UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then WHERE are your mundane explanations?
WHERE is your "evidence"?
If you have such explanations... present them please.
Simply saying you have them does not make it true.
If you cannot, then that simply lends support to my hypotheses.


That is not how science works, Rramjet. Since you seem unwilling to ask the English teacher there at your high school for help with your reading, you could at least ask one of the science teachers for help with this. Take this quote of yours to a science teacher and have them explain to you what's wrong with it.

And to summarize this thread for anyone jumping in that doesn't want to start at the beginning...

Rramjet has claimed that aliens exist and stated that he would provide evidence to support his claim. So far his only "evidence" is his arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and lies. We are still, after 38 pages, waiting for a single solitary piece of objective evidence to support his claim. Yet for some reason, it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
 
What is wrong with Tor in his chariot as an alternative to aliens?
(Evidence vice, not degree of unreality.)


Well since Rramjet believes that all hypotheses are equal until one is proven true, that is apparently every bit as good an explanation as any. And since Rramjet believes he must demonstrate that hypothesis false in order to eliminate it from the list of possibilities, I'm sure we will see his scientific analysis and his evidence against it soon. That is, if he's not a hypocrite and if he's actually willing to play science by his own convoluted rules.

You're on, Rramjet. Prove it wasn't Tor in his chariot. Prove that none of your sightings are Tor. Start at the beginning. Rogue River first, if you please.
 
You're on, Rramjet. Prove it wasn't Tor in his chariot. Prove that none of your sightings are Tor. Start at the beginning. Rogue River first, if you please.

And Rramjet, please prove it wasn't underpants gnomes, as has been equally hypothesized earlier. Thanks in advance.
 
And how small did they determine that error margin to be? Do you know?

No, of course not, because, despite your constant protestations, we don't have that information. We have a number with no associated error margin.

Maybe they decided that given the unknown nature of the object a larger error margin was acceptable. Maybe the error margin was tiny, but WE DON'T KNOW.

And without that knowledge we cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Oh, and how do you know that these particular analysts wouldn't cite a figure unless it was accurate? Did you know them? Do you even know any of their names? What their qualifications were? How they got their jobs?

No, you know nothing about them except what their jobs were and the data that they produced for this one observation, without its associated error. So how can you be so certain of their motivations and abilities.

Again, I don't say they were bad at their job, or that they lied, or that they quoted a figure they knew was unreliable. But neither do you know anything about them, yet you are fighting tooth and claw to defend them against, well, nothing really, because I haven't said anything about them, other than that we don't really know anything about them. I have not once said that they didn't know how to do their jobs. Not once.

But you need them to be perfect analysts who couldn't possibly make a mistake, or quote an inaccurate figure, because if they are merely human, or even honest enough to cite a relatively large error, then that one data point they took could, just possibly, not be as accurate as you need it to be.

And make no mistake, you're the one here who has a need. Because if that one data point isn't as accurate as you keep insisting it must be (despite the lack of evidence to back up that insistence) then your argument for this case falls flat on its face.

But as far as I am concerned I don't care if their error margin was +/- 100 ft. It makes no difference, because I'm not putting forward a hypothesis for what caused this phenomenon. It could be alien craft, or Russian spy planes, or some type of experimental flare, or luminous clouds, or Skippy the Bush Kangaroo for all I care. I have no vested interest in them being right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. I've stated, very clearly, several times, that the figure could be accurate. I merely pointed out mistakes in Macabee's maths and analysis and possible sources of error for the measurements. You do have a vested interest though, and it's showing in the zeal with which you attack me, despite the fact that I haven't done what you keep claiming I have.


Now let us cut away the extraneous to leave ONLY your contentions (I have snipped NOTHING that alters your arguments in any way - you can check for yourself against the above. The sense of your arguments are retained exactly).

And how small did they determine that error margin to be?

Maybe (…) a larger error margin was acceptable. Maybe the error margin was tiny (…).

(…) without that knowledge we cannot draw any firm conclusion.

