UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[SnidelyW]

Stray Cat I don't expect nor desire to get into a discussion of theoretical particle physics, only to make the point that tachyons are thought to exist, but their actual existence has not yet been proven. That has certainly not prevented physicists from searching for them, and that is where I think the comparison can be drawn.

I cannot speak for Rramjet, but being ready to accept the existence of 'alien' craft, and by looking at case studies where events suggest the existence of alien craft are a natural extension of mankinds eagerness to explore the unknown.

As in the search for 'proof' of tachyons, my view is that one should not be vilified for searching for what is suspected, in hopes of proving it correct. That may take centuries, and indeed, as in the 'flat earth' concept, milennia, to finally disprove.

Perhaps the 'proof' the skeptics demand of the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization is an impossible task, but those people bold enough to lead the way through the fragments of information should be assisted, not condemned.

Do we risk repeating the mistakes learned from the Salem witch hunt of 1692?

 

[Toke]

That's why they use spaceships, silly!
If it was Thor someone would have reported seeing his chariot.

I am not convinced, elven space crafts would be far easier to identify clearly that a chariot kicking up dust and lightning.
Of course sightings not involving lightning could be Thor going slow or something else, e.g. leprechauns or an elven lifeboat.

 

[SnidelyW]

Not to nit pick but it could be man made. Ya know, top secret stuff...sshhh. The more serious thing is that nothing has been shown that conclusively proves that the above characteristics has been experienced. Frankly speaking, after 60 years I think UFO fans should have been able to piece together more evidence.

I'm not a UFO hobbyist, nor a 'fan'. There are others here who have devote much more time and energy into researching events surrounding UFO's.

I just consider myself open to new concepts and ideas first, and then look at the accounts, both pro and con.

I believe the skeptics take the opposite view, that these events are nothing of interest until incontovertible evidence has been provided. Pardom me if I have misstated the skeptical position.

 

[SnidelyW]

Not to nit pick but it could be man made. Ya know, top secret stuff...sshhh. The more serious thing is that nothing has been shown that conclusively proves that the above characteristics has been experienced. Frankly speaking, after 60 years I think UFO fans should have been able to piece together more evidence.

It is my view that the likelyhood of this being of human origin is virtually nil.

The UFO had the chance to leave the area immediately upon approach.

If this was an experimental aircraft over Iranian airspace, the diplomatic fallout would have been tsunami-like had the UFO been disabled or shot out of the sky.

There are many other reasons, but I do not have the time now to delve into them.

 

[Aepervius]

Stray Cat I don't expect nor desire to get into a discussion of theoretical particle physics, only to make the point that tachyons are thought to exist, but their actual existence has not yet been proven. That has certainly not prevented physicists from searching for them, and that is where I think the comparison can be drawn.

No they are NOT supposed to exists. Against it there is the quicker-than-light information transmission, and another theoretical argument. So you cannot draw *ANY* theoretical argument on this.

And even if you take ANOTHER chimera from physic, it does not matter, because before physicist suppose stuff exists, they try to experiment to prove their existence. Ditto Higgs and so on. Physicist don't say "yeah it exists , we know it due to particle symmetry" they say "from the symmetry existing, we surmise the Higgs particle with A, B and C property exists. let us build a big whooping ass collider to provide evidence".

See the contrast ?

 

[GeeMack]

I believe the skeptics take the opposite view, that these events are nothing of interest until incontovertible evidence has been provided. Pardom me if I have misstated the skeptical position.

You have misstated it by a bit. These events are nothing of interest until some, any tangible, objective evidence has been provided. Oh, and skeptics don't take incredulity, ignorance, and lies as evidence, and that's why the skeptics' positions here, although Rramjet seems to feel otherwise, is that no evidence has been provided yet.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I would assume that the observations were made by the two posts nearest to the object, but we can't be certain. If not then the extra distance introduces a larger error.

IMO, there is a lot of room for error involved here. Only one station actually gathered data on FOUR OBJECTS and the other (M7) was able to obtain a SINGLE azimuth reading. From that SINGLE azimuth reading, they must have figured a sighting line and determined the location of the object. The rest then revolved around the P10 data, which if it had any errors (calibration/operator/etc), would make the calculations pretty inaccurate.

It seems this "single azimuth angle" is critical for all the computations. Was this azimuth angle of the same object that was recorded by P10? After all P10 was tracking four different objects. How do we know that M7 even tracked any of these objects, which were very small (angular size speaking)? How do we know the azimuth reading of M7 was made precisely at the same time as that of P10? Since the objects were moving at a "high speed", a fraction of a second could result in a wildly inaccurate reading.

Taking this all into account, I have to question the values determined by the data reduction unit. I could be wrong but it seems highly likely that there are too many potential errors that could result in a highly erroneous reading. Unless somebody has the actual data and can present it, then we can argue until the cows come home. As evidence, without the actual data (and not just a summary of the conclusions), it is not very good. Try again.

 

[SnidelyW]

"A tachyon (pronounced /ˈtækiˌɒn/; Greek: ταχύς, takhus, "swift" + English: -on "elementary particle") is a hypothetical subatomic "

Do I need to go further ? they are HYPOTHETICAL particle. There are no evidence of their existence. And actually are surmised to NOT exists.

And here is another difference :


Thus stay HYPOTHETICAL.

So you can say your UFO can be hypothetically alien. Sure we agree. As it can be PIFU or kobold. Saying more is going into faith.

So.... What was your point again ?

My point was- tachyons hypothetical or surmised, that has not stopped physicists from constructing labs for the sole purpose of proving their existence. Why are the skeptics here not turning their skeptic eyes to those same physicists and attempting to skewer them for believing they may exist?

The parallels are quite similar, in my view.

 

[SnidelyW]

No they are NOT supposed to exists. Against it there is the quicker-than-light information transmission, and another theoretical argument. So you cannot draw *ANY* theoretical argument on this.

And even if you take ANOTHER chimera from physic, it does not matter, because before physicist suppose stuff exists, they try to experiment to prove their existence. Ditto Higgs and so on. Physicist don't say "yeah it exists , we know it due to particle symmetry" they say "from the symmetry existing, we surmise the Higgs particle with A, B and C property exists. let us build a big whooping ass collider to provide evidence".

See the contrast ?

okay.

From the inordinate, unusual, and gravity defying flight characteristics of UFO's, we surmise they are of extraterrestrial origin. Let's build us a big, whooping ass database to collate all known facts to provide evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

It is my view that the likelyhood of this being of human origin is virtually nil.

But we know as a historical fact that humans exist, and do things, and see things that aren't there, and misinterpret things that are, and lie, and prank each other, and fly things around in our atmosphere. We have absolutely no historical facts that show aliens exist, much less fly things around in our atmosphere.

Where would you put the likelihood of this being of alien origin on your scale of possibilities as compared to "virtually nil"?

 

[RoboTimbo]

My point was- tachyons hypothetical or surmised, that has not stopped physicists from constructing labs for the sole purpose of proving their existence. Why are the skeptics here not turning their skeptic eyes to those same physicists and attempting to skewer them for believing they may exist?

The parallels are quite similar, in my view.

What do you believe is the reason mainstream scientists don't have labs devoted to studying UFO phenoma?

 

[SnidelyW]

You have misstated it by a bit. These events are nothing of interest until some, any tangible, objective evidence has been provided. Oh, and skeptics don't take incredulity, ignorance, and lies as evidence, and that's why the skeptics' positions here, although Rramjet seems to feel otherwise, is that no evidence has been provided yet.

Just to ensure my position is clear:

My understanding from the discussion here is that pretty much nothing less than a chunk of extraterrestrial toilet seat will satisfy skeptics that UFO's exist.

Fair enough. I respect your position. What I have some difficulty with is, if that is truly the position, why would skeptics care if I claim the light I saw in the sky chasing that Iranian F-4 was a UFO?

It seems as though we're at different ends of the evidence spectrum, with me believing that shreds of information, put together, create an entire picture, much like aircraft debris is collected after a crash, and rebuilt in a hangar, constructing the aircraft.

Only when all the pieces are assembled can small tidbits of information take on added importance, not initially apparent upon collection.

