UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

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.

Lame. I win.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

There is no proof that any of the above happened, only that it was reported to have happened.

And please don't tell me to "Read the report" and then provide the links to it again. I have read the information and it contains no proof of anything other than that some people thought some stuff happened and they can't explain it. The information available has contentious issues that have already been covered in this thread.

 

[Rramjet]

Wollery you're right... I am no expert in this so I will have to conduct a little further research to find out exactly what sort of error margins could be expected in such calculations.

I DO notice that, even though YOU claim to be an expert, even YOU cannot give us typical error margins for such calculations. ... or maybe you DO know and they are usually small... (eg you state the baseline measurement error is expected to be so small as to be negligible) but you don't tell us what we should expect the error margins to be.

It would also be surprising that these people could not synchronise their instruments to a high degree of accuracy - at least to 100th of a second - for that is what the instruments were capable of at least.

Moreover, As I say, the observers and mathematicians would NOT have reported ANYTHING they felt they could not have supported with confidence under close scrutiny… for such is the nature of the report they would have expected a great deal of it.

Anyway... I have some research to do and I will get back to you on your previous posts.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

*How it seems you argue from ignorance on the unlikeliness of a blimp being present as well your using eyewitnesses as 'evidence'

By the way, I'll return later to your reply to me a few pages back. Not having so many chances to use the internet in some days...

Look again, Tapio. It's not just the blimp issue. Every single argument Rramjet offers is an argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. He can't believe there's an explanation that works as well as aliens, therefore he concludes aliens. He hasn't provided a single shred of objective, tangible, scientific evidence to support his claim that aliens exist.

And if you (or anyone else) believe otherwise, if you believe that he's actually been supporting his "aliens exist" claim with anything other than incredulity, ignorance, and lies, I challenge you to point out the posts where he has done that.

 

[Rramjet]

There is no proof that any of the above happened, only that it was reported to have happened.

And please don't tell me to "Read the report" and then provide the links to it again. I have read the information and it contains no proof of anything other than that some people thought some stuff happened and they can't explain it. The information available has contentious issues that have already been covered in this thread.

But you then deny the evidence presented in the NSA "Routing Slip" - you present no reasons for such denial. In other words, you have a belief system and you simply dismiss anything that threatens your beliefs, no matter what factual content they might contain.

In matters like this we MUST address the evidence. For that is the ONLY way we can advance our knowledge of the matter. To simply deny the evidence is to deny the search for knowledge itself. And that is NOT scientific. It IS however representative of faith.

And it wasn't just "stuff" that happened. It was the things I stated above that happened. If you don't see anything unusual in the occurrences then you have lost the capacity to wonder about the world we live in and the nature of the "reality" that we are immersed in. A true scientific mind has an almost limitless capacity for wonder and a curiosity to explore. I am sorry you appear to have lost that curiosity and capacity for wonder.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

And it wasn't just "stuff" that happened. It was the things I stated above that happened. If you don't see anything unusual in the occurrences then you have lost the capacity to wonder about the world we live in and the nature of the "reality" that we are immersed in. A true scientific mind has an almost limitless capacity for wonder and a curiosity to explore. I am sorry you appear to have lost that curiosity and capacity for wonder.

Speaking for myself, I have endless curiosity and capacity for wonder. I am indulging these traits at the moment by conducting a study into a very strange phenomena that one often encounters on the Internet.

 

[GeeMack]

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).

Oh, maybe I see where the problem is. With a couple notable exceptions, nobody else here actually thinks that his totally crappy case, backed exclusively by arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies, can be construed as making a good case. I suppose if you want to redefine words and phrases at your whim, as Rramjet does, then you could say that making no substantive case at all is the same thing as making a good case. I doubt that most of the rest of us agree with your definition.

 

[Belz...]

That seems to be the major flaw in the process. Some theories are being given plausibility rating simply because Rramjet likes them, while others with equal standing are pooh-poohed because he doesn't.
There are reports of faeries. They generally get dismissed because there is no evidence other than the reports and blurry photographs that COULD be explained by mundane means.
How this differs from Rramjet's story? Well, he doesn't believe in faeries, so they don't exist.

Indeed. He assigns arbitrary probability values to those things based on gut feeling.