(…) how do you know that these particular analysts wouldn't cite a figure unless it was accurate? (…)

(…) the data that they produced (is) without its associated error. So how can you be so certain of their motivations and abilities.

(…) I don't say they were bad at their job, or that they lied, or that they quoted a figure they knew was unreliable. (…) we don't really know anything about them. I have not once said that they didn't know how to do their jobs. Not once.

But you need them to be (…) honest enough to cite a relatively large error, then that one data point they took could, just possibly, not be as accurate as you need it to be.

(…) Because if that one data point isn't as accurate (…) then your argument for this case falls flat on its face.​

So, I think we can summarise your arguments now.

1. Without knowing the error margin we cannot know if the analyst’s cited figures were accurate.
2. The analysts might have cited an inaccurate figure
3. Perhaps the cited an inaccurate figure without knowing
4. Rramjet needs them to cite a large error margin because he needs the cited figure to be accurate (!!)
5. If the figure isn’t accurate Rramjet’s argument “falls flat on its face”.

Now let us analyse the logic:

Your first two arguments assume the analysts might have cited an inaccurate figure. This just beggars belief considering who they were and what the military relied on them to do.

You third argument assumes that the analysts cited inaccurate figure without knowing it. In this you assume the analysts do not understand what error margins are. This just beggars belief considering who they were (at least one was a qualified mathematician) and what the military relied on them to do

Your forth argument is a contradiction in terms.

Finally you conclusion would be a correct, but based on the evidence, we can only assume that because the observers and the analysts WERE experts in their fields then we have no reason to doubt their figures.

You stated:
"...because I'm not putting forward a hypothesis for what caused this phenomenon.

No indeed, despite repeated exhortations for you to put forward plausible mundane explanations you have simply not done so. That you cannot do so merely lends support to my contentions.

You have “no vested interest”? Then why do you argue nonsensically on an on then? If you truly had no vested interest you would accept the evidence of the experts and that would be it.

You asserted above:
“I've stated, very clearly, several times, that the figure could be accurate.

This is just plain false. What you have stated clearly was QUOTE: “And without that knowledge we cannot draw any firm conclusion.”

You stated:
” I merely pointed out mistakes in Macabee's maths and analysis and possible sources of error for the measurements.”

Again utterly false. SHOW me where you have done what you say you have done. You cannot because you have not.
 
Then WHERE are your mundane explanations?

We've mentioned "blimp" and "hoax", don't you remember ?

WHERE is your "evidence"?

Blimps and hoaxes exist.

Plus, did you even read what I said, AGAIN, on the burden of proof ?

If you cannot, then that simply lends support to my hypotheses.

No it doesn't. That would be an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy and an unscientific way of reasoning.
 
The evidence on the record thus far...

Here is the evidence that I have so far presented:

First I presented:

The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)

All agreed it was a UFO and could find no plausible mundane explanation for it. The “blimp” hypothesis was proposed but historical Navy records show this to be implausible. Moreover it in no way accounted for the eyewitness sworn testimony.

Then I presented.

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

Here is a sighting that directly involved “alien” creatures – and thus direct evidence for my contentions. There was some argument that it was an “owl”. But of course this simply denies the evidence as reported in the case – it simply does not fit. Of course “owl” was a front for the real contention that it was a hoax… but nobody was able to provide evidence that it was a hoax.

Next I presented:

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

Here there was military sourced evidence (with radar confirmation) of intelligent manoeuvring of a “craft” that operated outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world. No rational argument against the case was forthcoming except that it was “second-hand” evidence. However we do have first hand reports from at least one of the pilots involved. Again this provided evidence to support my contentions.

Next I presented:

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

Here was a case that had highly qualified observers and analytical staff using technical equipment to film and triangulate “craft” at high altitude. This case put the lie to the debunker claim that there were no reliable cases because of witness fallibility. The witnesses in this case were unimpeachably reliable.

I have also presented this case:

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

There was one solitary derisory reference to it and on investigation of the tip-off, I discovered the above. No discussion of this case has been (so far) forthcoming. Perhaps the evidence is mounting to a point where the debunkers simply have nothing left to say?

So…THIS is your evidence people. I contend the evidence I have presented supports my contention of UFOs and “aliens”.

I have seen no evidence that can explain any of these sightings by reference to a plausible mundane phenomenon or phenomena.

If ANYONE has such evidence, then please present it.
 
Now let us [*... ahhhh... screw the irrelevant ramblings and just snip it here... *]


When will you start to prove the Rogue River sighting wasn't Tor in his chariot or underpants gnomes, Rramjet? After all, you agree that they're equally valid hypotheses to anything else that's been presented, and you haven't done a darn thing to prove them wrong.

Seems you should clear up the case you started with before you go on to others, unless of course you've conceded that underpants gnomes, Tor in his chariot, and a multitude of mundane possibilities are all valid explanations. In that case you will, of course, simply remove the entire Rogue River case from consideration, and eliminate it from your list of evidence for your contention, eh? :)
 
I think the most effective thing to do here is to simply show you your error... as follows:

I understand, you can't defend your position rationally so you resort to just repeating the same thing over and over again. It's ok, I understand your frustration.
 
On the burden of proof

Let us make this as clear as possible because it seems people are just not getting it.

1. I make a claim - and people ask that I present the evidence to support that claim.

This is a reasonable thing to ask of me. It is rational and logical.

2. Now the debunkers make a claim - and I ask that they present evidence to support that claim.

This is a reasonable thing to ask of them. It is rational and logical.

Yet what occurs when I ask?

They immediately deny that they have to produce evidence to support their claims.

That is unreasonable. It is irrational and illogical.

I have NO idea why people are not understanding such a basic concept.

I can only speculate that in my opinion many are so wrapped up in their peculiar faith based belief systems that they simply cannot continence anything that might put that faith in jeopardy. I my opinion there is exhibited in this thread among the debunkers many cult-like attitudes and behaviours. I suggest these conclusions drawing on the exemplary work of Festinger and his Cognitive Dissonance Theory (for example see: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~as491398/cdaes.htm).
 
So far the ONE bit of "evidence" presented for the existence of aliens as an explanation for anything contains a description of creatures unlike any other "alien" descriptions I have seen before. (Not that I have seen many - I tend to prefer my fantasies with elves, faeries, and magic).
So, even using "the weight of the pile of papers" as evidence, we have seen nothing at all to lead to the idea of any sort of alien intelligence.
On top of which, offering a mythical creature as an explanation for something does NOT require disbelievers to show evidence of something else to refute it.
If it did, then I win, it was elves. See my avatar - proof! At least there is a picture of an elf, which is more than we have of aliens.
 
I understand, you can't defend your position rationally so you resort to just repeating the same thing over and over again. It's ok, I understand your frustration.

In other words you have no rational argument against that which I presented which completely demolished your contentions - for if you did I am sure you would state it.

I can only conclude that, even though you don't directly state it, I have successfully refuted you statements on the matter.

Frustrated? (chuckles in amusement)
 
So far the ONE bit of "evidence" presented for the existence of aliens as an explanation for anything contains a description of creatures unlike any other "alien" descriptions I have seen before. (Not that I have seen many - I tend to prefer my fantasies with elves, faeries, and magic).
So, even using "the weight of the pile of papers" as evidence, we have seen nothing at all to lead to the idea of any sort of alien intelligence.
On top of which, offering a mythical creature as an explanation for something does NOT require disbelievers to show evidence of something else to refute it.
If it did, then I win, it was elves. See my avatar - proof! At least there is a picture of an elf, which is more than we have of aliens.

Oh but I quite clearly defined what I meant by "alien" in response to a direct question from you.

If you have evidence for your own belief in "elves, faeries, and magic" then please present it. I would be extremely interested to see it.

On the other hand I have been consistently presenting evidence that suggests "aliens". You might not agree with that evidence, but it does not mean that I have not been presenting it.
 
Oh but I quite clearly defined what I meant by "alien" in response to a direct question from you.

If you have evidence for your own belief in "elves, faeries, and magic" then please present it. I would be extremely interested to see it.

On the other hand I have been consistently presenting evidence that suggests "aliens". You might not agree with that evidence, but it does not mean that I have not been presenting it.

I disagree that it presents even a hint of an argument in favor of either of our fantasies.
It is nothing more than a list of odd occurrences that no one has seen a sufficient amount of evidence to ascribe a cause to.
So far not a bit of evidence that aliens exist, let alone that they are the cause of any of these occurrences.
Note that there are TWO points here - one is the existence of these aliens and the second is that they are the cause of the anomalies.
Pointing to an anomaly and saying that it is evidence of something - of ANYTHING - is putting the argument backwards.
Until you can show that there are aliens, you cannot use them as explanations for things that are currently "unknown".

It's rather a rather strange argument:

"It's aliens"
"Why do you think it's aliens?"
"Because you can't prove it's something else."
"I think it's elves."
"You have to prove it like I did."

Okay - I proved it the same way you did.
You made an assertion and pointed at a drawing of an odd looking creature as evidence.
I made an assertion and pointed at my avatar as evidence.
 
So far the ONE bit of "evidence" presented for the existence of aliens as an explanation for anything contains a description of creatures unlike any other "alien" descriptions I have seen before. (Not that I have seen many - I tend to prefer my fantasies with elves, faeries, and magic).
So, even using "the weight of the pile of papers" as evidence, we have seen nothing at all to lead to the idea of any sort of alien intelligence.
On top of which, offering a mythical creature as an explanation for something does NOT require disbelievers to show evidence of something else to refute it.
If it did, then I win, it was elves. See my avatar - proof! At least there is a picture of an elf, which is more than we have of aliens.

I do not agree with you, there is strong evidence of Thor and his chariot.
 
I claim – as I have indicated above – that the observers saw what they reported. Nothing more, nothing less.

Cool... something that was eventually classed as UNIDENTIFIED then... can we move on to the case where the 'experts' conclude Alien Craft please?

1. The report of the sighting – which clearly rules out any plausible mundane explanation that I am aware of (meteors, “fireballs”, etc) and clearly has the White Sands commanders puzzled

Remind me where the detailed information about the process they went through to systematically rule out the mundane is? I don't seem to be able to find that document.

Now they would NOT have been so puzzled had the objects been explicable as any plausible mundane object.
So presumption then... If there is something they are puzzled about, why the surprise that THEY weren't jumping to conclusions about what it was or wasn't? The fact is that after observing and recording an event and gaining 'some' information, they were still puzzled. Though obviously not overly concerned about it or they would have followed it up with further observation, reporting and data collection/analysis (for example: if they had thought it was aliens invading).

You stated:
”The way science works indeed, but what has UFOlogy got do to with science?”

Simply, we can apply the methodology of science to the study of UFOs.
Tell that to the UFOlogists then and take your own advice on board perhaps?
Perhaps you did not think of applying the scientific method yourself?
I did and I do... Though I am not a scientist, just someone with a keen interest in looking for real signs that aliens are flying around our planet.
So far, I have not seen any evidence that stands up to scrutiny when scientific standards are applied to it, even when it is reported as being 'scientific investigation.


I have asserted a number of hypotheses. I have been placing evidence on the record to support those hypotheses. If you dispute my hypotheses or the evidence I present, then please do so. Making assertions as you have just done advances the debate precisely nowhere.
The counter evidence has been placed in this thread by lots of people (myself included). Your assertions that it shows nothing only get us back to the conclusion that these event were classified as UNIDENTIFIED.
So if you could now provide us with a case were the conclusion was Alien Craft, perhaps that would tip the scales in your favour.

Indeed you are right…and I HAVE been submitting evidence for my claims. If you dispute the evidence or claims then you MUST provide your reasoning for such and support any assertions or claims of your own with evidence. It’s as simple as that really.