 

[Toke]

My point was- tachyons hypothetical or surmised, that has not stopped physicists from constructing labs for the sole purpose of proving their existence. Why are the skeptics here not turning their skeptic eyes to those same physicists and attempting to skewer them for believing they may exist?

The parallels are quite similar, in my view.

My view is a bit different, and include the track record* of respectively physicist and ufo fans.

*Like my laptop, not possible without physicist.

 

[GeeMack]

From the inordinate, unusual, and gravity defying flight characteristics of UFO's, we surmise they are of extraterrestrial origin. Let's build us a big, whooping ass database to collate all known facts to provide evidence.

That hugeass database, although not terribly well indexed, is called the Internet. And that collection of all known facts to provide evidence apparently isn't compelling enough to pique the interest of any but a tiny handful of legitimate scientists. And apparently those legitimate scientists who have taken an interest haven't come to the conclusion that the UFOs which remain unexplained are of alien origin.

Now if you have evidence that isn't already in the database, you should get it out there in circulation. And if you'd like a more comprehensive single collection of the data, there's nothing stopping you from assembling it.

So yes or no, SnidelyW, do you think that if there were a "whooping ass database to collate all known facts to provide evidence", we would be more likely to reach a conclusion that aliens exist?

 

[SnidelyW]

What do you believe is the reason mainstream scientists don't have labs devoted to studying UFO phenoma?

Firstly, I don't know for certain that already is not in progress, and, if I can stretch your mind a bit, there was a claim made that it already has been done.
(if you'd like, I can post a link, but the idea is a bit radical)

It appears the pattern of data collection regarding UFO's is often measured in seconds, or minutes, with UFO's being usually visible for very short periods of time, in different parts of the world, in all types of conditions.

I think I can make a case that data collection is rather a random process, relying heavily on the population at large for reporting those events.

 

[Aepervius]

okay.

From the inordinate, unusual, and gravity defying flight characteristics of UFO's, we surmise they are of extraterrestrial origin. Let's build us a big, whooping ass database to collate all known facts to provide evidence.

And there ein the problem. The database only collect UFO sighting or whatever. At NO POINT WHATSOEVER you can go from UFO sighting to ALIEN sighting without providing evidence, and there is NONE of it. All you have is a collection of hypothese. At no point whatsoever from that collection of UNKNOWN can you go to a known 8except maybe for sociology).

The only way you could prove the hypotheses is by positively and incontrovertibly providing evidence of something of extraterrestrial origin. You CANNOT prove it by giving a billion of UNKNOWN (as in UFO anecdotal story).

 

[RoboTimbo]

It seems as though we're at different ends of the evidence spectrum, with me believing that shreds of information, put together, create an entire picture, much like aircraft debris is collected after a crash, and rebuilt in a hangar, constructing the aircraft.

Only when all the pieces are assembled can small tidbits of information take on added importance, not initially apparent upon collection.

We know that aircraft existed before the crash. We have no such knowledge of alien craft. It was said earlier in the thread, little bits of poo just add up to a bigger pile of poo. Rramjet is making the mistake of throwing lots of little bits of poo against the wall and hoping to create a Picasso.

I think all the skeptics here agree with your statement that UFOs exist.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not a UFO hobbyist, nor a 'fan'. There are others here who have devote much more time and energy into researching events surrounding UFO's.

I just consider myself open to new concepts and ideas first, and then look at the accounts, both pro and con.

I believe the skeptics take the opposite view, that these events are nothing of interest until incontovertible evidence has been provided. Pardom me if I have misstated the skeptical position.

One can't start considering everything to be probable based on insufficient evidence. In order to get anywhere you need SOLID evidence, which is all we're asking, here.

 

[SnidelyW]

My view is a bit different, and include the track record* of respectively physicist and ufo fans.

*Like my laptop, not possible without physicist.

Excellent point!

 

[Belz...]

okay.

From the inordinate, unusual, and gravity defying flight characteristics of UFO's, we surmise they are of extraterrestrial origin. Let's build us a big, whooping ass database to collate all known facts to provide evidence.

No. Actually we surmise that they are of mundane origin until proven otherwise. Ugh, magical thinking hurts my head.