enough English that they understand that when he says he has seen an "unknown" bird they believe he means a bird that has never previously been observed, which is remarkable, but when he says he saw an unidentified bird they understand that sometimes it isn't possible to get a good enough look at a bird to identify it, which is unremarkable.

Are you competent or not. What DO your friends believe about your competency in bird watching. They either believe you are competent, or they don't. WHICH is it?

No, they understand simple, plain English.

 

[Jocce]

what... (chuckles in genuine amusement) ... so now it IS a UFO? I asked you to choose and you have done so. Well done. Wasn't so hard was it?

Either your reading comprehension or your memory has serious problems. I, and several others, have stated on a number of occasions that I BELIEVE UFOs EXIST.

Now we come to an interesting but fallacious argument.

Your first argument is predicated on the unwritten assumption that "My friends believe I am a competent enough birdwatcher so that when I say "unknown bird" they pay attention"

Pretty much correct although I would like to point out that the actual term UNKNOWN is interpreted by them to mean that I saw the bird very well but could not match it with any bird that I am familiar with.

However, the second argument is predicated on the unwritten assumption that "My friends do NOT believe I am a competent bird watcher - so that when I say "unidentified bird" they pass it off as a mistake on my part"

This is incorrect. Reread that part of my post and you will notice that I add some more ways it could be UNIDENTIFIED.

 

[Jocce]

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)

1. It is allegedly well documented (although no documentation is presented).
2. It is allegedly chasing and being chased by...
3. It is allegedly displaying characteristics that are not commonly seen.
4. There allegedly exist radar comfirmation
5. It allegedly could affect it's surroundings
6. It allegedly seemed to exhibit intelligent control

The report is a retelling of witness statements. A second hand account.

ETA: It is a UFO. Now what?

 

[Jocce]

Regarding the documentation/sources in the iranian case. At the end of the routing slip (the only "documentation" available) there is something being said about the sources that I can't interpret. It goes:

RO comments: [BLANKED OUT] actual information in this report was obtained from source in conversation with a sub-source, and IIAF pilot of one of the F4s.

Anyone has a clue?

 

[AWPrime]

Even accepting the GOODYEAR (or even a Navy reserve) blimp WAS active we must also account for the witness' sworn testimony, CONSISTENT between themselves, describing the object as (observation made by five witnesses under perfect viewing conditions with the sun at their backs, two with the aid of binoculars):[snip]

The testimonies and your so called perfect viewing conditions have been torn to shreds multiple times, but you simply keep repeating the same old stuff. You are acting like DOC, that is a bad thing.

 

[Marduk]

ok so its been 26 pages,
1. has he stated what he believes ufos are yet
2. has the discussion moved on from where it was on page 1

if the answers no to both those questions you might want to think about that

 

[LissaLysikan]

The answers are no because he needs you to say that "unidentified" = "unknown" = "alien".
As long as you entertain thoughts that "unidentified" might mean "unidentified" he knows you won't buy the rest of his "aliens exist" evidence. Although lately he's resorted to telling lies about his own points to try to get people to say what he wants, so now it's more just a monologue with a few people prodding him for giggles than a real discussion.

 

[Jocce]

a few people prodding him for giggles than a real discussion.

Giggles??!! I'm roflmao most of the time. I'm way past giggles by now

 

[Jocce]

ok so its been 26 pages,
1. has he stated what he believes ufos are yet
2. has the discussion moved on from where it was on page 1

if the answers no to both those questions you might want to think about that

1. Aliens (not the ET kind tho)
2. It moves alright, but getting anywhere? Not far...

 

[Belz...]

We know that. That isn't a hypothesis, it's an observation, a simple statement of fact. Whatever it was at Rogue River hasn't been positively identified, and is therefore, by definition, a UFO. An alternative (and therefore, by your argument, equal) hypothesis would by necessity entail an explanation of what the sighting was. But you offer none. You simply state the already well established fact that we haven't been able to make a positive identification of the object.

Well, that usually is how woo operates. It's easier to remain in the fog of ignorance because then it's harder for one to conclusively object to or otherwise negate your argument.

Unless they see past the fallacies, that is.