UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tapio]

I give the lurkers credit for being able to tell the difference between clowns like me and serious posters such as yourself, Astrophotographer, Jocce, wollery and the others.

I apologize for not understanding your sense of humour. I'm Finnish, you know...

For my own part, since I already don't know what UFO's aren't, I feel no need to be dragged into the endlessly repeating cycle of discussing rubbish based on self-serving re-definitions of common words and phrases.

Well understood.

I'll content myself using what limited means I have to highlight the poor job Rramjet is doing of making his case, regardless of it's validity.

This is where, as with GeeMack, I feel baffled. Maybe it's just that I'm still taking baby steps regarding skepticism/critical thinking or maybe something else, but I honestly feel he is making a good case (regardless of it's validity).

One particular aspect of this failure I might wish to point out here is that the tone and volume of a poster's contributions don't make them any more useful. I understand that this may vary somewhat from your own view.

Actually, I agree with you on the highlited part. As for the tone used, I feel it can make a world of difference. But that might simply be because I'm having to continuously translate the text I'm reading and writing, so slight changes in the tone of the text might seem like large distractions to me...

Yup. When I'm not playing with my silly little lists, this is what I think too, as do the other people humouring me with it.

Got it. I just thought of another thing that might make it harder for me to understand what's going on here. I've only started using the internet fairly recently and this is the first forum I've ever been a member of. This, plus the fact that my time of using the 'net is very restricted (father-at-home of three under 3,8 yo kids) makes every moment here very precious acquiring knowledge-wise. Maybe that's why it's so difficult for me to understand why people would just 'fool around' here (not that there's anything wrong with that in general).

But enough is enough. One poster here refuses to acknowledge the rules by which everyone else is playing and I find nothing terribly wrong with ridiculing posts which are made with such an arrogant and supercilious attitude.

...and you are quite sure this person really understands the 'rules' of the game to begin with?

PS So, I won't add you to the list of winners then? You ARE doing rather well.

Heh...no thanks. Maybe I could be named 'annoying referee'?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tapio, note how he won't answer questions that don't have answers he likes:

First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")

How does that make it alien?

Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!

How does that make it alien?

Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "unusual" (for example shape-shifting ability, ability to split apart and rejoin to name but two.)

How does that make it alien?

Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)

How does that make it alien?

Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)

How does that make it alien?

Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)

How does that make it alien?

Seventh: I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations

How does that make it alien?

Note also, Tapio, stating that he has answered these is not the same as actually answering them.

 

[Jocce]

2. I disagree. My "alien" contention is an exploratory hypothesis based on the fact of intelligent control of a "UFO" with capabilities (such a splitting and rejoining) beyond any known earthly capabilities.

The bolded part makes this an argument either from ignorance or from incredulity. I.e. "I know of no such earthly capabilities" or "I don't believe this can be an earthly capability". Both are logical fallacies which you should be well aware of.

 

[Jocce]

I disagree that other sources cannot be used also.

What I find disturbing is that the article by Dr. Maccabee is based on the following:

[Note: what follows is my reconstruction of the sighting history. This is based, in part, on two interviews of Hossain Pirouzi, done 3 and 4 months after the events. They were provided to me by reporter Bob Pratt, who was, at the time, a full time UFO investigator employed by the National Enquirer. This history is also based on newspaper accounts and on the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy, that primarily describes the events as recounted during an interview of the pilot of the second jet.

He is basing his article on material from a reporter in a well known, ahem...not so serious, sensationalist magazine and from other things he's been reading in the newspapers. Imo this casts reasonable doubt on the accuracy of that material unless it is corroborated byt the more official documentation in the routing slip. That's why I suggest that the routing slip is a better source to formulate arguments from. I think it's a reasonable thing to suggest.

ETA: Dr Maccabee also doesn't credit which soruce he's getting which piece of information from so it's impossible to double check.

ETA2: I just wanted to clarify my point of view on this and realize that you see these problems too.

 

[Akhenaten]

I apologize for not understanding your sense of humour. I'm Finnish, you know...

<polite snip>


Heh...no thanks. Maybe I could be named 'annoying referee'?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. It seems we're quite firmly on the same page.

Your refereeing is very even handed, and not in the least bit annoying.

Go you!

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

2. I disagree. My "alien" contention is an exploratory hypothesis based on the fact of intelligent control of a "UFO" with capabilities (such as splitting and rejoining) beyond any known earthly capabilities.

O rly?

