UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Access Denied]

I'd like to learn what everyone thinks of this case.

In case it hasn't already been mentioned yet, I find following the hypothesis proposed by French UFOlogist Renaud Leclet difficult to ignore…

(google Joe Nickell’s CSI article “Siege of ‘Little Green Men’: The 1955 Kelly, Kentucky, Incident”)

“In summary, allowing for the heightened expectation prompted by the earlier “flying-saucer” sighting, and for the effects of excitement and nighttime viewing, it seems likely that the famous 1955 Kelly incident is easily explained by a meteor and a pair of territorial owls.”

YMMV

 

[Access Denied]

Physical evidence would be a nice start.

How’s this for a working definition of “extraordinary evidence”…

1) Evidence obtained by (preferably multiple forms of) instrumentation (e.g. radar/optical tracking) of an unknown object entering and/or leaving the Earth’s atmosphere (to/from space) under artificial or intelligent control.

2) Physical (e.g. material) evidence of an artificial object, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

3) Biological (e.g. DNA) evidence of a life form, or sample thereof, of extraterrestrial origin, independently confirmed by multiple nationally recognized laboratories.

OPTIONAL: Multiple independently obtained and unambiguous (e.g. clear) photographs and/or video of a Zetan spaceship in action and/or on the ground, preferably while landing on the White House lawn or witnessed during a major sporting, or other, event with thousands present and broadcast on live TV.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Edited for rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[GeeMack]

Obviously this one slipped by you, Rramjet...

So, Rramjet, any intention of defending your extraordinary claim at all?

I second the question. In this thread of over 1100 posts, nearly 400 of them by Rramjet, we haven't seen him make a single posting with any kind of objective, unambiguous evidence to support the notion that aliens exist. Even much of his argument for the existence of unidentified flying objects is based on ignorance, incredulity, and lies, and everyone already agreed before the thread even started that UFOs exist! Damn.

Come on, Rramjet, quit dragging your feet here, pal. Throw us a bone, will ya?

You did mention quite some time ago that you were prepared to provide evidence that would support your notion that aliens exist. You've had hundreds of opportunities to do so, yet for some reason you haven't produced a single mote of evidence. We're all waiting.

 

[Jocce]

I can guarantee that you believe that UFOs exist only insofar as they have not been identified by the observer. That is, that UFOs exist only because we have not enough information or have not conducted the research that would enable a mundane explanation to be forthcoming. You believe that all UFO reports have mundane explanations – but we just haven’t found the correct mundane explanations yet. Do you deny that? If so, for what reason?

This is incorrect. Changing one of your sentences slightly conveys perfectly what I believe:
"UFOs exist only because we have not enough information or have not conducted the research that would enable an explanation to be forthcoming."

Notice that I removed "mundane".

Like it or not, my definition of UFO is a correct scientific definition of a UFO.

And I'm just supposed to take your word for it?

So you totally ignore the evidence? Why am I not surprised?
…and as for your assertions… I shall only repeat: Just because you say so, does not make it so.

I don't ignore the evidence. I question the validity of the evidence you present. That's different.

I stated:

Now while these creatures and object characteristics do not in themselves provide "proof" of anything - except that we as humans still have a great deal to learn about "reality" - they do provide indications that something "alien" is amongst us.​

Which conclusion? That humans still have a great deal to learn about "reality" or that the cases provide provide indications that something "alien" is amongst us?

That they provide indications of something alien among us. That conlusion is what I'm talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear but I thought that was obvious.

If you dispute my conclusions, you MUST say why you do so, for your merely stating that my conclusions do not follow from the evidence, does not make it so.

There could be many more explanations for the reported phenomena. I thought I said so.

What truth? I HAVE heard your pronouncements coming from “homeopaths, faith healers, ghost hunters etc”.

Don't understand what you mean.

I stated:

So... on with the journey. What do you make of the two cases mentioned? ​

Umm… no you haven’t. You have made some unfounded, generalised assertions that you have not supported with evidence. That’s all. I am entitled to dismiss them as irrelevant unless you support those assertions with evidence.

Of course you are. That won't make them go away though. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I have been very clear but if you can't read plain english, go educate yourself.

STILL can’t define “Extraordinary Evidence" then?

Listen up now, real carefully. There is no formal definition for extraordinary evidence. When I say it, it means that hearsay is not enough but physical evidence would be a fantastic start. Deal with it.

I have already pointed to a physical evidence case.

That's interesting. Must have missed that. Can you show it to me again please.

 

[Jocce]

At this point the skeptics at last ran out of ideas. Of course they did not drop the claim that it was possible for a “blimp to have done it”, but I contend that in consideration of all the evidence presented above, that it is highly unlikely that a blimp was at Rogue River on the 24th May, 1949.

The evidence gathered by EHocking suggests that it is possible that it was a blimp. It doesn't help to paste the same text multiple times Rramjet. We read it the first time and it starts to look silly. Also, even if you claim "unlikely", there's still a possibility within that assesment. And, if the reports are correct, one of the witnesses made a drawing of what he saw. It looks very much like a blimp.

 

[Jocce]

My definition of UFO* has scientific merit; Condon's is a post hoc construct.

*A UFO cannot be explained in any mundane fashion that we can think of, given the evidence we have today and all the research that has been conducted.

Scientific merit? This is an extraordinary claim imo. Proof please?

 

[Jocce]

Rramjet, in case you missed it. You never responded to these two posts from me earlier. I'm interested in seeing your comments:

I'm curious about how you interpret "circular" in this context Rramjet. Do you interpret it as if the witnesses saw it standing vertically "face on" so to speak, displaying a circular outline against the sky or do you interpret it as they saw it soaring horisontally "edge on" and infered that it was circular although the outline against the sky was oval? Was it a standing pancake or was it laying down so to speak if you understand me

and this one in response to your question why blimps would be flying in such a remote area.:

Most of the reservists' weekend flying was dedicated to maintaining basic flying skills
Source: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lighter-than-air+reservists-a095954316.
When I took my pilots license and also once I had it and wanted to maintain my flying skills. I just went, somewhere...

 

[Sledge]

You'll have to excuse me, I just had to take a break to scream out loud.

Let me get this straight: Rramjet's response to being provided with an explanation of the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is to say that no one can explain it? I feel like I've slipped into some insane parallel universe. We're now up to 30 pages of Rramjet insisting UFOs exist and everyone else agreeing.

Rramjet, what is your point? Make a stand, man! Hoist your flag high and defend it, don't sit around making nonsensical snipes at people trying to understand you. Tell us, clearly and concisely, what it is you believe and why.

 

[SnidelyW]

From the link you supplied:

"The details of a Russian Crash on or about 1969 are sketchy and somewhat suspect. This case comes from the so-called "Secret KGB Files," which were reportedly smuggled out of the former Soviet Union. Reportedly, $10,000 was paid for the information. The details of these secret files were first offered to the general public on 9-13-98 as part of a TNT special titled "The Secret UFO Files of the KGB."

Notice all the immediate red flags? (or in this case yellow highlighted bits) And that's just the opening paragraph.

Also remembering that this was at the height of the cold war when campaigns to portray the Russians as the big enemy were most active, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the whole thing was a deliberate misinformation set up.
Ultimately though the provenance of the information can not be verified and again your link closes with:

"The case of the 1969 retrieval and autopsy are difficult to assess. Until more information is uncovered, it will remain unsubstantiated."

Making anything written about it (supporting or criticising it) speculation.

I read the threads before posting, and fully understood the implications of what was written.

The angle that intrigues is 'why'? Here is some wild, off topic speculation;
Did the Russians feel that using a UFO 'discovery' could be used for political gain?

I suppose I over analyze motivational factors and perhaps give those more weight in the general equation than they probably deserve, but....

....motivation for reporting is a significant factor.

 

[TjW]

I read the threads before posting, and fully understood the implications of what was written.

The angle that intrigues is 'why'? Here is some wild, off topic speculation;
Did the Russians feel that using a UFO 'discovery' could be used for political gain?

I suppose I over analyze motivational factors and perhaps give those more weight in the general equation than they probably deserve, but....

....motivation for reporting is a significant factor.

We don't know why mass has inertia. But it's an observed fact that it does.

I don't know why people hoax UFOs. It's enough to know that they do.
The motivation for reporting is immaterial. Saying "I don't see why anyone would do this" is simply an argument from ignorance. It may be fun to speculate about, but it's not evidence.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't know why I keep reading this thread.

Must be like watching a train wreck in slow motion... you... just... can't... tear... your... eyes... away...

 

[Stray Cat]

For anyone who hasn't already read this interesting and informative article about Burden of Proof: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/burdens.html

 

[GeeMack]

I don't know why I keep reading this thread.

Must be like watching a train wreck in slow motion... you... just... can't... tear... your... eyes... away...

I find it bizarrely interesting. There's a mind set of deep seated, unshakable faith these people have that intrigues the hell out of me. Fundamentalist religionists have it. The crackpot who believes the Sun has a solid iron surface has it. The gal who thinks she can see people's innards using Vibrational Algebra has it. The 911 Truthers have it. And certain UFOlien believers have it.

When a person with that kind of mental stoppage gets into a conversation with intelligent skeptical people, a conversation where legitimate evidence is requested from the faith-bound (and usually refused) and where the skeptics provide solid counter evidence, it absolutely requires ignorance, incredulity, and lying on the part of the faithful to continue to support their questionably sane positions. Baffles me to no end, yes, but keeps me curious to see if any of them ever change. And they very rarely seem to change.

But back to the business of this thread... How about it Rramjet, are you ever going to bring in some evidence to support your claim that aliens exist, evidence that has any more meat to it than your argument from ignorance, incredulity, and lies?

 

[Marduk]

I read the threads before posting, and fully understood the implications of what was written.

The angle that intrigues is 'why'? Here is some wild, off topic speculation;
Did the Russians feel that using a UFO 'discovery' could be used for political gain?

I suppose I over analyze motivational factors and perhaps give those more weight in the general equation than they probably deserve, but....

