UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
With the way Rramjet is happy to redefine words at the drop of a hat, ANYTHING could be alien.
 
SnidelyW said:
Point taken.

The 'why' is elusive, but it is still extant. That was my point regarding UFO based motivation.
Click to expand...

Whe it comes down to UFO phenomena, the best we can usually do are "guesstimations" on the motivations for a given act, be it a hoax or the reporting of a "true" sighting (note that it is not equal to a "true" UFO). Usually, unless the hoaxer (or eyewitness, if you preffer) tells the real reason, we can only, based on available evidence (again, usually sketchy), suppose his/hers actual motivation. Also, the further you look back in time, the harder it will become to gather evidence regrading motivation. And here enters the first red flag when it comes down to decades-old sighting reports.

To sum up, writing something like "the eyewitness had no reason to create a hoax" is not exactly a good argument. Ad it gets worse the older he sighting is.

I think this "crater hoax" is important when it comes down to UFO (as well as any fringe subject where hoaxing is common). There are lessons to be learned.

Imagine a similar hoax being pulled say, 30 or 40 years ago. The understanding of impact crater formation and morphology back then was much smaller than what we have today. But perhaps the most important difference is that information spreading was also much more inneficient. I think such a hoax could have been sustained for a much longer time if performed in the 70's or 60's. I even guess that it would hold untill someone with expertise on the subject decided to look at the evidence. And if all the evidence available were old pictures and anecdotes (one could say some tell-tale characteristics of an impact were altered by visitation, farming activities, etc), then maybe we would be left just with some raging www debates at some forum.

Now imagine a similar situation with an UFO sighting - hoaxed or not. Not enough reliable evidence to perform a good study. And this, IMHO, is exactly the reason why UFOlogy must try again and again to sell the same decades-old sightings as "good stuff". They are just too old; obtaining new evidence is very difficult if not impossible.
 
Stray Cat said:
I will dispute your calculations... they are complete clap trap.
We don't know the size of the blimp object.
We don't know the distance from the viewer to the blimp object.
Without those two vital measurements, we can not tell how fast the blimp object was travelling.

What we DO have is the topography of the location... which is enough to dispute your assertion that the object could still be seen when it was 35 miles away. From sea level at Rogue River, you can not see for 35 miles.
It is a river valley... the blimp object soon went out of sight behind the surrounding hills.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Rogue-River.jpg

Here is the stretch of the river they were on at the time and this view is due East (to demonstrate the steep sided valley they were in the bottom of). This screen grab was taken at an elevation of 191ft so the scene could be better described. At Sea (River) level, the hills obscure even more of the viewing distance.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that reminder.

It was a point I made earlier that Rramjet studiously ignored.
 
Rramjet said:
Stray_Cat!

Please see this Google Earth image. The pin (UFO - should be labelled "Observer"... but it matters not) it is placed at 2 1/2 miles from the mouth of the River... which is where the observers say they were!
Click to expand...
Still misrepresenting the facts I see. You should not regurgitate Maccabee's deceptive arguments, but read the eyewitness accounts:

Maccabee: Mr. A's(later designated D) account "approximately 1 1/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach"
Mr B’s record of interview, "while fishing two miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River...The only landmark near the sighting point was a rock formation locally known as Elephant Rock, approximately 700 yards northeast of the boat "
Mr C’s record of Interview, "approximately two to two and a half miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River
SIGNED STATEMENTS!
Mr.B, "while fishing with several friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from Gold Beach"
Mr.C, "While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach"
Mr.D, "while fishing in a boat on the Rogue River near Gold Beach"
Mrs.D, "while fishing from a boat in the Rogue River"
Moreover, if the object was climbing South upward and outward,
Click to expand...
Now you are inventing evidence to support your case.
No one, said it climbed. then the hills would not have obscured their view. Unfortunately they did not say whether the object maintained a constant outbound altitude, but by the same token, they never stated that “hills obscured our view” either.
Click to expand...
Mr. B,C, D's statements that estimated elevation consistently said 5000 ft. Mr.D "travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction".

All others said it was coming from the east and then turned south.
Therefore - it maintained 5000 ft while travelling south as per the eyewitness statements presented.

Did you really think no-one would check up on you? You should have known that I would. You REALLY need to get your facts straight!
Click to expand...
:id:
 
Any chance you'll be starting to bring in some evidence to support your notion that aliens exist, Rramjet? All you've offered so far has been arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies. Do you consider that scientific?
 
SnidelyW said:
A meteor makes the sound of an out of control freight train as it comes in- according to my sister, who experienced just such an event in late November last year in eastern Alberta, Canada. Fragments landed on her ranch and several adjacent ones.

