UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

What makes you doubt the eyewitness accounts?

What makes you believe them?

My disbelief is based on the proven inaccuracy of eye witness accounts plus the FACT that none of these accounts are from primary source and could have been distorted.

For instance, I've seen someone report something they could not understand to UFOlogists and when the story was written up it was described as "Beyond Human Understanding" (when nothing was done to even try to understand it).
I've also seen other reports were inconsistencies in reported shape of a UFO has lead to claims of shape-shifting when in really it could have been a completely different object.

 

[Jocce]

Okay, then if we DO have such capabilities, then there is a massive cover-up and these people have placed us at risk of an all out war with Iran - and who knows where THAT might end. The people responsible (or should I say unbelievably irresponsible) should therefore be brought to account for placing all our lives in such peril.

I appreciate that you admit other possibilities than aliens.

Why do you then not stand up - as your patriotic duty - to defend your country and its citizens and demand a full and open inquiry into the incident then? That is of course if you actually BELIEVE we have such technological capabilities...

I think you mistake me for an american. We swedes have a history of staying neutral in international conflicts.

 

[GeeMack]

Why do you then not stand up - as your patriotic duty - to defend your country and its citizens and demand a full and open inquiry into the incident then? That is of course if you actually BELIEVE we have such technological capabilities...

The best false dichotomy you can offer is alien craft vs. paranoid conspiracy theory? And someone asked a while ago what evidence I had to support the notion that you're a high school kid.

 

[LissaLysikan]

But Lissa, you have already disqualified yourself from the argument by claiming that you are not qualified to comment on the evidence. So how can you know WHAT a good or propoer definition of a UFO might consist of.

I contend that A UFO is such in light of the knowledge we have today and in light of all the research that has been conducted on any case or group of cases.

Do you object to that definition? And if you do, WHY do you?

Because you are trying to define a word to mean something it doesn't.
Use words correctly. You'll find if you read the words the same way everyone else does all your arguments vanish.

You can't redefine the words. If the words don't describe what you want, choose the correct ones.

And I didn't disqualify myself, because NONE of the debate is about the technical aspects - it's about you trying to change the meanings of words using really BAD logic.
You have presented NO evidence that requires technical evaluation - what little bit I thought was technical was shot into so many holes even the holes had holes.
Your entire argument rests on "I don't believe humans make this stuff, I don't believe there is anything we don't know that isn't magic"
You argue completely from your beliefs and offer no facts or evidence that requires technical competence - it's all CTer word games.
You are pathetic.

 

[GeeMack]

Good job on dodging the main point of my post that other manmade objects than balloons could be up that high. I know it's your tactic to just avoid commenting when you're called on your bluffs but it's getting pretty obvious.

Thanks, Jocce, for pointing out another clear example of the kind of ignorance on which his arguments are based. See any actual evidence yet to support the claim that aliens exist, any that wasn't an argument from ignorance, incredulity, or lies?

 

[Rramjet]

1. First you rely on that the report is accurate, not a hoax or a result of an optical illusion.
2. Even if it was accurate you fail to account for the unknown mundane. Just like you can't know the existence of classified technology. Therefore you can't say something is alien until one has a properly examined sample.

The "unknown mundane"? We are back to fallaciously explaining an unknown with an unknown.

What was it?
I don't know but I can explain what it was.
Go ahead.
I don't know.

And a hoax... that is implausible in the face of the evidence - remember the NSA indicated that the reliability of the case was "confirmed" and it rated the value of the information in the case as "High".

Optical illusion... too many pieces of evidence count against that. Eyewitnesses on the ground and in military fighter jets (2 separate occasions). Distances covered = 100s of kilometers. The jets chased it. It chased one jet - caught and flew over it. It affected the instrumentation on the jet. It (or part of it) landed and lit up a vast area of ground around it. the list could go on... so optical illusion it wasn't.

A proper sample? Isn't one "alien" good enough for you? I can give you more... In fact I already have... but you ALL have chosen to ignore that one! Hint: Brazil.

 

[Rramjet]

Jocce

You stated
"Good job on dodging the main point of my post that other manmade objects than balloons could be up that high."

WHAT other man-made objects? If you DO know of any - then please enlighten us. 1950 remember...

 

[Jocce]

I declared myself the "winner" in the debate simply because people had stopped posting anything even resembling rational argument focused on the evidence. As soon as people do that they are conceding defeat by default.

I see, when you can decide which arguments and evidence is rational and acceptable, then you win. Well, if you want to call that a win... *shrugs*.

ETA: I didn't even know there was a competition.

 

[Jocce]

You stated
"Good job on dodging the main point of my post that other manmade objects than balloons could be up that high."

WHAT other man-made objects? If you DO know of any - then please enlighten us. 1950 remember...

Maybe, just maybe, you should actually read my posts to avoid looking stupid:

February 24 1949
Army/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bumper-WAC two-stage rocket (WAC Corporal mounted on a V-2 first stage) reaches highest altitude ever attained by manmade object to date - 244 miles - and record speed of 5,150 miles per hour over White Sands, yielding information about ion densities in the F-region of the ionosphere. Some sources indicate that this altitude record officially stood until 1957.
http://www.project1947.com/gfb/gfbchron.html

 

[Rramjet]

Because you are trying to define a word to mean something it doesn't.
Use words correctly. You'll find if you read the words the same way everyone else does all your arguments vanish.

You can't redefine the words. If the words don't describe what you want, choose the correct ones.

And what words am I "redefining" in a way you object to? And HOW do I redefine them in such a way?