....motivation for reporting is a significant factor.

ha no I saw that show, it was a ufo investigator who apparently bought some KGB files (which consisted of A4 typewritten paper) from an alleged ex KGB officer after perestroika when the russian economy was screwed. It was nothing to do with politics and much more to do with the fistfull of roubles the American had in his pocket. The film which later accompanies it was obtained from the russian black market and has no provenance at all.

 

[Hindmost]

I don't know why I keep reading this thread.

Must be like watching a train wreck in slow motion... you... just... can't... tear... your... eyes... away...

Nah...it's a blimp wreak...

 

[Paul2]

Please define "Extraordinary Evidence" then.

I answered this way back earlier. Extraordinary evidence is that evidence that is greater than the weight of evidence already assembled for the contrary but currently widely accepted claim.

Edited: Sorry I've been away for a day or so, I see the problems earlier about this issue.

 

[jer_j]

News Flash: Rramjet Contradicts Himself

I still refuse to engage Rramjet, but I had to make one observation for everyone that suddenly occurred to me. He seems to argue that all hypotheses are the same, that to automatically filter the likely ones from the pointless ones before examining their evidence in depth is a logical fallacy.

Yet earlier in this thread, when I suggested the lights in the sky might be glowing, floating panda poo, he responded that the proposition was "not helpful." Why not? It is a hypothesis that explains the lights. Should it not be equal to all other hypotheses? Does it not deserve to be researched and tested? Or did Rramjet's a priori knowledge help him decide that it was too unlikely to deserve his consideration? Obviously, he must consider it an "extraordinary claim," and he feels I did not provide the "extraordinary evidence" to back it up.

It appears he's plainly contradicted himself. Not that that's anything new. It just goes to show that even he's not playing by the rules he expects us to follow (because such an approach would be unwieldy and nearly impossible) and provides a clear, straightforward example of why this thread is nothing more than a circus.

 

[wollery]

And this is the point that a "Great Debate" would make. Most people aren't scientists, and don't live and operate inside a lab. We have to decide things about our environment based on what we merely see and then share tales of. Sometimes people take pictures of people, places, and or events, and this helps for the informer to relay his/her finds. Sometimes, video is offered, and when such evidence of an event is offered up, it would be foolish not accept that the thing in question 'happened'.

We know something, after we hear 2 or more well informed people discuss the evidence. We don't always require that the evidence be independently verified or scientifically approved, but it is helpful.

Rramjet may not have "scientifically proven" anything, but he's clearly winning the "Debate" against the skeptics. Evidence abounds of his claims, even if it isn't laboratorily repeatable, his contentions and links are forming a line of consistency.

And this is why the skeptics scoff at any notion of a "Debate", they know they lose this in a court of public opinion. This is why they keep the exchange and evidence to what can be "proven in a lab". Within those bounds, they can keep the game at a stale-mate, where no one wins...but at least they can't lose.

The echoed remark is always "...we can't conclude anything without proof..."

The fact of the matter is quite the opposite. It is proper to make conclusions without absolute proof, and is indeed foolish to ignore reports from qualified/consistent witnesses.

Thank You Rramjet, your time, offerings, considerations are all greatly appreciated.

Okay, three points.

Firstly, the court of public opinion is utterly worthless when it comes to truth. Truth is truth, and public opinion is at least half the time wrong about what the truth is.

Secondly, if I "knew" things after hearing two "informed" people discuss it then I would simultaneously "know" a very large number of contradictory facts.

Third, Rramjet isn't even close to "winning" the debate. His argument for Rogue River is that it couldn't possibly have been a blimp, despite stating quite clearly himself that it was possible, and demonstrating (with evidence that he himself introduced) that there were at least three Naval Reserve stations, that each had more than one blimp, within flying distance of the Rogue River sighting. How that can possibly translate to "winning" the debate is beyond me.

 

[SnidelyW]

We don't know why mass has inertia. But it's an observed fact that it does.

I don't know why people hoax UFOs. It's enough to know that they do.
The motivation for reporting is immaterial. Saying "I don't see why anyone would do this" is simply an argument from ignorance. It may be fun to speculate about, but it's not evidence.

No, it is not evidence. However, motivation plays a rather significant part in understanding the underlying reasons for reporting sightings of UFO's, or, as in the case of the Sutton/Hopkinsville incident, a complete lack of a publicity driven motivation for reporting. in fact, they opened themselves up for ridicule and the incident turned their farm into a media circus of sorts.

Those eight witnesses reported out of fear, and they have been dismissed here as 'uneducated carnival workers', or some such. So, in that case, motivation was, and remains a key factor in assessing credibility.

As we have seen in the 'boy in the balloon' hoax last week, marketability and money were at the heart of that hoax. Clear financial gain. What I am attempting to establish is that if there is an absence of distinct and immediate GAIN in reporting a sighting, then why wouldn't we treat those more seriously?

You're right, motive is NOT evidence, but in assessing each case with a skeptical eye, isn't it quite presumptive to ignore motivation as a factor?

As a skeptic, does one examine all aspects, or pick and choose those which are most convenient?