During the early days of the U.S. Space Program, satellites would be launched to gather data then brought back into the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. After re-entry, a parachute would deploy and the satellite would drift slowly down while tracking stations at several key locations, including French Frigate Shoals, would triangulate the satellite's position by homing in on its locater beacon. A specially equipped C-130 would then be vectored to the satellite's position.

In this photo, a C-130 has deployed it's mid-air satellite retrieval gear to pick up an item off the runway at Tern Island. The technique of snagging a satellite in mid-air by catching its parachute lines was extremely successful.

Linky

 

[EHocking]

Wow, Rramjet. Although I still don't agree with some of your conclusions* I must sincerely respect and commend you for spending such time and effort to make your arguments as coherent and as detailed as possible. This is something very welcome. Thanks.

I would not be so fast with such praise. What Rramjet did there was obfuscation, in addition to misrepresenting (by omission) the information in the fiscal reports as this is the only way he can dismiss USN/USNR blimps as a plausible mundane explanation.

I have given up correcting him as he disengenuously ignores any corrections (or declares that his opponents are liars) and then pretends that he's winning the argument in order to derail commentary on his "oversights".

You might as well attempt to discuss evolution with an ID believer for all that will be achieved here.

 

[wollery]

Considering the Askania theodolite used can be read down to 1 arc second (http://www.dehilster.info/index.php...ster.info/instrumenten/theodolite5/index.html) then the accuracy of the instrument exceeds what was needed to resolve 30ft objects at 150000 ft. Therefore the actual degree of error in those calculations were very small.

That's the pointing accuracy, not the resolution accuracy.

The baseline distance measurement error - between both sighting positions - is hard to estimate, but it is almost impossible to imagine that they could have been more than 1 or 2% out there.

The baseline accuracy, probably on the order of 0.01% or less. I'd be really worried if the baseline introduced any error at all.

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...

Seriously? That's what you're offering as a counter to the possibility that the clocks weren't perfectly synchronized? The individual timing accuracy? Do you understand anything about the error sources I talked about?

if the clocks aren't synchronized properly then the accuracy of the individual clocks is irrelevant.

So all in all the 10% error figure provides an overly generous allowance for error in the calculations if anything. And this WAS made so large to show that even WITH such an error margin, the calculations indicated that whatever was up there... it was NOT manmade.

Given that you confuse the resolution error with the pointing error, synchronization errors with individual timing errors, and think that the baseline accuracy could be as much as 1% or more, I have very little confidence in your ability to assess the overall errors accurately!

 

[Rramjet]

O rly?

During the early days of the U.S. Space Program, satellites would be launched to gather data then brought back into the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. After re-entry, a parachute would deploy and the satellite would drift slowly down while tracking stations at several key locations, including French Frigate Shoals, would triangulate the satellite's position by homing in on its locater beacon. A specially equipped C-130 would then be vectored to the satellite's position.

In this photo, a C-130 has deployed it's mid-air satellite retrieval gear to pick up an item off the runway at Tern Island. The technique of snagging a satellite in mid-air by catching its parachute lines was extremely successful.

The White Sands instrumented UFO sightings occurred on 27 April and 24 May... 1950!

The first satellite EVER launched was:

Sputnik 1 (Russian: "Спутник-1" Russian pronunciation: [ˈsputnʲɪk], "Satellite-1", ПС-1 (PS-1, i.e. "Простейший Спутник-1", or Elementary Satellite-1)) was the first Earth-orbiting artificial satellite. It was launched into an elliptical low earth orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957.

Before you again post such irrelevant and obvious nonsense, thereby making yourself look more than a little foolish, I suggest a little attention to FACTS might be in order.

 

[Jocce]

Seriously? That's what you're offering as a counter to the possibility that the clocks weren't perfectly synchronized? The individual timing accuracy? Do you understand anything about the error sources I talked about?

And I'd like to highlight what's in the final report:

simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made

.

I think there's a pretty large timing error to be found in there somewhere.

 

[Rramjet]

The bolded part makes this an argument either from ignorance or from incredulity. I.e. "I know of no such earthly capabilities" or "I don't believe this can be an earthly capability". Both are logical fallacies which you should be well aware of.

I think you will find that an hypothesis CANNOT be a "logical fallacy".

And I base my hypothesis on the evidence available to me.

If you can explain the Iranian UFO in terms of human capabilities - be my guest.

If you cannot, then my hypothesis is lent support by a UFO that performs outside any human technology we know of.

There is no "ignorance", nor is there "incredulity" on my part. Merely an appraisal of the EVIDENCE. If you have evidence that refutes my claims... then please present it. That is all I ask.

But there is definitely "incredulity" on your part. It is of the form "My belief system disallows "aliens" - so I find such reports "incredible". But that is merely your belief. You have NO evidence (apparently) to support such a belief.

No Wollery... I haven't forgotten you...

 

[wollery]

The White Sands instrumented UFO sightings occurred on 27 April and 24 May... 1950!

The first satellite EVER launched was:

Sputnik 1 (Russian: "Спутник-1" Russian pronunciation: [ˈsputnʲɪk], "Satellite-1", ПС-1 (PS-1, i.e. "Простейший Спутник-1", or Elementary Satellite-1)) was the first Earth-orbiting artificial satellite. It was launched into an elliptical low earth orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957.

Before you again post such irrelevant and obvious nonsense, thereby making yourself look more than a little foolish, I suggest a little attention to FACTS might be in order.

Relevant part bolded.

There were many suborbital satellites launched prior to Sputnik.

 

[Rramjet]

I would not be so fast with such praise. What Rramjet did there was obfuscation, in addition to misrepresenting (by omission) the information in the fiscal reports as this is the only way he can dismiss USN/USNR blimps as a plausible mundane explanation.

I have given up correcting him as he disengenuously ignores any corrections (or declares that his opponents are liars) and then pretends that he's winning the argument in order to derail commentary on his "oversights".

You might as well attempt to discuss evolution with an ID believer for all that will be achieved here.

So.. where did I "misrepresent (by ommision)"? You are making assertions that have NO basis in fact. You're merely stating them does NOT make them true. When will you learn that you MUST support you assertions with evidence.

You have given up correcting me because there is Nothing to correct. If there IS something to correct, you have NEVER been slow in the past to report it - so why stop now?

 

[Jocce]

*shrugs*
It's ok with me if you formulate a hypothesis that the reported observations is indicative of alien technology and I'd be really interested in hearing how you're going to prove it. I'm waiting.

ETA: Like you say yourself:

When will you learn that you MUST support you assertions with evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

Reminding you Rramjet, that we don't need to disprove your hypothesis, it's down to you to prove it... how do you suggest doing that?

 

[Stray Cat]

So.. where did I "misrepresent (by ommision)"? You are making assertions that have NO basis in fact. You're merely stating them does NOT make them true. When will you learn that you MUST support you assertions with evidence.

The evidence of your omissions is scattered liberally throughout the thread.
Constantly repeating claims and counter claims is pointless.
Your denial that "the assertions of blimp are valid" are invalid, does not make them so.

 

[Akhenaten]

2. I disagree. My "alien" contention is an exploratory hypothesis based on the fact of intelligent control of a "UFO" with capabilities (such a splitting and rejoining) beyond any known earthly capabilities.

<pifflesnip>

Before you again post such irrelevant and obvious nonsense, thereby making yourself look more than a little foolish, I suggest a little attention to FACTS might be in order.

You claimed that an airborne rendevous between two objects is beyond known Earthly capabities.

I posted a photograph of that very thing happening, with explanatory text.

These are FACTS. I'm rubber. You're glue.


ETA:

I look like this already. I'll risk looking more foolish.

Do your worst.

 

[Rramjet]

Relevant part bolded.

There were many suborbital satellites launched prior to Sputnik.

Where? Which ones? You are merely guessing and I call you on it. Provide the evidence PLUS the heights they reached please.

You cannot because as far as I know there was only the German V2 that ever reached sub-orbital flight before 1950. And remember where all this took place..at White sands... the HOME of rocket launch testing and missile technology.

 

[Jocce]

But there is definitely "incredulity" on your part. It is of the form "My belief system disallows "aliens" - so I find such reports "incredible". But that is merely your belief. You have NO evidence (apparently) to support such a belief.

I'd like to take the opportunity to say that I do in fact believe that there is a very high probability that alien lifeforms exist somewhere else in our universe. I got no proof, but it seems a reasonable assumption seeing how large the universe is. However, I have seen no proof so far that convince me that we're being visited by aliens from outer space, other dimensions or any place else.

 

[Rramjet]

You claimed that an airborne rendevous between two objects is beyond Earthly capabities.

I posted a photograph of that very thing happening, with explanatory text.

These are FACTS. I'm rubber. You're glue.

Apologies I got the wrong UFO! Gee I must be human after all! Darn, hoping I was an alien for a minute there...

BUT, you still need to account for the FACTS.

The satellite system you talk about had the capability to flee military jets above Mach2, disable their weapons systems, and then chase the jets... during which time it could split apart, land part of itself, then later rejoin in flight...all over Iranian airspace... yeah, I'll buy that.