UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marcus]

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.

I'm seeing lots of evidence that some flying objects are unidentified. Aliens, not so much.

 

[Rramjet]

Catching up… (snipped because the post is contained below

Catching up…

(please forgive me if any of this is redundant)
Originally Posted by Rramjet
One wonders what owls were doing peering in the widows?
Don’t know. How do you know for sure they were and if some folk’s perceptions weren’t naturally altered somewhat due to a heightened state of fear?

Rr:“Also why they persisted in doing this in the face of shotgun blasts?”

AD: Don’t know. How do you know for sure how many shotgun (as opposed to .22) blasts there were and the owls weren’t sporting “No Fear” t-shirts?

Rr: How many shotgun and .22 blasts does it take to hit an owl at point blank range? Must be fun to play the fool.

Rr: “Why did the "run" when they could fly?”

AD: Don’t know. How do you know for sure it wasn’t because they were injured?

Rr: If they were injured then there would have been blood.. feathers at least…

Rr: “Why were no owl nests mentioned at the time?”

AD: Don’t know. How do you know for sure somebody thought to look for one or there simply weren’t any to be found because they were trying to establish some new territory to build one in before the mating season began? (I suspect the dog may know more about this but he isn’t talking)

Rr: This was AFTER the mating season was well over.

Rr: “How is it that these country people could NOT recognise owls (which were supposedly nesting in a tree near to the house)?”

AD: Don’t know. How do you know for sure these poor folks weren’t “blinded” by their (apparently not at all irrational to them) fear of an alien invasion?

Rr: How do you get from “owl” to “alien invasion”? Besides the descriptions and actions of the creatures resembled nothing like “owls”.

Rr: “How is it that there were no feathers, blood, etc even after being hit (in some instances at "point blank range") by repeated .22 and shotgun blasts?”

AD: Don’t know. How do you know for sure there wasn’t any, they didn’t miss, or weren’t exaggerating just a little bit?

Rr: There was a police investigation. We have NO reason to doubt their word.

Rr: “How is it that "While they did not appear to have an aura of luminescence, their "skin" glowed in the dark with the glow becoming brighter when they were shot at or shouted at."

AD: Don’t know. How do you know for sure that description is entirely accurate?

Rr: Why do you doubt the descriptions?

Rr: “No, I contend owl is implausible in the face of this and other evidence.”

AD: Your argument from incredulity and ignorance has been duly noted as well as your inability to think outside the box UFOlogy has you cornered in.

Rr: Your argument from incredulity and ignorance has been duly noted as well as your inability to think outside the box the debunkers have you cornered in.

AD: I mean Hell, they’ve already reduced you to arguing against the existence of blimps…

Rr: Actually, arguing against blimps being at a specific place at a specific time.

Rr: “But why would he contend this when all the evidence suggests that all the witnesses were present for all events?” (in ref. to Nickel’s “assessment”)

AD: Because according to the witnesses themselves they weren’t so I’m not sure where you’re getting “all” the evidence that suggests otherwise.

Rr: “…this is a well known debunker tactic…”

AD: You’re so smart. Do you by chance know where we’ve been holding our secret meetings too?

Rr: Who cares where…

AD: Fortunately nobody has apparently leaked a copy of the infamous “Baloney Detection Kit” to you from “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” yet.

Rr: If you contend that the reports were “baloney” then provide evidence. Merely stating it does not make it so.

Rr: “Do you really hold up Joe Nickel's assertions as exemplary and properly conducted research that meets commonly accepted scientific standards?”

AD: Absolutely, in my opinion he merely proposes what seems a likely explanation. I take it you just haven’t had the time to review the material cited in his extensive list of references for yourself yet?

Rr: Now I KNOW you to be a victim of “woo”.

Rr: “Exactly what I have been doing. The Iran UFO case has radar confirmation for example.”

AD: Iran has an Air Force?

Rr: Shows how much you don’t know.

AD: Was a UFO tracked actually going to/from space (you know like where ETs would come from) as specified in my proposed list of “extraordinary” types of evidence for aliens? Didn’t think so.

Rr: “Extraordinary Evidence”? Please define what extraordinary evidence is. No, I did not think so.

AD: Funny how the first jet wasn’t “scrambled” until three hours after the original (and stationary) UFO that wasn’t confirmed by ground radar was first reported isn’t it? (and didn’t “disappear” until some six and a half hours later) I mean I sure hope they didn’t venture too far from home in their unsuccessful attempts to catch up with it and inadvertently lock on and try to fire at any other potential bogeys out there in the process. And for any conspiracy theorists in the audience, ever wonder why the intelligence analyst’s report that assessed the information to be of such “high value” was sent all the way to the top only classified confidential?

Rr: Obviously you have not understood the circumstances surrounding when and why the jet(s) were scrambled. Are you contending that the military SHOULD have classified it as top secret? If so why?

AD: Oh and Project Twinkle?

AD: Funny how the “green fireballs” suddenly became so conspicuously absent as soon as the experiments to figure out what they were began isn’t it? I mean it wasn’t like there was any highly classified (read compartmentalized) tactical nuclear missile research going on at the time in the area and the right hand always knows (or has a need to know) what the left hand is doing right?

Rr: So you have not understood the reports on the matter (shrugs) well I cannot help you there I am afraid.

AD: Want to know one of the unstated reasons why the military so desperately wanted to close Project Blue Book and get out of the flying saucer business?

“If I told you I’d have to kill you”

Can you say Catch-22?

Rr: Play the fool if you will, it matters not to me, as long as the evidence is on my side, all people have to do is read and understand the reports for themselves.

 

[Rramjet]

I thought they were funny... but your general tone through this thread does not give the impression you are making jokes, so I didn't know if you were being serious either. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were joking. Maybe one of these will help in future --->

I just went outside and looked up (lovely clear day here)... no planes in the sky to be seen.
I'm guessing if I can look up and see no planes, a satellite can look down and see no planes. Sometimes when I go out, I see planes.
But the main point of contention with using Google Earth to spot UFOs is the really crappy quality of the images. Even if it found one, it wouldn't be good enough to see much and would be open to the speculation it was faked somehow.

Sure a might have helped...

...and exactly right as to the worth of Google Earth to capture UFOs. My point precisely.

 

[Rramjet]

I'm seeing lots of evidence that some flying objects are unidentified. Aliens, not so much.

Hi Marcus -

I am working with a purpose here.
First establish UFOs, then establish "aliens".
I have yet to get to presenting cases to show that latter contention directly.
Still dealing with the establishment of UFOs issue...
You should go back and have a look at my OP (if you have not already) - there is a great list of cases there - of course I reserve the right to add to that list (and I aim to).

 

[Jocce]

No, if you claim a blimp is a plausible explanation for the Rogue River sighting then you must show me the evidence that blimps could have been there at that time. I have provided an extensive refutation of the blimp hypothesis. If you don’t understand that refutation, then I am afraid I can help you in the matter no further.

We all understand it perfectly. We say, could have been private or reserve blimps. You say, no it' couldn't have been a navy blimp. This is your argumentation:

Forum: It's blue.
Rramjet: No, it's round.

You don't even adress what we're talking about. Do you live in a parallel universe? Are you an alien?

Umm… again, I HAVE ruled it out.

Good for you, but you haven't convinced anyone here.

Ummm, gee…But you just claimed that blimps have not been ruled out… !?! And please DO show my claim has no merit – you have not done so far…

See above.

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.

And you have FAILED to produce evidence that some UFOs are under alien control. It's as easy as that. Noone is agreeing with your conclusions and you claim victory? Hello...knock...knock...anyone home?

 

[Jocce]

Hi Marcus -

I am working with a purpose here.
First establish UFOs, then establish "aliens".
I have yet to get to presenting cases to show that latter contention directly.
Still dealing with the establishment of UFOs issue...

We all established that UFOs exist on page one. Then we had 10 pages of you trying to redefine the meaning of UFO to exclude mundane, but unidentified objects. After that it's been a lot of claiming indications of alien intelligence.

So far you've done a terrible job of defending your beliefs Rramjet.

 

[Jocce]

AD: Funny how the “green fireballs” suddenly became so conspicuously absent as soon as the experiments to figure out what they were began isn’t it? I mean it wasn’t like there was any highly classified (read compartmentalized) tactical nuclear missile research going on at the time in the area and the right hand always knows (or has a need to know) what the left hand is doing right?

Or, it's almost as if the russians knew they were being observed. Scary coincidence either way.

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Skeptics are open to new ideas and concepts. As evidence, I present you the fact that we care about discussing the "sightings" and quite often are with our radars on to see if a good contact is found. So far, the result is nothing.

The actual difference is that we require reliable evidence. Something which, in the case of UFOs, so far has not been available to my best knowledge. There are some data points which makes me raise and eyebrow and say "Hmmm, WTF could this have been?" but that's all. By the way, there's a difference between "incontrovertible" and "reliable". Even if reliable, a given dataset can be interpreted in a number of ways.

I fully allow the concept of 'stealth technology'. However, I deem it virtually impossible to have been at that stage of development in the mid-70's. Even if it was, putting a pilot over Iran in unproven, experimental technology would not be likely. Given Francis Powers experience in the U-2 only a decade or so before, one would think that mistake would not be repeated.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. USA's firts stealth attempts date back from the late 50's, with the SR71, A-12 and Kingfish projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_KINGFISH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird
(Wiki data seems to be OK in these cases)

Note that the SR71 was active between 1964 and 1998; its shape is advanced-looking (or even "alien") even nowadays. It was also developed to avoid new cases such as Powers' U2 being shot down. Iranian air defenses would be of no use against such a Mach3+ (yep, Mach3+) plane. SAM sites locked and fired missiles at them, but the damn Habu were just too fast for the missiles.

By the way, the first (known) blood for the F-117 was in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause). This might help put some other cases in perspective.

If you want to expand to “stealth-like” designs, you may go even further back in time, towards the late stages of WWII, when Nazi Germany had the experimental/prototype Horten Ho 229 flying wing fighter (very similar to a rendering of Kenneth Arnold’s “saucers”), the American Northrop N1M and N9m and the British, the Baynes Bat. A bit later, USA had those big YB-35 and YB-49 flying wings in the early 50’s. If you want to expand even further, in to simply “odd-looking” designs, then there’s a lot of more weird flying things- I wonder what night operations of Goblins/EB-29 or F-84/B-36 would look like… But I digress.

You are also not taking in to account the possibility of drones. Several reccon and EW drones had already been developed -and were operational- by USA and other countries in the 80's. They were used by USA back in 60's (Vietnam). Here's a handy linkie:
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav.html

Now, suppose we are in the mid-80's. A (USA, Israeli, Soviet, etc.) drone crashes over Iran. OK. So what? Are such incidents unheard of? If the origin of the shredded burned bits is eventually identified, the result would be some uneasiness, lame excuses, diplomatic maneuvers and a handshake in the end... Nothing else.

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.

Nope again. You must compare the hypothetical backgrounds of both things. It is really not like someone just said "what it there are faster-than-light particles"?

It is really pretty far from bringing a collection of National Enquirer articles to back UFOs as alien craft.

BTW, care to show what labs were built for the sole purpose of proving tachyons are real? Wouldn’t that be actually experiments?

Oh, what do you think it would be needed to detect alien presence in Earth if it follows the models presented by UFOlogists? Are you sure we don't have it yet? Are you sure we would not have detected them yet? Please take in to account what's been described at the links provided by Rramjet before answering. Look a the whole think.

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.

At last it seems someone who takes the “UFOs may be alien” more highly in to account then me seems to be getting near the actual point.

What UFO buffs must do, if they want to be taken seriously, is to build such a database- simply piling up internet links and claiming they are the real deal won’t do it. It is not the first time I say this- Build a database using a methodology to classify reports regarding their reliability, following a non-biased methodology which, when used by someone else, with the same input data will generate the same results.

Then the real game may start.

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.

The important thing is the quality of the shred of information you are using. A piece of aircraft debris is way better than second-hand accounts of an aircraft exploding in 1947, for example.

As for the “chunk of extraterrestrial toilet seat”, well, assuming they exist, do we know they use toilets? And no, it doesn’t take a piece of an alien craft to convince skeptics. Good sharp imagery form more than one source, unsuspected of being a hoax and with great chances of being something really unidentified, backed by multiple eyewitnesses would be a great step forward. Got some? None is available at ufoevidence.org, for example…

Speaking of toilets, I remember an old MAD magazine cartoon (Don Martin? Not sure…) linking aliens, toilets and Von Daniken…I wish I could find it at the www…Anyone with a higher Google-fu level can help?

 

[IXP]

What we DO have is a group of highly qualified observers and analysts conducting research by applying the specific skills of their training to a problem and then reporting the results.

If you contend those results to be somehow unreliable, then you directly deny the skills of those observers and analysts to do the job they were trained for. I am sure the military would be startled to learn from you that all their expensive training is useless. That the observers and analysts they employ can not be relied upon to do their jobs.

Compare to:

What we have is a pair of experienced airline pilots. They had undergone extensive training and had been recertified periodically to make sure their skills are still up to standards. The were flying a commercial airliner exactly as they had been trained and were highly qualfiied to do. Yet they were out of contact with controllers for 78 minutes and overflew their destination by 150 miles.

If you contend that that could happen, you directly deny the ability of those pilots to do what they were trained for and tested for. I am sure the FAA and the airlines whould be startled to learn that all of their expensive training is useless. That the pilots they trained could not be counted to to do their jobs.

http://www.ubmaviationnews.com/News...id/822/ArticleID/2968/reftab/160/Default.aspx

IXP

 

[Belz...]

So all that argument about blimps was a figment of everyone’s imagination?

Ramjet... the argument was about blimps being a POSSIBLE explanation.

Let me make that out for you:

POSSIBLE explanation.

Saying that it's possible doesn't necessarily mean its the prefered conclusion.

Umm...WHAT mundane, known-to-exist alternatives? Merely stating there are such alternatives does NOT make it true that there is.

I've already answered that. You don't seem to be reading what I post.

I have provided an extensive refutation of the blimp hypothesis.

No, you've shown that some of the blimp operations had ceased. It doesn't follow that NO blimps could have been in the area.

Umm… again, I HAVE ruled it out.

Argument from incredulity.

Ummm, gee…But you just claimed that blimps have not been ruled out… !?!

I think you're very confused as to what a claim is. Case in point:

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've ALREADY answered this as well. I wonder why you don't acknowledge this.

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.

That's the skeptics equivalent of a Godwin. Accusing your opponents of being dogmatic because they disagree with you doesn't help your case.

 

[Akhenaten]

You have ABSOLUTELY no sense of humour!

Besides you DID not address my substantial point about Google Earth NOT being able to capture airplanes given how MANY there are in the air... and the ones that they do capture are actually taken from airplanes themselves... so what chance capturing a UFO... not very good I would have thought.

Besides...THEN there are the space shuttle UFOs...

What substantial point? You were given a link to the pictures of the aircraft you said didn't exist. And you're STILL claiming they don't exist?

 

[Akhenaten]

Catching up…

(please forgive me if any of this is redundant)

<it was>

You're falling further behind, actually. Things would run more smoothly if you tried to keep up.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sure a might have helped...

...and exactly right as to the worth of Google Earth to capture UFOs. My point precisely.

Your initial contention was that Google Earth is made up of "rendered" pictures, whatever that means, and didn't have any jet planes in flight in any of its images.

Your point, precisely, was completely and utterly wrong.

And getting wronger.

 

[makaya325]

Ak owns again!

Btw, Ramjet, are you sure you are not a sock puppet of skyeagle from unexplained-mysteries.com?

 

[Nonpareil]

Ak owns again!

Btw, Ramjet, are you sure you are not a sock puppet of skyeagle from unexplained-mysteries.com?

How can he be a sock puppet of a member of a completely separate forum?

 

[Correa Neto]

“Elves and faeries”? I reject the hypothesis simply because we do not have the same level of evidence for their existence as we do for UFOs. However, if you contend Mothman or the Kelly-Hopkinsville creatures are “elves and faeries” then I will listen to the evidence you have to present. If no evidence to support that contention is forthcoming, I would reject your contention. If you contend the “platinum-blonde with red pubic hair from Villas-Boas case” was a succubi, then present your evidence. I am open to any and all plausible evidence. If you can support you contentions with such, then of course we must take note. If not, then I will reject your contentions.

Not so fast. The evidence for mothman, the Kelly-Hopkinsville creatures and the platinum-blonde with red pubic hair are exactly the same for elves and faeries: anecdotes and second-hand accounts.

You certainly are aware that many an UFOlogists see similarities between myths such as "forest people" (no, not bigfoot, I'm talking about faeries and elfs) and UFOs.

Where and how you draw the line?

Jacques Valée was proposing hypotheses to explain the evidence. He interpreted what he saw in the evidence as pointing in a certain direction. He supplied evidence to support his contentions. That is his right to do so. You may interpret the evidence in a different way. But if you do, you MUST ALSO supply evidence to support your own interpretations and hypotheses.

And if I recall correctly Valée proposed a common source for UFO weirdness, some mythical beings and mystical experiences included. A very loose hypothesis, I must say speculation actually, since there’s no evidence for whatever lies beyond “the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world” – if there is something actually.

The definition "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" is just that – a definition.

Anything that fits within that definition that we have plausible evidence for is then and “alien”.

What a poor definition, I must say… Do you have any evidences, for example that something lies “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world”? Could you please at least tell us what “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world” actually means? Does not sound like another planet... Or it is just some sort of post-modernist babble?

Is Magonia “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world”?

When you claim UFOs can only be explained by "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" you are not just speculating there is something “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world”- you are also speculating there is something intelligent beyond the limits of the natural world and that this intelligence is able to cross the boundaries between "Magonia" and our natural world.

So, taking the above in consideration, I must also ask again- Can you (or any other please tell me how "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" is supposed to be not only "scientific" but also a better explanation than mundane (but not correctly identified for a number of reasons) objects/phenomena and/or hoaxes?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ak owns again!

Btw, Ramjet, are you sure you are not a sock puppet of skyeagle from unexplained-mysteries.com?

How can he be a sock puppet of a member of a completely separate forum?

You have to think in a certain way to reach these conclusions.

 

[SnidelyW]

Skeptics are open to new ideas and concepts. As evidence, I present you the fact that we care about discussing the "sightings" and quite often are with our radars on to see if a good contact is found. So far, the result is nothing.

The actual difference is that we require reliable evidence. Something which, in the case of UFOs, so far has not been available to my best knowledge. There are some data points which makes me raise and eyebrow and say "Hmmm, WTF could this have been?" but that's all. By the way, there's a difference between "incontrovertible" and "reliable". Even if reliable, a given dataset can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Thank you, Correa Neto, for your lucid and well written post. When I joined this forum, this is exactly the type of discussion I was looking forward to having.

Regarding the word 'evidence', skeptics here have (as I listed in a previous post), condemned photo, video, audio and eyewitness 'evidence' as not acceptable. With all those methods of 'proof' unavailable, short of a chunk of UFO dropping on a busy expressway somewhere, it's not surprising evidence 'has not been available'! In an ideal world, everyone would agree on standards of acceptable evidence, but that seems highly unlikely to happen.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. USA's firts stealth attempts date back from the late 50's, with the SR71, A-12 and Kingfish projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_KINGFISH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird
(Wiki data seems to be OK in these cases)

Note that the SR71 was active between 1964 and 1998; its shape is advanced-looking (or even "alien") even nowadays. It was also developed to avoid new cases such as Powers' U2 being shot down. Iranian air defenses would be of no use against such a Mach3+ (yep, Mach3+) plane. SAM sites locked and fired missiles at them, but the damn Habu were just too fast for the missiles.

By the way, the first (known) blood for the F-117 was in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause). This might help put some other cases in perspective.

If you want to expand to “stealth-like” designs, you may go even further back in time, towards the late stages of WWII, when Nazi Germany had the experimental/prototype Horten Ho 229 flying wing fighter (very similar to a rendering of Kenneth Arnold’s “saucers”), the American Northrop N1M and N9m and the British, the Baynes Bat. A bit later, USA had those big YB-35 and YB-49 flying wings in the early 50’s. If you want to expand even further, in to simply “odd-looking” designs, then there’s a lot of more weird flying things- I wonder what night operations of Goblins/EB-29 or F-84/B-36 would look like… But I digress.

You are also not taking in to account the possibility of drones. Several reccon and EW drones had already been developed -and were operational- by USA and other countries in the 80's. They were used by USA back in 60's (Vietnam). Here's a handy linkie:
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav.html

Now, suppose we are in the mid-80's. A (USA, Israeli, Soviet, etc.) drone crashes over Iran. OK. So what? Are such incidents unheard of? If the origin of the shredded burned bits is eventually identified, the result would be some uneasiness, lame excuses, diplomatic maneuvers and a handshake in the end... Nothing else.

It appears you're cherry picking and obfuscating. It doesn't seem like you're doing it intentionally, but that is the result from where I sit.

Stealth technology was not a factor in the Iranian incident, because the UFO showed lights at all times, and brilliant lights when the smaller UFO, after having separated from the main one, went to ground level and lit up a considerable amount of real estate. Radar returns of the UFO were prevalent, and my understanding of stealth tech is that minimal radar returns are generated.

Someone else mentioned stealth, and I made the same point. I am not doubting the veracity of the history of stealth tech at all, but stealth was never a factor in Iran. I wanted the entire stealth discussion to go away as a result, and got lazy with my post. So, fabulous research on stealth, but totally non-applicable regarding Iran.

BTW, care to show what labs were built for the sole purpose of proving tachyons are real? Wouldn’t that be actually experiments?

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

I am not a physicist, so I am unqualified to list more, but the above is a good start. Not the 'sole' purpose. Framing questions like that are patently unfair, as the physicists will probably tell you no one can justify single purpose facilities in this economic climate.

At last it seems someone who takes the “UFOs may be alien” more highly in to account then me seems to be getting near the actual point.

Funding for a universal database is a pipe dream, but I agree with you it is sorely needed.

What UFO buffs must do, if they want to be taken seriously, is to build such a database- simply piling up internet links and claiming they are the real deal won’t do it. It is not the first time I say this- Build a database using a methodology to classify reports regarding their reliability, following a non-biased methodology which, when used by someone else, with the same input data will generate the same results.

Then the real game may start.

I think this is one of the few things skeptics and UFO students will heartily agree on!

The important thing is the quality of the shred of information you are using. A piece of aircraft debris is way better than second-hand accounts of an aircraft exploding in 1947, for example

.

This again goes to the entire 'evidence' standard.

As for the “chunk of extraterrestrial toilet seat”, well, assuming they exist, do we know they use toilets? And no, it doesn’t take a piece of an alien craft to convince skeptics. Good sharp imagery form more than one source, unsuspected of being a hoax and with great chances of being something really unidentified, backed by multiple eyewitnesses would be a great step forward. Got some? None is available at ufoevidence.org, for example…

Skeptics here have formally nixed the use of any photo evidence of UFO's. For you to tell me now that photo evidence is acceptable, you probably would need agreement of the other skeptics, and I'm not too confident that would be forthcoming.
I am sure we can find "good, sharp imagery from more than one source" somewhere.

Speaking of toilets, I remember an old MAD magazine cartoon (Don Martin? Not sure…) linking aliens, toilets and Von Daniken…I wish I could find it at the www…Anyone with a higher Google-fu level can help?

You could look here for it;

http://www.donmartinshrine.com/

 

[Akhenaten]

What the hell did you do with the quote function there?

 

[Jocce]

The important thing is the quality of the shred of information you are using. A piece of aircraft debris is way better than second-hand accounts of an aircraft exploding in 1947, for example

This again goes to the entire 'evidence' standard.

Yeah, hard to judge what is better. Aircraft debris or second hand retellings, physical evidence or web articles describing 60 year old events....hmm..beats me.