 

[Belz...]

1. There are NO repeated sightings of unicorns, in fact unicorns are NEVER reported. UFOs are reported every day.

So are ghosts, angels, auras, etc.

2. There are no verified photos of unicorns – yet we have literally thousands of photos and video footage of UFOs (including radar confirmation).

No "verified" photos of aliens.

3. We have no reliable, qualified expert witnesses - with sworn testimony - testifying to the existence of unicorns – yet we have precisely that for UFOs.

"Expert witnesses" ? What kind of person do you consider "expert" on aliens ?

4. We have no physical trace evidence for unicorns – yet we have that for UFOs.

Where ?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Bet?

 

[Stray Cat]

But you then deny the evidence presented in the NSA "Routing Slip" - you present no reasons for such denial. In other words, you have a belief system and you simply dismiss anything that threatens your beliefs, no matter what factual content they might contain.

No I don't deny the information contained in the routing slip.
It basically says that some people saw some stuff that they can't explain.

In matters like this we MUST address the evidence. For that is the ONLY way we can advance our knowledge of the matter. To simply deny the evidence is to deny the search for knowledge itself. And that is NOT scientific. It IS however representative of faith.

Evidence (routing slip) has been addressed, it says some people saw some stuff they can't explain.

And it wasn't just "stuff" that happened. It was the things I stated above that happened.

No, it wasn't necessarily the stuff you stated above that happened (because there is no proof that it happened as they said it did). It was the stuff that the two people reported from their perspective that they couldn't explain.

If you don't see anything unusual in the occurrences then you have lost the capacity to wonder about the world we live in and the nature of the "reality" that we are immersed in.

Incorrect. At the moment I am looking into some recent footage that supposedly shows a cow being abducted by a UFO. I am going to great lengths to obtain the original footage so I can examine it properly. I should have it in my possession within the next hour!
If I saw no merit or wonder in doing such things (when I really should be earning a living) then I would not devote such a vas amount of my time to doing it.

A true scientific mind has an almost limitless capacity for wonder and a curiosity to explore. I am sorry you appear to have lost that curiosity and capacity for wonder.

See above

 

[Marduk]

A true scientific mind has an almost limitless capacity for wonder and a curiosity to explore. I am sorry you appear to have lost that curiosity and capacity for wonder.

a true scientific mind has an almost limitless capacity to see evidence,
thats all, wonder and curiosity are the domain of children
how ironic that you would get that wrong

 

[Vortigern99]

a true scientific mind has an almost limitless capacity to see evidence,
thats all, wonder and curiosity are the domain of children
how ironic that you would get that wrong

Not to derail this into a sidebar about the value of "wonder and curiosity" in the scientific mind, but in brief, I disagree with Marduk in this.

Far from being purely juvenile experiences or mental states, wonder and curiosity are that which inspire/provoke a scientist to seek evidence. Indeed, wonder and curiosity inspire people to become scientists in the first place.

And they provoke members such as Stray Cat, Akhenaten, myself, and I suspect you, Marduk, though you may not be aware of it, to seek answers on any topic that grabs our attention, including UFOs.

 

[Jocce]

It would also be surprising that these people could not synchronise their instruments to a high degree of accuracy

Not at all surprising if they were assigned to different observation projects.

 

[Marduk]

Not to derail this into a sidebar about the value of "wonder and curiosity" in the scientific mind, but in brief, I disagree with Marduk in this.

Far from being purely juvenile experiences or mental states, wonder and curiosity are that which inspire/provoke a scientist to seek evidence. Indeed, wonder and curiosity inspire people to become scientists in the first place.

And they provoke members such as Stray Cat, Akhenaten, myself, and I suspect you, Marduk, though you may not be aware of it, to seek answers on any topic that grabs our attention, including UFOs.

no, thats just my desire to see evidence, I am not curious about something that doesn't potentially exist not am I filled with wonder at something that will never materialise. I'm getting more out of this thread via schadenfreude than anything else. But if you want to believe that I'm some curious and filled with wondering woo about anything Rramjets likely to say then you got it wrong
badly.
scientists don't speculate, they hypothesize, you cant do that without evidence, in fact I'd challenge you to find any scientist who'd admit that they acted on a hunch first based on wonder and curiosity before they had any evidence at all.

 

[Jocce]

So let's look at the routing slip. I haven't dug it all out but here's something to start with. How the objects looked:

First object - Visual description
Bigger and brighter than a star
Size can't be estimated due to brightness
Fast flashing rectangular pattern of blue, green, red and orange.
Flashing sequence so fast all colors seen at once (strobelight effect)

Second object (emerged from the first object - Visual description
Bright
Size like 1/2 or 1/3 full moon

Third object (emerged from the first object) - Visual discription
Emitting very strong light after landing

Fourth object - Visual discription
Cylinder shaped object
Size of T-bird(?) at 10M
Bright steady lights at each end and flasher in the middle.

Feel free to check if I missed some physical characteristics.

Now, is there anything regarding how they looked that excludes manmade objects?

 

[Vortigern99]

no, thats just my desire to see evidence, I am not curious about something that doesn't potentially exist not am I filled with wonder at something that will never materialise. I'm getting more out of this thread via schadenfreude than anything else. But if you want to believe that I'm some curious and filled with wondering woo about anything Rramjets likely to say then you got it wrong
badly.

Fair enough;at all events I think it comes down to a semantic disagreement. "Desire to see evidence" is how I would define curiosity. Wonder I define as "a feeling of awe associated with a lack of understanding." Both of these experiences are endemic to human existence; science and philosophy are the outgrowth of them.

For the record, I don't believe that you're "some curious and filled with wondering woo" about anything. But that doesn't mean you don't experience curiosity, however you might define the term.

scientists don't speculate, they hypothesize, you cant do that without evidence, in fact I'd challenge you to find any scientist who'd admit that they acted on a hunch first based on wonder and curiosity before they had any evidence at all.

Who said anything about hunches? Again I think this disagreement is largely semantic. Insofar as a scientist observes a phenomenon, and is thereby provoked out of curiosity to gather more evidence, I return that many or even most scientists, pro and am, act out of curiosity following an initial observation. Since by my definition wonder is a normal, human emotional by-product of curiosity, I suspect that more scientists feel this than you may believe.

One example: Jane Goodall. Paraphrasing her own words, she felt empathy and love of chimps even before she began to study them. Her wonder and curiosity about them is what led directly to her decades-long research. I'm certain there are many other examples.

 

[Marduk]

One example: Jane Goodall. Paraphrasing her own words, she felt empathy and love of chimps even before she began to study them. Her wonder and curiosity about them is what led directly to her decades-long research. I'm certain there are many other examples.

do you think she would have been full of wonder and curiosity about them if there was no evidence except anecdotal for their existence ?
from what I read her interest was initiated when she was given a toy chimp as a child, not after she found out they were real
so that sense of wonder and curiosity in her case was definitely a result of her immaturity

 

[Astrophotographer]

The "wonder and curiousity" is a great thing. When one examines or sees something that is strange, it should be investigated. However, this is where most UFO reports end. The investigations are lack luster and the witnesses are rarely any help since they tend to taint their observations with their own perceptions. When it is suggested the person is seeing a star or a planet, they immediately deny this is possible. See Peter Davenport's latest comment about NUFORC reports:

http://www.nuforc.org/Statement090830.html

A few other items that we recommend people observe are “twinkling” stars, and planets. I believe the majority of time I spend on the Hotline is devoted to trying to convince people who have been staring for hours at a star or planet that the object of interest is not a UFO!!

A recent amateur astronomer report I looked into turned out to be most likely a NASA research balloon. The amateur astronomer refused to accept this conclusion, even though he was looking in the direction the balloon was located at the correct time. He had the wonder and curiosity to report the "UFO" to MUFON but lacked the "wonder and curiosity" to look into possible explanations for his observations.

 

[Tapio]

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.

So.. where did I "misrepresent (by ommision)"?

EHocking, I feel you've done an impressive job in holding this thread at a high level of evidence-based interest.

Since I have not been able to make any kind of database regarding all posts here, I would also be very interested in seeing what you exactly mean by accusing Rramjet of "misrepresenting (by ommision)".

I know it's probably too much to ask, but for the last time...please could you re-post the parts you mean? I understand completely if you can't bring yourself to do it...but never hurts to ask, eh?

Grand respect in any case.