UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
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... .
Click to expand...

I thought the rockets they were monitoring went up there.
 
Since Rramjet have not countered my divine theory regarding Thors chariot, I hereby declare myself the winner.
 
Akhenaten said:
I've made a little list. Please post your claim to victory and I will update as required.

Rramjet Arbitrarily Disqualified
Jocce Winner
GeeMack
RoboTimbo Winner
SnidelyW
Stray Cat
Marduk
Belz...
StevenCalder
LissaLysikan
Tapio
Sledge
Astrophotographer
Pure_Argent
Akhenaten Winner
AWPrime
EHocking
arthwollipot
MattusMaximus
jer_j
Correa Neto
wollery
LTC8K6
TjW
apathoid
Paul2
Andrew Wiggin
Gord_in_Toronto
Toke
Patricio Elicer
King of the Americas
Vortigern99
BlackKat
BabyHeadedMan
Aepervius
fromdownunder
Access Denied
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't claim victory. I claim that nothing has been resolved and nobody has been able to prove anything conclusive. This is exactly where all these debates end up. It is a draw. Rramjet has chosen to be judge and jury in this little "debate" because he claims to be a scientist. IMO, he is no such thing because he has demonstrated
1) a close-mindedness he accusses skeptics of and has been overly dismissive of other hypothesis because they do not fit his beliefs
2) has put anecdotal evidence in a category of highly reliable and incapable of fault
3) has chosen not to read any source materials that demonstrate difficulties with eyewitness testimony (he has apparently refused to read or obtain a copy of Allan Hendry's UFO handbook)
4) has ignored all the discussion by various scientists over the years about the problems with these UFO reports. Instead he chooses to accept the writings of one scientist, who has been taken in by several hoaxes (Gulf Breeze, Carp, Lawton UFO photos) because he wants to believe that UFOs (aka alien spaceships) exist. These reports are based on speculation and very sketchy information.
5) etc. etc.

A real scientist would examine source materials and background to understand the issues with these reports. He would inform himself about the instruments (human perception being the instrument here) he is relying upon to draw his conclusions. Failure to do so demonstrates "a will to believe" rather than a desire to examine these cases objectively.
 
Akhenaten said:
Welcome, Access Denied, BTW. Not much of a start from my side. :blush:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the warm welcome A. No worries, not your fault the OP misquoted me. It’s bad enough that the OP has consistently been misrepresenting everybody’s positions…
 
Akhenaten said:
I've made a little list. Please post your claim to victory and I will update as required.

Rramjet Arbitrarily Disqualified
Jocce Winner
GeeMack
RoboTimbo Winner
SnidelyW
Stray Cat
Marduk
Belz...
StevenCalder
LissaLysikan
Tapio
Sledge
Astrophotographer
Pure_Argent
Akhenaten Winner
AWPrime
EHocking
arthwollipot
MattusMaximus
jer_j
Correa Neto
wollery
LTC8K6
TjW
apathoid
Paul2
Andrew Wiggin
Gord_in_Toronto
Toke
Patricio Elicer
King of the Americas
Vortigern99
BlackKat
BabyHeadedMan
Aepervius
fromdownunder
Access Denied
Click to expand...

nuh huh, I win, I came up with the Blimp theory for which Rramjet hasnt provided any evidence of its non existence
therefore I win, that I did it in a previous thread means I win that one too
:D
 
Rramjet said:
The second issue (could the witnesses have misidentified a blimp) I also have addressed by providing the witness sworn testimony describing an object with characteristics nothing like those of a blimp.

For example:
Click to expand...
Shape - Would be glared out by the sun.
Speed & range - No point of reference, thus they can't estimate speed.
Sound - Blimps produce very little noise.
Engine & other parts - Easy to miss thanks to range and glare. Also eye witnesses often only describe and remember a few features.
 
Akhenaten said:
This is such faulty thinking that it doesn't even count as a logical fallacy. It's just plain wrong. Remember the word "Wrong?" You are it.

All other explanations are ruled out because I said so, which I believe is in accordance with your personal set of debating rules.

Therefore I win! Yay!



ETA: I just noticed that Jocce has already won. Fair enough. Congratulations.

I'll just bask in the reflected glory.
Click to expand...

The only way to win is not to play the game.

BTW when you "win" a debate here at JREF what is your prize? Getting hit with the Ban stick?


ETA: win
 
Last edited:
Jocce said:
Congratz Toke :)
Maybe we should form some club or something.
Click to expand...

I am not sure, "Winners of the UFO tread" rings a bit hollow when people figure out the requirements* for victory.

* "You cannot disprove my WAG" :D
 
Akhenaten said:
Please post your claim to victory and I will update as required.
Click to expand...
I declare victory for common sense, logic, and reason and the rigor of the Scientific Method… and anybody that uses those techniques when dealing with the unknown.

(which the OP clearly has not)
 
Okay. I'll stop mucking about and acknowledge that of course, logic and reason are the winners.

Thank you Astrophotographer and AD for so graciously making this point.


Also, congratulations to all the other winners. ;)
 
Rramjet said:
You mean:
A UFO is such given the knowledge we have today and all the research that has been conducted since the sighting. or words to that effect.

Um... a UFO is a UFO... remember the word "Unidentified"?

So by definition it rules out ALL explanations!
Click to expand...


Good. You admit it can't possibly be an alien craft.
 
Access Denied said:
Thanks for the warm welcome A. No worries, not your fault the OP misquoted me. It’s bad enough that the OP has consistently been misrepresenting everybody’s positions…
Click to expand...


That's his argument from lies. :)

And I still didn't notice anyone point out where Rramjet has provided anything that might be considered evidence for his claim, other than, of course, his arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and lies. Apparently there has been no such evidence offered, or it was so poorly presented that nobody got it.
 
Rramjet said:
Um... a UFO is a UFO... remember the word "Unidentified"?

So by definition it rules out ALL explanations!
Click to expand...

:mgduh

picard-facepalm2.jpg


picardandrikerdoublefacnm1.jpg


facepalm.jpg
 
Rramjet said:
Clarification #1

<you've got to be kidding snip>
Click to expand...


Apparently not.



Rramjet Arbitrarily Disqualified
Jocce Winner
GeeMack Winner (list compiler is scared of GeeMack)
RoboTimbo Winner
SnidelyW
Stray Cat
Marduk Winner
Belz...
StevenCalder
LissaLysikan
Tapio
Sledge
Astrophotographer Honorary Winner - 'Sam the Eagle' award for Extreme Sensibleness in the Face of Adversity
Pure_Argent Winner and 'Facepalmer of the Millenium'
Akhenaten Winner (twice - it's good to be the King)
AWPrime
EHocking
arthwollipot
MattusMaximus
jer_j
Correa Neto
wollery
LTC8K6
TjW
apathoid
Paul2
Andrew Wiggin Winner
Gord_in_Toronto
Toke Winner for his introduction of the all-new Argument from Divinity™
Patricio Elicer
King of the Americas
Vortigern99
BlackKat
BabyHeadedMan
Aepervius
fromdownunder
Access Denied Winner - Also Winner in 'Best New Talent' category
tsig Winner due to Birthday
ynot Winner for correct analysis of Unusual Frog Ordnance​


Oh dear.
 
Last edited:
Can I have "winner due to divine arguments" it is after all not something that happens often. (me using religius arguments)

Or maybe "Divine Winner":D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom