UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[LissaLysikan]

Notice I didn't bring up unicorns, someone else did. My mythical creature was deliberately chosen to match the story you presented.

You have no idea what my view of faeries or elves is - I haven't presented it. Saying it's simplistic is rather jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Similar to saying aliens exist without evidence.
I don't think we'll get anywhere with this discussion until you present some evidence of aliens.

 

[Rramjet]

To make the point...

Definition 1.
A UFO is such because the observer could not identify it at the time.

Definition 2.
A UFO is such because we cannot identify it, given the knowledge we have today and the considering the research that has been conducted since the observation.

Does anyone disagree that we should rule out Definition 1. in favour of Definition 2.

If everyone agrees that Definition 2. is acceptable, then we can all agree that UFOs exist (according to that definition) - and we can move on.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Definition 1.
A UFO is such because the observer could not identify it at the time.

Definition 2.
A UFO is such because we cannot identify it, given the knowledge we have today and the considering the research that has been conducted since the observation.

Does anyone disagree that we should rule out Definition 1. in favour of Definition 2.

If everyone agrees that Definition 2. is acceptable, then we can all agree that UFOs exist (according to that definition) - and we can move on.

A UFO is such because it has not been identified.

"Can" does not enter into it. Some may be UFOs simply because no one has even made an effort. Some may be UFOs simply because we do not have enough information ABOUT THE SIGHTING to identify them.
Being a UFO does not imply anything about the nature of the object, only of the observation.
ETA: And we may not have enough information to EVER make a determination on some.

 

[Rramjet]

Point proved...

See fromdownunder?

The VERY first post in reply proves my point. Need I say more?

 

[LissaLysikan]

Your point is that we won't let you load the word UFO to imply aliens?

I was thinking my reply was the same INTENT you had, just removing the extra implication.

 

[ynot]

Unidentified Flying Object = UFO

Flying Object From Outer Space = FOFOS

Belief That A UFO Is A FOFOS = STUPID

ETA . . .

A UFO can become a FOFOS (meteor, comet, etc) but as soon as it becomes a FOFOS (or FOFE - Flying Object From Earth) it stops being a UFO.

There’s about as much credible evidence that a UFO might be an alien constructed FOFOS as there is that a UFO might be Santa’s sleigh.

 

[Rramjet]

Your point is that we won't let you load the word UFO to imply aliens?

I was thinking my reply was the same INTENT you had, just removing the extra implication.

Okay Lissa. Nobody wants (or needs) to conclude "aliens" from a "mere" UFO sighting.

I would then ask you to comment on THIS case:

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

(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(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

...which you seem to ignore... shows UFOs to be performing outside the bounds of earthly technological capability and demonstrates intelligent control of a UFO.

Please tell me what you make of that case - as I believe it gets us one evidential step closer to "aliens" than does a "mere" UFO sighting.

Particularly, I would like you (or others) to comment on the "technological" capability of the UFO and the aspect of "intelligent control".

Thank you.

 

[LissaLysikan]

I am not even close to being an expert - my opinion on that sighting is meaningless.
It is a UFO. Since I do not know what it is, I would not use your version of the meaning, because that would imply I knew more than I do.

 

[tsig]

It really is not at all that simple Lissa.

To explicate faeries I first need to point out some differences between (for example other “mythical" creatures) unicorns and UFOs and then move on to faeries.

So… As for evidence for unicorns, the situation is qualitatively different than the evidence for UFOs. This IS is quite simple really…

1. There are NO repeated sightings of unicorns, in fact unicorns are NEVER reported. UFOs are reported every day.
2. There are no verified photos of unicorns – yet we have literally thousands of photos and video footage of UFOs (including radar confirmation).
3. We have no reliable, qualified expert witnesses - with sworn testimony - testifying to the existence of unicorns – yet we have precisely that for UFOs.
4. We have no physical trace evidence for unicorns – yet we have that for UFOs.

So you can easily see that we have a wealth of current, verified, reliable evidence for UFOs, but we have NO such evidence for unicorns.

So, hat is all pretty straightforward. But now…“Elves and faeries”.

That depends on your definition of elves and faeries.
An interesting comparison with aliens can be found here: (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/past.html). There are many other hypotheses relating elves and faeries to UFOs. Here for example is another: (http://www.mysterious-america.net/syncronicityufos.html) or here: (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/ufofairies.htm)

Now I DO NOT endorse ANY of the above websites or their contentions. I merely use them to make a point that your conception of “faeries” may be a little too simplistic to warrant your claim that I dismiss them but accept UFOs.

I DO dismiss things such as “unicorns” for very good reason. But “faeries”…? That is a different matter altogether. We simply must apply the rules of evidence to ALL contentions equally. Only then may we determine what is extant and what is mythical. And as you have just witnessed – the task is by NO means an easy one. SOME things we can rule out… others….

But you believe in Angels.

Angels=intelligent agencies operating outside our understanding

 

[ynot]

Okay Lissa. Nobody wants (or needs) to conclude "aliens" from a "mere" UFO sighting.

I would then ask you to comment on THIS case:

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

(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(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

...which you seem to ignore... shows UFOs to be performing outside the bounds of earthly technological capability and demonstrates intelligent control of a UFO.

Please tell me what you make of that case - as I believe it gets us one evidential step closer to "aliens" than does a "mere" UFO sighting.

Particularly, I would like you (or others) to comment on the "technological" capability of the UFO and the aspect of "intelligent control".

Thank you.

Assuming that all the anecdotal evidence has any truth to it, how do you know that this claimed UFO wasn’t . . .

(1) A FOFE (Flying Object From Earth) made by some clever backyard inventor or an illuminati conspiracy group of international scientists?

(2) Some form of time machine from the future?

(3) Some spiritual craft from the “other side”?

(4) Santa's sleigh? (I know the incident wasn't on the 25th December but Santa could have been taking a joyride).

 

[Rramjet]

I am not even close to being an expert - my opinion on that sighting is meaningless.
It is a UFO. Since I do not know what it is, I would not use your version of the meaning, because that would imply I knew more than I do.

How, if you are "not even close to being an expert" can you then comment on the evidence I present to contend that from that evidence we cannot draw "alien" inferences from it?

How, if you are "not even close to being an expert" can you then determine what a rational definition of a UFO might actually might look like (and thus reject my definition).

What was all that guff about "an argument from ignorance" again?

 

[Rramjet]

Assuming that all the anecdotal evidence has any truth to it, how do you know that this claimed UFO wasn’t . . .

(1) A FOFE (Flying Object From Earth) made by some clever backyard inventor or an illuminati conspiracy group of international scientists?

(2) Some form of time machine from the future?

(3) Some spiritual craft from the “other side”?

(4) Santa's sleigh? (I know the incident wasn't on the 25th December but Santa could have been taking a joyride).

IF you have ANY evidence for ANY of these contentions, then present it. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time playing the fool.

 

[LissaLysikan]

How, if you are "not even close to being an expert" can you then comment on the evidence I present to contend that from that evidence we cannot draw "alien" inferences from it?

How, if you are "not even close to being an expert" can you then determine what a rational definition of a UFO might actually might look like (and thus reject my definition).

What was all that guff about "an argument from ignorance" again?

I wasn't arguing the nature of the UFOs - I was arguing the weird logic you used. I left the arguing the technical aspects to others who know more than I do.

The one I DID argue on the evidence itself was about the creature. Different subject. Since you have only presented one item about that so far, I only argued that the evidence you provided didn't give any more support to "aliens" than it gives to "elves". I'm presuming you have more than one bit of evidence, though, so stopped arguing that bit for now. Give you time to quit posturing and present something that is evidence of aliens and not just evidence of unknown.

 

[ynot]

IF you have ANY evidence for ANY of these contentions, then present it. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time playing the fool.

(1) Many people believe that there's a worldwide illuminati of clever people that are “controlling things” and are concealing advanced scientific secrets (and aliens).

(2) Many people (including scientists) believe that time travel will be possible one day which means our future can be visiting us now.

(3) Many people believe in in a spirit “other side“ existence, paranormal activity and gods. How do you know the “UFO” wasn't a God?

(4) Millions of children (and perhaps even a few adults) believe in Santa and that he flies around the world in one night in his sleigh.

Collectively there are many more people who believe these things than there are people that believe that UFO's are created by aliens from outer space. Just because your beliefs aren't the same as their beliefs doesn't mean that your beliefs are any less stupid than theirs.

Provide credible evidence of your beliefs. But first learn what credible evidence is.

ETA - None of these “alternatives” for UFO’s are my contentions so I can‘t and don‘t provide any credible evidence to support them. The point I‘m making is that people believe these things as passionately as you believe your beliefs. As far as I’m concerned you haven’t provided any more credible evidence to support you beliefs than they have to support theirs. Until you can support your “alien UFO” belief with at least a single piece of credible evidence then I won’t discuss your belief in any way that suggests that it has any credibility.

 

[Akhenaten]

Besides, most of those Elvis sightings were probably blimps.

<snicker, snicker, snicker>

That's really bad......on a number of levels!

Yes, that is funny several times over. I wish I'd had said it. Where's the envy
smilie?

Yeah, but it was very funny, and made me smile out loud, which is a nice thing to happen on a pleasant Saturday morning.

norm

I was lucky enough to get in first. As responses go, it was Universally Freaking Obvious that it was an Unequivocally Funny Observation.

 

[Akhenaten]

How, if you are "not even close to being an expert" can you then comment on the evidence I present to contend that from that evidence we cannot draw "alien" inferences from it?

It's a piece o' cake, cobber. Watch . . .

The evidence you have presented in this thread is drivel and it's doubtful that any inferences could safely be drawn from it.


See? Easy Peasy, Sulawesi.

What was all that guff about "an argument from ignorance" again?

As above, in spades.

 

[Akhenaten]

Assuming that all the anecdotal evidence has any truth to it, how do you know that this claimed UFO wasn’t . . .

(1) A FOFE (Flying Object From Earth) made by some clever backyard inventor or an illuminati conspiracy group of international scientists?

(2) Some form of time machine from the future?

(3) Some spiritual craft from the “other side”?

(4) Santa's sleigh? (I know the incident wasn't on the 25th December but Santa could have been taking a joyride).

IF you have ANY evidence for ANY of these contentions, then present it.

Since none of these are new or extraordinary claims, I for one am happy with the existing evidence or lack thereof for them. Why don't you put it to a vote against your own contentions in order that you don't make silly statements like this anymore . . .

Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time playing the fool.

. . . which amount to little more than projection of the weakness you no doubt see in your own arguments.

 

[LissaLysikan]

It's a piece o' cake, cobber. Watch . . .

The evidence you have presented in this thread is drivel and it's doubtful that any inferences could safely be drawn from it.


See? Easy Peasy, Sulawesi.





As above, in spades.

Well, I was trying to be nice about it, but yeah. Even as non-expert I can see the evidence presented so far is less than useful for forming an argument to support aliens. I don't need to be a mechanic to know when someone says my flux capacitor is bad to know he's full of post-process-bovine-food.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, I was trying to be nice about it, but yeah. Even as non-expert I can see the evidence presented so far is less than useful for forming an argument to support aliens. I don't need to be a mechanic to know when someone says my flux capacitor is bad to know he's full of post-process-bovine-food.

You do very well at being nice about it too I am Waenre, however, and 'nice' is optional.


I prolly shouldn't have jumped in and appeared to try and answer for you, but my fingers slipped. Soz.

 

[Jocce]

Okay Lissa. Nobody wants (or needs) to conclude "aliens" from a "mere" UFO sighting.

I would then ask you to comment on THIS case:

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

(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(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

...which you seem to ignore... shows UFOs to be performing outside the bounds of earthly technological capability and demonstrates intelligent control of a UFO.

Please tell me what you make of that case - as I believe it gets us one evidential step closer to "aliens" than does a "mere" UFO sighting.

Particularly, I would like you (or others) to comment on the "technological" capability of the UFO and the aspect of "intelligent control".

Thank you.

If you want to make a case that this UFO is of alien origin you have to show that the aliens have access to the kind of technology necessary to perform as described in your articles. You also have to show that alien bases were located within flying distance of Teheran. Otherwise your speculation has no merit. Thank you in advance.