And I didn't disqualify myself, because NONE of the debate is about the technical aspects - it's about you trying to change the meanings of words using really BAD logic.
You have presented NO evidence that requires technical evaluation - what little bit I thought was technical was shot into so many holes even the holes had holes.
Your entire argument rests on "I don't believe humans make this stuff, I don't believe there is anything we don't know that isn't magic"
You argue completely from your beliefs and offer no facts or evidence that requires technical competence - it's all CTer word games.
You are pathetic.

You merely making unsubstantiated assertions like this without providing evidence to support them disqualifies you from the debate automatically. You are merely entering into a "shouting match" and that is pretty much the "lowest" form of argument... no, not quite, insulting people you disagree with is the mark of a bully and I guess that is just about as low as you can go short of physical violence.

 

[Jocce]

And what words am I "redefining" in a way you object to? And HOW do I redefine them in such a way?

Pretty much any word that is necessary to redefine for you to win the debate. "UFO" comes to mind.

 

[Rramjet]

Maybe, just maybe, you should actually read my posts to avoid looking stupid:

Oh.. then you are claiming the objects to have been the "Army/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bumper-WAC two-stage rocket" then? Interesting.

Did they fly that rocket on the dates mentioned in the reports?

And if they did, why did the observers mistake objects at 150000 ft when they should have been concentrating on the rocket? A two stage rocket no less. Yet they produced a report on the objects and completely missed the rocket. Yep, I'll but that.

 

[Rramjet]

Pretty much any word that is necessary to redefine for you to win the debate. "UFO" comes to mind.

Well then, what is your definition of UFO? ...just so we are on the same page.

 

[GeeMack]

Well then, what is your definition of UFO? ...just so we are on the same page.

Unidentified flying object?

 

[AWPrime]

The "unknown mundane"? We are back to fallaciously explaining an unknown with an unknown.

unknown is unknown, this is factual.

You have yet to present anything that changes this state into any form of know.

And a hoax... that is implausible in the face of the evidence - remember the NSA indicated that the reliability of the case was "confirmed" and it rated the value of the information in the case as "High".

But you didn't get the source from the primary sourse.

Optical illusion... too many pieces of evidence count against that. Eyewitnesses on the ground and in military fighter jets (2 separate occasions). Distances covered = 100s of kilometers. The jets chased it. It chased one jet - caught and flew over it. It affected the instrumentation on the jet. It (or part of it) landed and lit up a vast area of ground around it. the list could go on... so optical illusion it wasn't.

So? Even if true, doesn't prevent an optical illusion.

A proper sample? Isn't one "alien" good enough for you? I can give you more... In fact I already have... but you ALL have chosen to ignore that one! Hint: Brazil.

I could fake that.

 

[Jocce]

Oh.. then you are claiming the objects to have been the "Army/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bumper-WAC two-stage rocket" then? Interesting.

Did they fly that rocket on the dates mentioned in the reports?

And if they did, why did the observers mistake objects at 150000 ft when they should have been concentrating on the rocket? A two stage rocket no less. Yet they produced a report on the objects and completely missed the rocket. Yep, I'll but that.

Need I remind you of what you said that prompted my correction:

Let us now consider the error margins you make so much of. Suppose the triangulation accuracy was to within about 10% (a large error margin) - so that the error bounds might be on the order of 15,000 ft. This means the objects could have been at an altitude between 135000 and 165000 ft. It MUST be pointed out that the lower altitude is still higher than anything we flew at that time!

The bolded part is obviously wrong and symptomatic of the way you throw unfounded "facts", generalizations and assertions around you. I simply corrected you again.

 

[Rramjet]

What makes you believe them?

My disbelief is based on the proven inaccuracy of eye witness accounts plus the FACT that none of these accounts are from primary source and could have been distorted.

For instance, I've seen someone report something they could not understand to UFOlogists and when the story was written up it was described as "Beyond Human Understanding" (when nothing was done to even try to understand it).
I've also seen other reports were inconsistencies in reported shape of a UFO has lead to claims of shape-shifting when in really it could have been a completely different object.

Perhaps you should READ the report then... ughh... how many times must I ask people to actually LOOK at the evidence?

"The pilots were interviewed the next day. The Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), in the person of Lt. Col. Mooy, sat in on the interview of the second pilot who landed at Mehrebad"

and

"As indicated in the above list of recipients of the teletype message, the Defense Intelligence Agency of the U. S. Government got a copy of this teletype, as did the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the White House, the Secretary of State (SECSTATE), the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF) and others. Col. Roland Evans wrote an evaluation of the report, dated October 12, 1976. Evans wrote:

1) An outstanding report: this case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of UFO phenomena
a. The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shemiran, Mehrebad and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground)
b. The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews and experienced tower operators)
c. Visual sightings were confirmed by radar
d. Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft [Note: this refers to the electomagnetic interference reported by the jets and the commercial airliner]
e. There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object)
f. An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs

The report evaluation form indicated that the reliability of the information was “confirmed by other sources” and the value of the information was “High (Unique, Timely and of Major Significance).” The information would be “Potentially Useful” as “Current Intelligence.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

 

[Rramjet]

Need I remind you of what you said that prompted my correction:

The bolded part is obviously wrong and symptomatic of the way you throw unfounded "facts", generalizations and assertions around you. I simply corrected you again.

Okay, so I was not aware of the rocket in question. HOWEVER my point still stands. THAT rocket is NOT an explanation for the objects over White Sands in April/May 1950.

Got any other ideas of what they might have been?

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps you should READ the report then... ughh... how many times must I ask people to actually LOOK at the evidence?

42

 

[Akhenaten]

Okay, so I was not aware of the rocket in question. HOWEVER my point still stands. THAT rocket is NOT an explanation for the objects over White Sands in April/May 1950.

Got any other ideas of what they might have been?

Why? You apparently refuse to make yourself aware of them.