Regarding the attention- do you really think that, given the sheer number of alleged UFO photos, videos, etc., that 'another' UFO photo, video etc., would be taken any more seriously by the general public to earn its owner any decent money or notoriety?

just speculating...:)
Click to expand...

Try to wear the hoaxer's shoes.

What would motivate you to build an UFO hoax?

I can't be sure of your motivations, you can't be sure of mine's. Maybe you will not have a motivation, but this doesn't mean I will not have one. My motivations might be silly for you and with slim odds for a profitable outcome, but I may perceive it in a different way.

"Profit" is not necessarily monetary and the target public may be as small as one person- the hoaxer him/herself.

Remember the recent drone pictures and Haitian UFO film hoaxes? What was the motivation of the hoaxers? What was their profit? Have they achieved their goals?

I, for example, can imagine myself posting one of my hoaxed UFO pics at some UFO site for two reasons:
1. Checking how foolproof is their analysis methodology and how smart their hoax-busting staff are.
2. Just for the fun of it, to see it I can pull this one out.

I can imagine much more reasons for other people to produce hoaxes. Remember that UFOlogy has a relatively fixed audience, but the audience sometimes may need something to avoid loosing interest on the show. An this is just a small sample...
 
Jocce said:
In the chapter "A dismal failure or a cover up?" it is questioned why an observation station was set up in Vaughn where no/few observations had been made previously and not in Los Alamos or White Sands.

This is a strange question to me because there is no mention of an observation post in Vaughn at all in the text. The data was collected from an observation post at Holloman where many observations had been made before the research program.

I would venture a guess that it was discontinued because the aquired data was unreliable. It is mentioned that "triangulation could not be effected" and that would affect accuracy of the analysis (height, speed etc.). I realize that that is just speculation and there is no way of knowing without having access to the complete final report. So. if you have it, please link it.
Click to expand...

Found the final report: http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm

In the report it is confirmed that the real study was done in Vaughn and not Holloman. Holloman was used used to demonstrate the need for initiating a study of the phenomena:

FinalReport said:
During February 1950, the frequent reports of unexplained aerial phenomena in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base and Vaughn, New Mexico prompted the Commanding Officer of Holloman Air Force Base to initiate a program to gather factual data.

These data then would be used to demonstrate the need for initiating a study of the phenomena.
Click to expand...

The actual study:
FinalReport said:
a. Askania instrument triangulation by Land-Air Inc.

b. Observations with Mitchell camera using spectrum grating by Holloman Air Force Base personnel.

c. Electromagnetic frequency measurements using Signal Corps Engineering Laboratory equipment.

Since an abnormal number of reports had been received from Vaughn, New Mexico, it was decided to install the instrumentation at Vaughn.
Click to expand...

I have not been able to find any source for the conflicting sighting statistics at http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm saying that vaughn had just one previous "incident"

ETA: This is the problem with second or third hand retellings. It's pretty hard to get the real facts and evaluate the sources.
 
Last edited:
Hi again!

I just thought of something I think we haven't had an adequate answer to...so I thought I'd step in again...

Rramjet. I'm wondering about how come so many of the cases you bring up are decades old? I mean, one would assume that when technology develops we would have more observed unidentified phenomena, not less...

...unless, of course, due to better technology we have more affirmation of the mundane origin of phenomena which would before have to be categorized as UFOs...

What do you think?
 
Tapio said:
Hi again!

I just thought of something I think we haven't had an adequate answer to...so I thought I'd step in again...

Rramjet. I'm wondering about how come so many of the cases you bring up are decades old? I mean, one would assume that when technology develops we would have more observed unidentified phenomena, not less...

...unless, of course, due to better technology we have more affirmation of the mundane origin of phenomena which would before have to be categorized as UFOs...

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Well, for a start, if you remember, at the very beginning of this thread we BOTH (together) decided it would be best to "start at the beginning" and work through the cases in order to see what we could find. The cases I posted in my OP were in chronological order and that was just the natural way to do things. Of course THAT rational intention was sidetracked almost from the beginning, but I HAVE been "sort of" trying to stick with that vague direction. So to answer your question I guess we just have not got to some of the more recent cases yet... there are PLENTY of them, so no need to worry on THAT score.