You haven't though... you have been supplying information that concludes UNIDENTIFIED.
You are hoping to build up a picture of something that is not there by making connections between unrelated event which could have all sorts of mundane causes, from bad evidence gathering, inaccurate reporting, misidentification, dishonesty, hoaxing, poor witness accounts, bias etc. etc. etc.

For example:
I can prove that pink unicorns exist.
Let's look at the evidence: Many stories about unicorns have been written through the ages so they must be based on fact. A list of the unicorn stories to support my claim that they have been seen and recognised for a long time is:
The First Animal Named
Daniel and the Unicorn
King Arthur and the Unicorn
The Unicorn Who Walks Alone
The Fair Maid and the Snow White Unicorn
Chinese Folk Tale
Shimmer
The Court of the Summer King

Unicorns get more than one mention in the Bible... An accurate hostorical record of our planet's history:
Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”
Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”
Job 39:9-10 “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”
Psalm 22:21 “Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”
Psalm 29:6 “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”
Psalm 92:10 “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”
Isaiah 34:7 “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”

And even before the Bible was written, during the Upper Paleolithic period, people were painting Unicorn's on cave walls:
Lascaux-cave-painting.jpg

http://www.theartwolf.com/news/lascaux-caves-danger.htm

So let's move on the physical boilogical evidence for Unicorns.
Well we know that a Unicorn looks like this:
unicorn.jpg


Because here is a photo of one.

But despite some people photographing them over the years, we have never actually been able to prove their existence, because no scientist has ever managed to capture one. So let's look at the data available.

The above photo is obviously based upon one of these animals:
horse.jpg


A horse...which we have much conclusive proof of the existence of and biological data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse
but it's the wrong trousers colour. We are looking for proof of a pink unicorn...

Well as the horse is a mammal, if it was possible to have a pink mammal, it would prove that it is possible to have a pink horse.
pink_dolphin.jpg

A pink mammal then!
http://www.recipezaar.com/bb/viewtopic.zsp?t=294948
Which we know is a mammal because scientists have examined them in great detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin

So now all the various bits are coming together, we know we can have a pink horse. All that is missing is a single horn...

narwhals_closeup.jpg

The Narwhal is only one contender... because of it's closer relationship to the pink dolphin, but there are a few others.

Here's one that bears more than a passing resemblance to the horse:
unicorn_narrowweb__300x4520.jpg

A single horned deer.
Full story here

So now you can see how all this evidence builds up into a picture of Pink Unicorns being real...

I would further contend that there are two distinct species of pink unicorns too. A visible and an invisible kind... the invisible one's a prooving much harder to pin down the evidence though, so there is much doubt as to their true existence.
:D
 
Aww, c'mon...if you'd followed the thread you'd know he has never claimed to have proof of 'little green buggers'...

I think it's quite clear we will not be getting any concrete evidence of aliens, since that's not what Rramjet has claimed to have. Instead we'll get a bunch of sightings/incidents which he has concluded to represent something he can only describe as alien (based on his view of what is counted as evidence)...I think there's a huge difference between these two claims.

So why harass him with straws?

ETA: Also, I believe it to be of benefit to keep on continuing to try to clear the misunderstanding he has of 'the burden of proof' and 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' concepts. I see that, in combination with adequate rebuttals of his 'evidence' (props Wollery for the latest attempt), to possibly be the only way to reach a valuable (educating) conclusion to this thread...

Finally, someone who isn't totally blinded by skepticism!

How many of us have ever used the phrase, 'if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.'?

Rramjet has provided plenty of examples of the same concept.

If it flies like something beyond known parameters of flight, emanates energy beyond our known parameters of emittance, and creates no sound wave, then it simply cannot be explained as mundane.
 
If it flies like something beyond known parameters of flight, emanates energy beyond our known parameters of emittance, and creates no sound wave, then it simply cannot be explained as mundane.

How do you detect such energy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom