UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Amusing - he starts the thread claiming evidence of aliens, then has to ask for what the term means.
just kidding - I know he's just being a smartass and has a definition already prepared.
Aliens = Unknown or Unidentified.

Actually no… I AM interested in your definitions of “alien”. After all I have provided my definition over and over and over… (Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly take to be the limits of the natural world)

So WHAT is YOUR definition? Surely you MUST have a conception – or do you simply go along with my definition?

What aspersions? I repeat, I am not saying that they didn't know how to do their jobs, because we have no data on which to base any opinion about that, we only have a short note and someone else's assessment of that short note. The assessment that other person made is extremely badly done, full of mistakes.

I simply note that the base report we have does not include errors, which I'm sure were in the original full length report. I'm just saying that without those errors it is impossible to assess the accuracy of the data. Those professionals that you place so much stock in may have assigned large errors to the data, or they may have given it small errors, but we just don't know. Without that information we have nothing reliable, and certainly nothing conclusive.

I also note that you ignored the rest of my post, which dealt with why your attempt to make my assessment look bad was so inaccurate.

So, you contend:
1. That the expert observers and analysts did their job correctly?
“I am not saying that they didn't know how to do their jobs”

2. (in contradiction) That you doubt that the expert observers and analysts did their job correctly (ie; that the data they presented in inaccurate)?
” I'm just saying that without those errors it is impossible to assess the accuracy of the data”

3. Your contention (below) is just plain wrong. We DO have the data report the analysts sent to Lt. Albert citing the precise figures they had calculated.
” we only have a short note and someone else's assessment of that short note”

4. That the assessment by Elterman is in error?
“ The assessment that other person made is extremely badly done, full of mistakes.

5. That the analysts cannot be trusted to have done their jobs properly?
Without that information we have nothing reliable, and certainly nothing conclusive.

Finally: WHAT “rest of your post”? Where was that exactly?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tell me GeeMack... what do you mean by the term "aliens"?

My second contention is that aliens exist

What do you mean by the term "aliens"? And how is anything you've posted evidence of them?

 

[Rramjet]

What do you mean by the term "aliens"? And how is anything you've posted evidence of them?

Are you kidding? I supplied a definition in my previous post!

In fact I am about the ONLY one here supplying evidence for ANYTHING...

If you don't read my posts... what on earth are you doing here?

arthwollipot - let me ask you a question.

If you make an assertion, why don't you have to supply evidence to support that assertion?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you kidding? I supplied a definition in my previous post!

In fact I am about the ONLY one here supplying evidence for ANYTHING...

If you don't read my posts... what on earth are you doing here?

arthwollipot - let me ask you a question.

If you make an assertion, why don't you have to supply evidence to support that assertion?

You've failed to provide a meaningful definition. You've also failed to provide evidence of them. You've failed. Go debate with KotA.

 

[Rramjet]

You've failed to provide a meaningful definition. You've also failed to provide evidence of them. You've failed. Go debate with KotA.

Just because you cannot discern meaning does not mean there is none.

(For those who missed it, my definition is: "Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world")

Some evidence:
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
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

And obviously YOU have no concept of what "alien" means because I have asked you for a definition and you have not supplied it.

And just because you don't accept the evidence I have provided doesn't mean I have not provided evidence.

And merely stating that "I have failed" does not make it true.

Debate with KotA? Why, because you can't and you need my expertise?

 

[Jocce]

You have come to the conclusion that amongst many of the kind, the White Sand sightings may point towards some of these aspects. Am I correct?

Yes.

Which possible explanations apart from aliens have you considered as a cause for the observations and how were you able to eliminate them as explanations? Be as specific as possible please.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh... and just in case people missed THIS one:

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)

And some discussion about it.
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)

 

[Rramjet]

Which possible explanations apart from aliens have you considered as a cause for the observations and how were you able to eliminate them as explanations? Be as specific as possible please.

You mean this case obviously:

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)

But luckily I don't have to do the analysis you suggest. Extensive analysis has been done by others before me. That is the way science works. If we had to repeat EVERY scientific analysis for ourselves, we would still be in the Dark Ages! So I accept the evidence as presented by the experts in the field who have conducted the analysis.

If you do not accept that evidence and analysis then you must explain why you do not. If you fail to plausibly explain why you don't accept the evidence and analysis - then that analysis and evidence stands until ANYONE can plausibly refute it.

 

[arthwollipot]

arthwollipot - let me ask you a question.

If you make an assertion, why don't you have to supply evidence to support that assertion?

That's a loaded question, but I'll answer in the spirit in which it is intended. Your real question is "when don't you need to provide evidence for an assertion?"

The answer is when your assertion does not defy the known laws of physics, common sense, or anyone's experience of the world.

If I assert that something someone saw was probably a cloud, I don't need to provide specific evidence, since people see clouds all the time.

If I assert that something someone saw was an intelligent agency acting outside the bounds of what we commonly take to be the limits of the natural world, I would need to provide evidence for that because it is outside anyone's normal range of experiences, has no basis in physical law, and requires a specific and detailed explanation in order to justify it.

 

[wollery]

So, you contend:
1. That the expert observers and analysts did their job correctly?
“I am not saying that they didn't know how to do their jobs”

2. (in contradiction) That you doubt that the expert observers and analysts did their job correctly (ie; that the data they presented in inaccurate)?
” I'm just saying that without those errors it is impossible to assess the accuracy of the data”

So you contend that it's impossible to correctly take a measurement with a large error?

Wow, you really do know very little about how science actually works!

There is absolutely no contradiction between a scientist taking a measurement correctly and that measurement having a large error. None

3. Your contention (below) is just plain wrong. We DO have the data report the analysts sent to Lt. Albert citing the precise figures they had calculated.
” we only have a short note and someone else's assessment of that short note”

Really? We have a report with the associated errors? Where is it?

4. That the assessment by Elterman is in error?
“ The assessment that other person made is extremely badly done, full of mistakes.

No, the assessment by Macabee is in error. Badly in error, and I showed exactly how it was in error.

5. That the analysts cannot be trusted to have done their jobs properly?
Without that information we have nothing reliable, and certainly nothing conclusive.

And again... I didn't say that. I have no idea if the analysts did their job properly, but even assuming that they did, that does not mean that the data had a small error.

Seriously, I used to teach high school science, and very few of my 12 year old students would have had as much difficulty understanding this point.

So let me make it perfectly clear and as simple as possible.

It is completely possible for an expert to do everything correctly, make a measurement without getting anything wrong, and still have a large error on that measurement.

If you believe otherwise then you don't understand the first thing about science.

You also seem to mistake the term "accuracy" with the term "properly measured". They are not synonyms.

Finally: WHAT “rest of your post”? Where was that exactly?

The previous post, that you snipped to almost nothing in order to avoid having to respond to all the points.

 

[Jocce]

Listen Rramjet. I have posted another possible explanation and I know that you don't like it but I don't understand how you can just handwave it away. That explanation is that the leading scientist and project director evaluated the caputered data from april 27 and found possible sources for errors that hadn't been adequately accounted for. I'm not saying that IT IS SO. It's just one more interpretation.

If you say so then SHOW me where he “found possible sources for errors that hadn't been adequately accounted for” in the data from the 27th.

Show me that he deliberately covered up valuable information.

 

[Jocce]

To state that highly trained military analysts failed to account for error margins… especially at a test facility … beggars belief. Do you understand the accuracy it takes to successfully launch a rocket… let alone get it to go where you want it to? No, these people were steeped in accuracy of measurement. The military relied on their accuracy.

This is just ridiculous. We KNOW for a fact that there were must be errors in the initial estimates of height, size and speed.

Ridiculous…? There are error margins in EVERY calculation we make – that does NOT mean we cannot (for example) put men on the moon. To suppose that highly trained experts in analysis do not account for error margins simply beggars belief.

So in your expert opinion, this observation was indicative of what these highly trained professionals with high tech equipment could deliver in the rocket tests? Seriously?

"Captain, the rocket is still climbing at a high but undetermined speed, we're probably at around 100 000 feet or so now.

 

[Jocce]

luckily I don't have to do the analysis you suggest. Extensive analysis has been done by others before me. That is the way science works. If we had to repeat EVERY scientific analysis for ourselves, we would still be in the Dark Ages! So I accept the evidence as presented by the experts in the field who have conducted the analysis.

How handy that you don't have to think for yourself. Then maybe you can tell me which possible explanations apart from aliens the experts you're referring to have considered as a cause for the observations and how they were able to eliminate them as explanations? Be as specific as possible please because I have not seen anything like that before.

 

[Jocce]

If I claim X – you naturally demand to see evidence of X.
If you claim Y – I naturally demand to see evidence of Y.

THAT is the burden of proof. There is something very peculiar going on here if people cannot understand what common English words and terms of logic mean.

You claim to be a scientist and yet don't know how the burden of proof works. Pathetic.

 

[Jocce]

So your contention is that we can explain the unknown with reference to the unknown? That's just irrational. "I don't know what it is, but I can explain by stating it might be something that I don't know"!?

As you are the one with the original claim, you are required to show that other explanations are not possible. It must have been hilarious for those watching you defend your Phd thesis.

Defendant: This is my claim.
Opponent: How did you rule out X?
Defendant: Prove that it could have been X!!

 

[Jocce]

I don't think I ever got an answer to this question:

I am not at all sure what it was (the objects were). All I know is that there was something flying around up there that "WE" did not put there. So that leaves us very little room to maneuver. I say it is suggestive of "aliens" (remember: "Intelligent agencies operating outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world)

How is " something flying around up there that "WE" did not put there" suggestive of an "intelligent agency"?

 

[tsig]

Actually no… I AM interested in your definitions of “alien”. After all I have provided my definition over and over and over… (Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly take to be the limits of the natural world)

Do these Intelligent agencies have to follow the laws of physics?

 

[AWPrime]

So your contention is that we can explain the unknown with reference to the unknown? That's just irrational. "I don't know what it is, but I can explain by stating it might be something that I don't know"!?

That is what you are doing, even worse you select a specific unknown, that has no weight of evidence.

Yelling? No, just suggesting that perhaps that is where the evidence takes us - because we can find - even after extensive research with the knowledge we have today - no plausible mundane explanation. That's all.

That is just straight arrogance, only stupid people think that know everything about the mundane world. The more our knowledge increases, the more we understand the limits of our knowledge of the mundane world.

ps. By the way, by your 'logic' it might as well been underpants gnomes.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

ps. By the way, by your 'logic' it might as well been underpants gnomes.

At least with underpants gnomes, it ends in profit. There's no profit to be had here.

A

 

[Jocce]

Again this is what is SO frustrating about trying to put a rational argument to you. I actually think you believe your own unfounded assertions. This is exactly the way cult members operate. They are so immersed in their own belief systems that ANY nonsense or otherwise irrational statement is believed MERELY because it lends support to their faith. Somehow, if an assertion is made, no matter what the veracity of that assertion is, then somehow it MUST be true because it supports the faith.

You mean like when you examine a report that concludes that nothing strange seems to be going on and concludes that this is evidence of a cover up? M'kay...