UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

And what words am I "redefining" in a way you object to?

"redefining" is one of them.

And HOW do I redefine them in such a way?

Indefinitely.

 

[Jocce]

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?

You're the one claiming it's indicative of aliens. I just want you to show that aliens had the necessary technology at the time and that they were within flight distance of Teheran. I'm waiting.

 

[Jocce]

Perhaps you should READ the report then... ughh... how many times must I ask people to actually LOOK at the evidence?
<snip>
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

You really have to start differentiating beween evidence and articles on the interwebs.

 

[Jocce]

To make it more convenient for you Rramjet I present here two questions I've asked over and over again but haven't gotten an answer too yet:

Regarding the Holloman case:

Time measures... well accuracy here was measured in less than 100ths (if not thousandths) of a second so the overall error in time would have negligible affect on overall calculations...

Interesting claim, care to show some evidence for this?


Regarding the Teheran case:

Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "aliens"

Then prove that aliens have access to the kind of technology necessary. Otherwise your speculation has no merit.

 

[GeeMack]

You're the one claiming it's indicative of aliens. I just want you to show that aliens had the necessary technology at the time and that they were within flight distance of Teheran. I'm waiting.

Yes, I'd like to see Rramjet show that too, since he demands that as his required standard of evidence to accept something as a plausible explanation for a particular event. So first blimps were proven to exist somewhere in the universe at the time of the Rogue River sighting in 1949. Rramjet needs to prove that aliens and/or alien craft existed somewhere in the universe in 1949 (as well as in 1976 at the time of the Iran incident, of course). Then blimps were proven to be in Oregon in 1949... oh, wait... no need narrowing down the location until he proves that aliens and/or alien craft existed in the universe in 1949.

You're on, Rramjet. Meet your own standard of evidence for plausibility. Got anything other than your lies, your arguments from ignorance, and your arguments from incredulity?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

That is such nonsense. You refuse to answer people's arguments. You have not presented one Iota of evidence to support your claim that these events can not be explained. I made a suggestion a while ago about the Rogue River incident by comparing it to the catalina island film. As best I can tell you chose not to discuss it. You have not discussed problems with witness reliability and that anecdotal evidence is the worst kind for scientific evaluation. You still have not presented a single proposal to help resolve the UFO issue. Some scientist you are. You are afraid to present credentials and you are afraid to get your hands involved in actually performing scientific research on a subject you claim is worthy of scientific study.

As was the White Sands case by the by, because at the height calculated... we had NOTHING at the time that could have been up there... but that is much too "subtle" a point for most here I suspect. So I have to "hit them over the head" with shape-shifting and intelligent control.

This height calculation is based on ONE azimuth reading. ONE data point from one station that may or MAY NOT be accurate. You can't tell us because you do not have the data. Therefore, the calculations are suspect and therefore can not be used to reach a conclusion of anything. It means the entire white sands event will collapse like a house of cards if that azimuth reading is bad. Find the actual data and maybe we can talk. Until then, it is wild speculation based on suspect information.

 

[Access Denied]

I had an owl (braun one) look at me at night though a window of a garden barrack . The OOwwo--woooo noise it made frightened me more than I care to admit. I have to ask what do you find so special in an animal on a branch looking inside out of curiosity. It was probably there is the first place because of the amount of mouse taking refuge in that garden barrack.

I don’t know what a garden barrack is but you make a good point… it’s possible.

One night I was convinced, albeit briefly, that a demon of some sort with large glowing red eyes was peering at me from behind a tree in my backyard... that is until I ran toward it (don’t ask) and a raccoon jumped down out of the lower branches, ran across the yard, and jumped the fence. Apparently the porch light was being reflected back in it’s eyes…

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

Pay attention, it’s already been pointed out that (allegedly) only one shot was fired at “near” point blank range… with a .22.

You know, it has become exceedingly obvious to me, as others have a pointed out, you haven’t done any research of your own into any of these you cases you’re presenting as “evidence” of “aliens” and you’re just making it up as you go along.

This was AFTER the mating season was well over.

Right, the significance of which completely escapes you… as does my previous discussion of this point with somebody else.

How do you get from “owl” to “alien invasion”?

My point exactly, enquiring minds want to know…

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

(pictures a CSI style FBI crime scene investigation scouring every square inch of the property looking for owl feathers and little drops of owl blood)

And yet they found no alien claw prints either… go figure.

Why do you doubt the descriptions?

Because I’ve learned to doubt my own.

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.

What are you like 5?

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

Which is why I never did. I’m looking at this case with the presumption that it wasn’t an outright hoax… although I realize that could be my first mistake.

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

Well, by responding to yours, you could be right. However, my comments, aren’t necessarily made for your benefit…

Are you contending that the military SHOULD have classified it as top secret? If so why?

You’d have to ask a conspiracy “theorist” for the answer to that one… they’re the ones who believe the “truth” about “aliens” is being classified at the highest level. This is about “aliens” right?

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

Sage nod.

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

Actually, it was me who said that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hoo boy.
So, finally I have won the great UFO and aliens debate.
People in the JREF finally have nothing at all rational to say about the evidence for UFOs and aliens.

Now what then? I see the Universe continues to exist, despite your fantasy.

This post has an exploding frog in it. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

Actually, it was me who said that.

My apologies. That happened because Rramjet didn't use the quote function properly in this post that I quoted. The words appeared as though they were Rramjet's.


ETA: The post of yours that Rramjet butchered actually made a lot of sense. Now I feel doubly sorry.


Welcome, Access Denied, BTW. Not much of a start from my side.

 

[ynot]

Now what then? I see the Universe continues to exist, despite your fantasy.

This post has an exploding frog in it. Your argument is invalid.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ExplodingFrog.gif[/qimg]​

That’s not a frog, it’s an alien from outer space.

It’s not exploding, it’s teleporting back to it’s UFO space craft.

You fool, you have provided yet further proof that Rramjet has “won the great UFO and aliens debate”!

 

[GeeMack]

This height calculation is based on ONE azimuth reading. ONE data point from one station that may or MAY NOT be accurate. You can't tell us because you do not have the data. Therefore, the calculations are suspect and therefore can not be used to reach a conclusion of anything. It means the entire white sands event will collapse like a house of cards if that azimuth reading is bad. Find the actual data and maybe we can talk. Until then, it is wild speculation based on suspect information.

Hey, hey, Astrophotographer, his entire claim is supported by nothing more than wild speculation based on suspect information. That's pretty much what an argument from ignorance and incredulity is. If he waited until he had more than that he wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Akhenaten]

That’s not a frog, it’s an alien from outer space.

It’s not exploding, it’s teleporting back to it’s UFO space craft.

You fool, you have provided yet further proof that Rramjet has “won the great UFO and aliens debate”!

Curses! We are undone! Quick, back to the ship!

 

[ynot]

Rramjet - In an effort to try to understand why you believe what you do please answer the following . . .

Have you ever seen a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) yourself that you were able to subsequently identify as a FOFOS (Flying Object From Outer Space)?

If you have, what was the credible evidence that enabled you to identify the UFO as a FOFOS? Have you seen alien creatures? Have you been “beamed up” in to an alien craft? Do you have any physical evidence of alien existence/technology? Anything else?

 

[Rramjet]

You're the one claiming it's indicative of aliens. I just want you to show that aliens had the necessary technology at the time and that they were within flight distance of Teheran. I'm waiting.

Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "aliens" and have provided the evidence for it (no earthly technology has such capabilities - but if you can think of any, then please present it for discussion or possible refutation of my evidence... No? I did not think so).

I make NO claims beyond that. So you asking me to prove aliens have access to that technology... is not only tautological* (thus fallacious) it is also going beyond what I claim.

* Obviously if it IS an alien then by definition they have access to the technology that they use - and that they have "bases" that allow them to use that technology to get here - because they are here!

 

[Rramjet]

To make it more convenient for you Rramjet I present here two questions I've asked over and over again but haven't gotten an answer too yet:

Regarding the Holloman case:

Interesting claim, care to show some evidence for this?


Regarding the Teheran case:

Then prove that aliens have access to the kind of technology necessary. Otherwise your speculation has no merit.

You claim that the military were incapable of measuring timing to within hundredth as of a second? Certainly the technical capability was available and there is no reason why the military would not have advantaged itself of that capability.

Regarding Teheran...

Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "aliens" and have provided the evidence for it (no earthly technology has such capabilities - but if you can think of any, then please present it for discussion or possible refutation of my evidence... No? I did not think so).

I make NO claims beyond that. So you asking me to prove aliens have access to that technology... is not only tautological* (thus fallacious) it is also going beyond what I claim.

* Obviously if it IS an alien then by definition they have access to the technology that they use - and that they have "bases" that allow them to use that technology to get here - because they are here!

 

[Jocce]

Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "aliens" and have provided the evidence for it (no earthly technology has such capabilities

I think you misunderstand me. I don't want you to prove a negative (such as no earthly technology has such capabilities). That'd be impossible as you should be well aware of. I want you to prove the positive (that they have the technology). If you can't, then it's just baselesss speculation and arguments from incredulity.

I make NO claims beyond that. So you asking me to prove aliens have access to that technology... is not only tautological* (thus fallacious) it is also going beyond what I claim.

* Obviously if it IS an alien then by definition they have access to the technology that they use - and that they have "bases" that allow them to use that technology to get here - because they are here!

Ahemmm...how many circles did that reasoning go? I thought you could come up with something a bit better. I mean, being a scientist and all.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "humans" and have provided the evidence for it (no alien technology has such capabilities - but if you can think of any, then please present it for discussion or possible refutation of my evidence... No? I did not think so).

I make NO claims beyond that. So you asking me to prove humans have access to that technology... is not only tautological* (thus fallacious) it is also going beyond what I claim.

* Obviously if it IS an human then by definition we have access to the technology that we use - and that we have "bases" that allow us to use that technology to get here - because we are here!

See what I did there? So how does that make it alien?

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "aliens" and have provided the evidence for it (no earthly technology has such capabilities - but if you can think of any, then please present it for discussion or possible refutation of my evidence... No? I did not think so).

I make NO claims beyond that. So you asking me to prove aliens have access to that technology... is not only tautological* (thus fallacious) it is also going beyond what I claim.

* Obviously if it IS an alien then by definition they have access to the technology that they use - and that they have "bases" that allow them to use that technology to get here - because they are here!

Okay, so you admit that you can't demonstrate aliens are a plausible explanation for any of the sightings. Good.

 

[Jocce]

You claim that the military were incapable of measuring timing to within hundredth as of a second? Certainly the technical capability was available and there is no reason why the military would not have advantaged itself of that capability.

No, I'm not claiming anything. You are the one claiming a time precision in 100ths or even 1000ths of a second. I ask you to prove it or admit it's just another baseless statement.

Here's your quote again so you don't get more confused.

Time measures... well accuracy here was measured in less than 100ths (if not thousandths) of a second so the overall error in time would have negligible affect on overall calculations...

 

[TjW]

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?

You're the one claiming it's indicative of aliens. I just want you to show that aliens had the necessary technology at the time and that they were within flight distance of Teheran. I'm waiting.

I have it on good authority that the aliens had closed their base on the moon and had restricted flights to local proficiency flights near Venus, so it couldn't be them.