Moreover, you seem to be implying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the age of a case somehow matters. That somehow the evidence loses its veracity as it ages. That is a novel way of looking at evidence. I am sure that all the great discoveries down through the ages have not lost their veracity because of mere age. Perhaps police forces should no longer consider investigating murders after ...what would you suggest...20 years... or that Darwin's observations on the Galapagos Islands should now be totally discounted and discredited because they were made over a century ago... (and especially since they were only "eyewitness accounts"), or Copernicus' observations maybe should be totally wiped from the history books given hardly anyone even remembers who he was..? No, evidence is evidence, no matter when the observation was made.
 
Moreover, you seem to be implying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the age of a case somehow matters. That somehow the evidence loses its veracity as it ages. That is a novel way of looking at evidence. I am sure that all the great discoveries down through the ages have not lost their veracity because of mere age.
Click to expand...

I will remember that whenever you present any evidence. Note that vague "indications of something alien" doesn't qualify as evidence.
 
Jocce said:
I will, but I have no high hopes that it will be better than any other case.

(*cringe*, another one from 60+ years ago. Great...)
Click to expand...

Before I get onto your substantive comments about the White Sands case - and I DO congratulate you and I DO appreciate the work you have put into the case ( I just wish more people had yours and EHockings "rational", investigative approach to the subject) - I beg your indulgence for one comment on the statement you have just made.

You have "exaggerated for effect" with the "cringe" and the "60+ years ago"... and this, if you don't mind me saying places a certain doubt in people's minds as to whether you are really trying to genuinely analyse cases to the best of your analytical skills, or are merely trying to "spin" the information to suit your own ends.

What I am saying is that such statements needlessly cast a shadow over what might otherwise be good work. Take my word for it, you don't need to be indulging in this sort of "spin" - if your analysis is good enough, it will stand up to scrutiny - if not then such statements give merely give your opponents another stick with which to beat you over the head with.

Anyway, I'll reply to your substantive comments on the case as soon as I can.
 
Rramjet said:
Anyway, I'll reply to your substantive comments on the case as soon as I can.
Click to expand...


But will you ever offer any evidence to support your contention that aliens exist? Evidence other than your ignorance, incredulity, and lies? You've been at this since October 13. There are over 1300 postings in this thread. You've made nearly 400 of them yourself. And still you haven't even started to do what you said you'd do. Any particular reason for you stalling, Rramjet? Could it be because other than incredulity, ignorance, and lies, you simply don't have any evidence to support your conjecture?
 
Rramjet said:
Well, for a start, if you remember, at the very beginning of this thread we BOTH (together) decided it would be best to "start at the beginning" and work through the cases in order to see what we could find. The cases I posted in my OP were in chronological order and that was just the natural way to do things. Of course THAT rational intention was sidetracked almost from the beginning, but I HAVE been "sort of" trying to stick with that vague direction. So to answer your question I guess we just have not got to some of the more recent cases yet... there are PLENTY of them, so no need to worry on THAT score.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that. I hope we get there soon...

Rramjet said:
Moreover, you seem to be implying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the age of a case somehow matters.....No, evidence is evidence, no matter when the observation was made.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my intention at all. I agree with you 100% on the hilighted part, though our definition for evidence clearly differs.
 
Jocce said:
I will remember that whenever you present any evidence. Note that vague "indications of something alien" doesn't qualify as evidence.
Click to expand...

No, indeed. But in each of the cases I am trying to present, there are things that just don't seem to jell with what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world.

I know it is difficult working (as it were) on the "fringes" of scientific endeavour. Working where "normal" scientists fear to tread. But I contend that unless we do "work the very limits" of where knowledge and science can take us... indeed to the very point where rationality and science seem to ( I said "seem" to) break down... then how can we expect to make truly new discoveries. It has always been thus in scientific exploration. Those working on the very edges of knowledge have always been ridiculed and derided by the "mainstream", but I contend that without those people, we would still be living in the Dark Ages!

All I ask is that the evidence be examined critically and logically in a scientific manner. To do this effectively (without bias) one has to, as it were, "suspend disbelief" to look at the evidence dispassionately. You seem to be coming around to that place with your above analysis. I believe EHocking is close to it as well... but both of you too easily slip into that old, comfortable "debunking" system without much thought about where it is leading you.

It is not easy to cast aside long held beliefs to examine the evidence and confront your own belief systems in the process. It is a decidedly uncomfortable thing for most people to even contemplate, let alone act on.

So, keep on the path you have started down - rational, logical assessment of the evidence. I am not afraid of such analysis. Neither should anyone be. Let's conduct GOOD science, with the evidence we have to work with, no matter how poor, in some cases that might be. We need to "sort the signal from the noise" - and let the chips fall where they may. If the evidence is against my position, then I will bow before it, but I NEED to see critical analysis that shows I should bow before it. Not mere statements (and restatements) of belief.

...or something like that... :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom