UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
"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.
Click to expand...

This is getting dangerously close to trolling.

We're all in agreement that the thing is unidentified. Move on, please.
 
Rramjet said:
No, actually I think you are here to obfuscate as far as possible any argument I might mount that shows UFOs and Aliens exist.
Click to expand...

Ah, there.

So you ARE here to promote a particular opinion: the existence of visiting aliens.

It took you long enough to admit it, didn't it ?

Thing is, you know so little about logic and science that it would be hard for you to show that opinion to be true, beyond reasonable doubt. Hell, you can't even agree with yourself, so far.

I suggest you take a step back and educate yourself on the matter. There's no shame in admitting your own ignorance. I've done it more than once in the past and it's quite motivating to admit that you can still learn something new. So, go do that.
 
I thought this thread wouldve been over since page 8, but apparently it's possible to keep repeating the same arguments over and over and get this wonderful gem of a thread!
 
Let me see if I've got this straight:
Everyone agrees UFOs exist, but Rramjet is still arguing with us about whether they exist.
Rramjet believes that unicorns exist.
Rramjet insists it's possible to prove a negative.

Are we on some sort of internet version of Candid Camera?
 
Belz... said:
Ah, there.

So you ARE here to promote a particular opinion: the existence of visiting aliens.

It took you long enough to admit it, didn't it ?
Click to expand...

He's admitted it before. It's just that, every time, a few posts later he's pretending that he didn't and is just trying to argue that UFOs exist.
This is why I can no longer take him seriously, and why I haven't been participating in this thread. He can't even be honest enough to let us know what his argument is.
 
He argued for 26 pages that UFOs exist against people who readily agree that UFOs exist. I don't know if I'll live long enough for him to get through arguing that aliens exist.
 
Of course aliens exist.
I have pictures of people you have never seen before.
Since you have not seen them before, they are unknown to you.
Since they are unknown, then they must not be mundane.
They are not mundane, therefore they are aliens.
 
Iranian UFO

Jocce said:
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?
Click to expand...

Jocce said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, obviously at least part of the record of the sighting was drawn from interviews with the pilot involved in the case, and there are plenty of other witnesses that could be labelled a sub-source (if the pilot is to be considered a primary source).

You have failed to mention that on page 2 of the “Routing Slip” we find under “B. RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION” that

“1. Confirmed by other sources” is checked and it is checked in preference over 2. Substantially true, 3. Cannot be judged, 4 Doubtful and 5. False

...and in the very next panel : VALUE OF INFORMATION, we find that “1 High (unique, Timely, and of Major Significance)” is checked in preference over “ 2. Contributory and Useful, 3. Low (marginal), 4. None (of no use) and 5. Cannot be judged (analyst has no basis for value judgement).

Now if the NSA considered the information reliable at the highest level - and of value at the highest level - don’t you think that warrants slightly greater respect that “allegedly” or do you dispute the NSA’s competence in gathering information?

The following summarise then the reported FACTs in the case.

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"
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)​

My contention is that such a case represents MORE than a mere UFO – especially in respect of seeming intelligent control.

Now intelligent control suggests an intelligence at work. And THIS I contend adds evidence to support my “Aliens Exist” hypothesis.

Does no-one have any rational comment to make about the above facts of the matter and my following contention that this case provides evidentiary support for “Aliens exist”?

No-one has even noticed that the links I posted most recently don’t work! THAT shows exactly what the JREF forum members think about evidence… precisely that they can ignore it! Now why does that not surprise me?

I will therefore re-post in case anyone wants to actually survey the evidence.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
 
Last edited:
ah right, so youre no longer pretending that you want to describe things as UFOs now then.

now its actual aliens that are the intelligent controllers
IMO thats the only intelligence thats been displayed anywhere near here
:D

please provide evidence that aliens exist and have visited this planet, obviously things not clearly identified as alien won't cut it
:rolleyes:
 
Rramjet said:
Second, I argue that we can go further to contend that “Aliens exist” (while noting carefully that “aliens” DOES NOT necessarily mean ET).

What I find compelling is:
First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")
Click to expand...

How does this make it alien?

Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!
Click to expand...

How does this make it alien?

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...
Click to expand...

Then how do you know that you can attribute it to aliens?

Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)
Click to expand...

How does this make it alien?

Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Click to expand...

How does this make it alien?

Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)
Click to expand...

How does this make it alien?

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

Note also the “intelligent control” point.
Click to expand...

Note that humans exhibit intelligent control.

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”.
Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please explain your leap from the evidence you've provided to the extraordinary claim you are making.

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

Now's your chance.
 
Rramjet said:
So you say. But you concatenate incongruous entities as if they all had the same explanation - which patently they do NOT.
Click to expand...

How could such a thing as an "incongruous entity" exist in a logical system in which all hypotheses are equal?
 
Rramjet said:
I will therefore re-post in case anyone wants to actually survey the evidence.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
Click to expand...

I've re read the EVIDENCE (one single report) and it doesn't supply any verification, no physical evidence. It is people's interpretation of an anomalous event.

OK - Let's try again... It's UNIDENTIFED.
Argue as much as you want that it shows an intelligence to be able to block electronics etc... but you are arguing from a position of trusting a second hand report is accurate... something which you can not prove.
Yes, it's true that we can not prove it is inaccurate, but we can show by using other examples (the Rogue River case being one) that reports can be and have been shown to inaccurate and that even official military sources have been known to be wrong (take the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction case as being an example of such).

So I sense another stalemate and I'm certainly not going to spend the next 200 pages discussing a point which can only lead back to the position we are at now: No evidence, object UNIDENTIFIED.
 
Rramjet said:
I contend Rogue River represents a UFO and that supports my contention that UFOs exist. Nothing more. Nothing less.

If you believe UFOs to be "exotic" in nature, then please provide the evidence.

I merely contend that they are "Unknown". This does NOT preclude mundane explanations. It precludes no explanations at all. Just unknown.

We may of course speculate on what UFOs actually represent - and that is a legitimate pursuit. But if you hypothesise ANY explanation - INCLUDING a mundane explanation - then you MUST support your hypothesis with evidence. THAT is how science works. Simple. Logical. Scientific.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for butting in with an old quote, but is there a point to this thread? As far as I know , there is not a single person here who disputes your contention that UFO's exist. Since you are not claiming the existence of ET's, or aliens, or super advanced unknown earth beings, merely that some things that are seen in the sky haven't been identified, you are in complete agreement with the skeptics here. You might have issues with KoA, though.
 
Last edited:
Now intelligent control suggests an intelligence at work. And THIS I contend adds evidence to support my “Aliens Exist” hypothesis.
Click to expand...

There is NOTHING in the report that prevents this from being a man made craft piloted by humans. You are jumping conclusions and making huge leaps of illogic.

ETA: And that is just one out of several possibilities.
 
No-one has even noticed that the links I posted most recently don’t work! THAT shows exactly what the JREF forum members think about evidence… precisely that they can ignore it! Now why does that not surprise me?
Click to expand...

Don't get all high and mighty. They were'nt even working the first time. I found them anyway and downloaded them.
 
I didn't think this thread could get any worse, but it has.

I didn't think I would ever come back, but regrettably I did.

Shall we close shop on this one? Whether he's exercising it intentionally or unintentionally, we're giving Rramjet power over us - even if it's just the power to yank our chains and waste our time. I'm out (yes, I've said it before, but...) Let's all agree to the same, and this thread is finished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom