UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

I've been trying to find a piece of film that was shown in the uk during the program "police camera action". It shows a glowing cigar shaped object that hovered over a motorway and was shining a beam of incandescent light down at the traffic. This prompted a flood of ufo calls to the police who responded. Its only when they got close to it and the police camera zoomed in that you could see the word "Goodyear" on the side. It had got lost on a way to an event at night and was shining its searchlight down on the motorway in an attempt to see the roadsigns.
if anyone knows about that piece of film can they post a link to it, its pretty awesome.

 

[TjW]

People have pointed to photos of blimps to support their assertions concerning viewing conditions that might make the top fin visible while the bottom is invisible. There are a couple of points to be noted about the fallacy of doing this:

First: Even a lay person unfamiliar with photography can tell you that photographic artifacts appear ...ESPECIALLY in the B&W photos of the era... to make things appear as they would NOT to the naked eye -or through binoculars.

Second: The Rogue River object was viewed over an extended time while it changed aspect and position relative to the observers while the light source and observers remained in the same position. Thus any REAL world light artifact would NOT have consistently obscured the SAME point of view.

Third: The skeptics use only ONE of the two drawings produced (see below for the first drawing produced). THIS drawing does NOT resemble a blimp at all. Neither of course does the drawing the skeptics use - but as they say, when it comes to the skeptical position on seeing what they want to see - faith carries the day over rationality and logic!

Finally, it is the totality of the eyewitness descriptions that must be accounted for. These descriptions simply describe an object that IN NO WAY resembles a blimp. But as the truism goes... UFO skeptics never let the evidence get in the way of a good story.

The silhouette resembles a blimp very much. This shape could also be interpreted as a disc seen at a shallow angle. It doesn't mean the witness was lying. It means he was mistaken.

 

[Vortigern99]

Back to Rogue River

Have you evidence that the top fin and the bottom fin of the blimps of the time were composed of differently reflective material?

Nay. Hence the word "might". It's one possibility that might explain why the gondola and lower fin were invisible to the viewers. My case does not rest on that possibility alone. At all events it's simpler, more plausible, and more probable than "aliens"!

But the top and bottom fin are LINKED and work as a single UNIT, together… so whatever angle the one on top was set at, so too would have been the bottom. That is just the way blimps work.

Okay, I'll accept your assertion that they're linked, but even so you're mistaken about the angle, since that is relative to the viewer. Owing to the rules of perspective, the lower and upper fins are positioned at different angles relative to a viewer, whether they're linked or not. One could catch the sunlight in a way the other doesn't.

So what degree of reflectivity would cause your “sphere” of “a sheen of brilliant, reflected sunlight” that would make the top fin visible and the lower invisible? What are the angular dimensions necessary?

Gosh, I don't know. Do you require mathematical proof before you'll accept that light reflections have a limited size? That they don't extend to infinity? What I'm saying is very simple, observable fact: light can reflect off one object to the point of invisibility, while another nearby object remains visible. This hypothesis can easily be verified by observing a landscape or cityscape from some distance with the sun at one's back. No math needed.

You might just have to explain that last comment.

Meaning that the upper fin might not have been subject to high reflectivity owing either to its material composition, its angle relative to the viewer and to the sun, and/or its position relative to an obscuring sheen of bright light reflected from some other part of the proposed blimp.

Exactly HOW is my contention an “argument from incredulity”? If I “cannot imagine” then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the physics of such a process?

It's an argument from incredulity because you personally cannot believe that a mundane object, operating within the laws of physics with which you personally are familiar, composed of materials of which you personally have knowledge, and described by eye-witnesses based on perceptual phenomena that you personally have read about, could explain the RR sighting. But whether you believe and accept such possible explanations or not, the fact remains that they are more possible, plausible and probable than "aliens".

Besides, the witnesses describe near perfect viewing conditions - Sun low at their backs, clear blue sky, no clouds - and the two witnesses who used binoculars described NO glare or reflected light that might have obstructed their view of the object. The witnesses even stated they could make out the shape without aid of binoculars.

That they report no glare does not mean it was not there. It might have been subtle enough to obscure details without being readily apparent to the witnesses, especially when their brains were busy trying to compose the visual data into an object that they could make sense of. That the sun was "low at their backs" is consistent with the hypothesis that reflected light obscured the lower fin and gondola, which has been my contention all along.

Critically also, the witnesses viewed the object for a period of at least one and a half minutes, while it first approached them “head on”, then turned (about its vertical axis) to fly south diagonally away from them. All this time they viewed it through binoculars.

So, please tell me then how the physics of your “sheen of brilliant, reflected sunlight” works to remain so precisely in position to consistently block the lower fin (and gondola etc) while leaving the top fin always visible even while the object was moving and turning at different angles and while the light source and observers remained stationary.
Can you do that?
Remember known objects must obey the known laws of physics!

The sun is relatively fixed behind the eye-witnesses. The observed object, moving in front of the witnesses at some distance, is illuminated by the sun, obscuring certain details behind gleams of reflected light. What about this requires further explanation of proof? It describes accurately the way light phenomena work.

Ughh.. I have addressed that issue [of USNR and commercial blimp hangars] MANY times. If you choose to ignore the official historical evidence then you will simply ignore ANY evidence.

You have not addressed it to my satisfaction, nor to the satisfaction of anyone in this thread with the exception of yourself. It is you who consistently ignore historical evidence, cherry-picking facts to bolster your case while hand-waving away all evidence to the contrary. Two USNR airstrips, which included airship squadrons, and one commercial blimp hangar were in operation well within range of RR in May 1949. You have not shown this to be false despite your continued attempts to do so. "Ugh!" right back at ya!

So now the eyewitness accounts are precise? How precise must the accounts be to observe accurately enough to render an accurate drawing of the object - yet imprecise enough to be unable to misidentify a blimp in the sky? 90%.? 85%?, 70%?

"Precise" is your word, not mine. Your demand for speculative percentages is a red herring and utterly irrelevant to the debate. Eyewitness asked to make drawings after an event have shown that they make major errors of perception and reportage in study after study. If your contention is that the objects as drawn are "precise", you need to explain how it is that they differ so drastically from one another; if your contention is that they are imprecise, you need to explain how we can use them as evidence for anything. My contention is that they are imprecise and should be tabled, but if you are going to present them as evidence, I am going to criticize them as wildly different and unreliable, which they are. That said, at least one of them resembles a blimp extremely closely except for the missing lower fin and gondola, so if you are going to present these drawings as evidence, it behooves you to address why at least one of them so closely resembles a blimp.

Oh but I HAVE [responded to contentions that military experimental aircraft can be advanced as a possible explanation of RR and other UFO cases] ! Posts 2054 and 2059 on p. 52 for example. There were also MANY others prior to that. Just because you ignore the evidence I present does NOT mean I have not presented it!

I'll return to this shortly, as I have no way to see post numbers from the reply page.

Oh but this is as FAR from a simple or rational explanation as you are likely to get. Explaining one unknown with another unknown is illogical, irrational. If you contend such things then you NEED to back up your assertions with EVIDENCE. You need to show that your assertions are plausible. Just because you state something does NOT make it true or even possible.

You said a mouthful there! I wonder how you manage to ignore the irony of your above statements? You are explaining one unknown with another; you are providing only error-prone eyewitness accounts as "evidence" (when vigorous scientific standards require more substantial proofs), and you are failing utterly to show that your assertions about "aliens" are in any way plausible.

At all events, experimental military aircraft is not an "unknown". All I need to do is cite the known and documented fact that military experimental aircraft exist and have existed since at least the 1940s, and I've supported my position that such aircraft are a more plausible, more probable and simpler explanation than "aliens", for which, it need not be said so I'm saying it anyway, we have no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Vortigern99]

Since post #2054 does not address the RR case, and #2059 only partially addresses the RR case, I'll limit the discussion to those quotes relevant to RR.

There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.

First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.

Argument from ignorance. You and I are not aware of all "known human technology". The US and other military forces around the world experiment with technology that is unknown to the general populace. What is known is that these experimental aircraft do exist, even if the capabilities and technology involved in any particular case may not be known.

Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.

Argument from ignorance, incredulity, and appeal to error-prone eyewitness accounts. In the RR case, it would be impossible to advance a single craft that "describes the UFO in all its capabilities", since the object as described varies from account to account. Which details supplied by the witnesses are actual features of the object and which are perceptual distortions? All of them cannot be actual, since the accounts contradict each other. Even supposing an "alien" craft we would have to reject at least some of the witnesses' description as fallacious. No single craft could possibly encompass all the contradictory details as reported. The only conclusion must be that the eyewitness accounts are somehow in error.

In the Rogue River case, we have certainly the positive proof. The UFO characteristics do not match any known human technology. I suggest we also have the negative proof but the skeptics contend a blimp is possible (to which of course I note “possible” does not equate to probable…), nevertheless the case here then rests on the positive proof.

Argument from ignorance, incredulity and appeal to contradictory and demonstrably error-prone eyewitness accounts.

Now... where is it again that you've addressed the possibility of experimental US military aircraft explaining the RR sighting? You've assured me it was in #2054 or 2059 but alack, alas all I find are more logical fallacies and hand-waving away of facts.

 

[Jocce]

(The natural philosophy of lying saucers)

Freudian typo huh?

 

[Toke]

I've been trying to find a piece of film that was shown in the uk during the program "police camera action". It shows a glowing cigar shaped object that hovered over a motorway and was shining a beam of incandescent light down at the traffic. This prompted a flood of ufo calls to the police who responded. Its only when they got close to it and the police camera zoomed in that you could see the word "Goodyear" on the side. It had got lost on a way to an event at night and was shining its searchlight down on the motorway in an attempt to see the roadsigns.
if anyone knows about that piece of film can they post a link to it, its pretty awesome.

Guess that is one way to do it.
We usually send an AB ashore with the lifeboat to buy doughnuts, and then read the town name on the bag.

 

[Akhenaten]

PML.

I want to go to sea with you one day.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Freudian typo huh?

Ahhhh.....sure, why not?

 

[tsig]

What I am interested in is the personal eyewitness testimony. Films and photos can be VERY misleading -

Eyeballs are better than lenses?

 

[Jocce]

So if you are contending this to be an alien object then I simply ask again, WHAT alien object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?

Obviously THIS “alien” object does!

So, let's see if I get this straight. This UFO indicates an alien technology, and the proof that aliens has this technology is that it's an alien ship and it's here?

Isn't that, you know, kind of circular reasoning?

You wanted “first hand” eyewitness accounts – I provided them to you. Now you reject even first hand accounts? Perhaps you are contending that evidence loses its veracity over time? Perhaps you think police should not investigate murders after 30 years have elapsed?
<snip>

I would be very surprised if the police decided to put someone in jail after interviewing a witness about something that happened 30+ years before the interview and with no other evidence at hand. Actually, I think you know this and you are just trying to weasel your way out of a tricky spot.

I stated
“There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.

First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.

Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.”

Why am I not surprised that the difference between them is too subtle for you… the first has to do with what the object IS (positive). The second has to do with what it is NOT (negative).

So, it IS outside human technology AND NOT within human technology. How is that not the same thing?

 

[GeeMack]

People have pointed to photos of blimps to support their assertions concerning viewing conditions that might make the top fin visible while the bottom is invisible. There are a couple of points to be noted about the fallacy of doing this:

First: Even a lay person unfamiliar with photography can tell you that photographic artifacts appear ...ESPECIALLY in the B&W photos of the era... to make things appear as they would NOT to the naked eye -or through binoculars.

Second: The Rogue River object was viewed over an extended time while it changed aspect and position relative to the observers while the light source and observers remained in the same position. Thus any REAL world light artifact would NOT have consistently obscured the SAME point of view.

Third: The skeptics use only ONE of the two drawings produced (see below for the first drawing produced). THIS drawing does NOT resemble a blimp at all. Neither of course does the drawing the skeptics use - but as they say, when it comes to the skeptical position on seeing what they want to see - faith carries the day over rationality and logic!

Finally, it is the totality of the eyewitness descriptions that must be accounted for. These descriptions simply describe an object that IN NO WAY resembles a blimp. But as the truism goes... UFO skeptics never let the evidence get in the way of a good story.

We all understand that you can't possibly believe it wasn't aliens. Nobody's arguing that. Yes or no, Rramjet, do you have anything other than arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and lies to support your claim that aliens exist?

 

[GeeMack]

Tapio, you should know better! If you have a plausible mundane explanation --then present it.

I have presented the evidence to support my contentions. That is ALL I have been doing (except to blow apart some pretty glaring logical fallacies in the skeptic’s position). If you do NOT accept the evidence as presented then you should explain WHY you do not - and perhaps even propose a plausible alternate plausible hypothesis that could explain that evidence. After all, you have a whole world of them to choose from!

You made the claim that aliens exist, Rramjet. You need to support it. Your continued attempts to pass the burden of proof only serve to show you don't have any legitimate evidence to support your claim. If you did, you'd present it. And you haven't.

(Note, Tapio, that he blew you off, evaded your direct question, and attempted to shove the burden of proof back to you. Not only is this not making a good case, it's dishonest. He's treating you with disdain and contempt.)

I contend that the evidence supports my hypothesis of "aliens". I have shown this by pointing out the characteristics of the UFO(s) that simply DEFY mundane explanations (for example the shape shifting, the splitting apart and rejoining, the ability to jam weapons systems and communications (within the closed aircraft systems), intelligent control, speeds in excess of Mach2, and many other characteristics besides).

Note, Tapio, that there isn't a shred of evidence here. He so much as admits that his incredulity is the gist of his argument.

Now the skeptics can attempt to selectively pick off one or two of these characteristics and explain them individually -- but they forget that they have to explain ALL the characteristics TOGETHER. As one package. And they simply CANNOT do it!

That is why the UFO supports my alien hypothesis.

And here he demands, again, that others be responsible for his burden of proof. Add to that his double standard of evidence. He claims that the intelligent sane people here need to provide every detail of every possible mundane explanation in order for them to be considered, yet he hasn't once, in all these thousands of exchanges, not once has he provided us with any details about the characteristics and properties of alien craft.

Note again, Tapio, how he treats you with a flippant brush off, condescendingly lumps you in with the intelligent sane people, and badmouths the intelligent sane people for not getting something that he can't even describe or support himself.

You want me to explain [...]

No. We want to you provide evidence to support your claim that aliens exist. Your arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies aren't evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

The skeptics use only ONE of the two drawings produced (see below for the first drawing produced). THIS drawing does NOT resemble a blimp at all. Neither of course does the drawing the skeptics use - but as they say, when it comes to the skeptical position on seeing what they want to see - faith carries the day over rationality and logic!

OK, lets look at both witness drawings and some pictures of blimps.
I'll try to use modern day pictures so we don't introduce Photographic Artifacts of the period?

So Rramjet... how do neither of the witness drawings closely resemble the silhouette of a blimp?... Bearing in mind that report states it was coming at them at an angle and then turned. Is it possible the two drawings were from memory of it's changing profile before and after it made it's turn?

 

[Correa Neto]

Thank you, Correa Neto, for your lucid and well written post. When I joined this forum, this is exactly the type of discussion I was looking forward to having.

Regarding the word 'evidence', skeptics here have (as I listed in a previous post), condemned photo, video, audio and eyewitness 'evidence' as not acceptable. With all those methods of 'proof' unavailable, short of a chunk of UFO dropping on a busy expressway somewhere, it's not surprising evidence 'has not been available'! In an ideal world, everyone would agree on standards of acceptable evidence, but that seems highly unlikely to happen.

Sorry for the late answer. Time has been a precious commodity there days for me.

I think you are creating an incorrect picture here. Skeptics do not “condemn” imagery; skeptics just don’t take it as face value. Skeptics look at it critically. The images you pointed at some other thread (Was it really you? My old rotten neurons might be playing tricks on me), for example, are suspicious- they can be easily reproduced as hoaxes (have you seen how they compare with my UFO pictures?) and/or lack a solid background. They are not reliable evidence for UFOs being alien craft.

Think about this for a while- UFOs, according to UFO lore, may be huge, brightly lit and hover over cities or at least over places which can not actually be considered as deserts… Now, clear sharp pieces of footage from one of these things taken from two different sites would not be that hard to obtain – especially because there are cameras and radars monitoring the airspace. I bet my “fellow skeptics” would not “dismiss it”. We would just check it in depth looking for explanations. And I bet most of us would hope that this time it turned out the real deal.

Now, got some clear imagery not suspected of being a hoax?

It appears you're cherry picking and obfuscating. It doesn't seem like you're doing it intentionally, but that is the result from where I sit.

Stealth technology was not a factor in the Iranian incident, because the UFO showed lights at all times, and brilliant lights when the smaller UFO, after having separated from the main one, went to ground level and lit up a considerable amount of real estate. Radar returns of the UFO were prevalent, and my understanding of stealth tech is that minimal radar returns are generated.

Someone else mentioned stealth, and I made the same point. I am not doubting the veracity of the history of stealth tech at all, but stealth was never a factor in Iran. I wanted the entire stealth discussion to go away as a result, and got lazy with my post. So, fabulous research on stealth, but totally non-applicable regarding Iran.

Once again it seems you are failing to grasp how things work… Let’s go by parts.

First, I tried to show that advanced- or “alien-looking” craft built by humans are flying since the 40’s. They are not common (and this is a key point- not being common, not being easily recognized by the Average Joe or Jane), but they are over there. The Baynes Bat, which flew in 1943, for example, looks remarkably like many a V-shaped UFO description. To sum up, the “it looked extraterrestrial”, “nothing like that flew by then”, etc. lines can be demonstrated to be flawed. Remember this next time you decide to use an argument on personal incredibility.

Now, on to the Iran UFO-jet chase. Stealth aircraft are one possibility among others. Note that a key factor here is to be sure that the UFO descriptions are faithful. Can we? I don’t think so, given the mixed sources and the age gap. This is a crucial issue, a methodology flaw not addressed by UFOlogists regarding the vast majority of the evidence they present. At another post I’ll dig deeper on this.

Back on track, it seems you ignored the comments I made on drones and more specifically, this comment:

I wonder what night operations of Goblins/EB-29 or F-84/B-36 would look like…

Aviation buffs will understand what I mean- “mothership” operations. Drones (especially EW drones) are/were frequently launched by a “mothership”- a B-52, for example. Check pos 2047 by catsmate1- he/she hot it, Goblins included. Sure, I am not aware of drones docking at the mothership as a standard or routine operation, but I can’t pretend to know everything about black projects. The point is that the description of a light – or a smaller craft- being launched from a bigger one is not strong or compelling evidence of alien origin. Actually it does not even require the launching of a drone- a perspective trick can do it too.

Note also that weird placements of lights can be used as a trick to mask a silhouette and complicate recognition. You may claim the UFO looked nothing like a B-52 (note I am not claiming it was, I am just pointing out flaws in the “it-could-only-have-been-alien” reasoning. Be also warned that SR-71s could be picked by radars.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

I am not a physicist, so I am unqualified to list more, but the above is a good start. Not the 'sole' purpose. Framing questions like that are patently unfair, as the physicists will probably tell you no one can justify single purpose facilities in this economic climate.

Look, you stated there were labs built for the sole purpose of seeking evidence of tachyons… So, if someone made an unfair comment, it wasn’t me, OK?

Funding for a universal database is a pipe dream, but I agree with you it is sorely needed.

I know it may sound harsh, but I just can’t word it differently- there’s always an excuse for sloppy research, right? Do you really think that building a methodology to rank UFO data would take an amount of money beyond UFOlogy organizations’ reach?

Think again. I say no. I say it takes expertise UFOlogist either do not have can not and/or are not willing to use. Remember, right here we have a pro-alien UFO poster who claims to have scientific training…

I think this is one of the few things skeptics and UFO students will heartily agree on!

Does not seem so, since to date, no such work on a methodology was made. And its been how many years since 1947?

This again goes to the entire 'evidence' standard.

Yes. Its actually where I want to focus- not on dissecting the links Rramjet presented. Been, there, done that and on both sides of the line. Other posters have already blown holes in the sighting reports he presented, gapping holes whose existence he fails to acknowledge. My current interest is to expose the methodological flaws in the study of fringe subjects. This has been, so far, enough to make the castles of cards crumble. Remember- its not enough to say “the data is good”; one must prove its good. And so far UFOlogists failed on this basic task.

 

[Rramjet]

General observations on the replies to my evidence...

You know I really find all this quite amusing;

As soon as I get close to presenting enough evidence that would satisfy everyone except a religious cult nut - the bullying abuse ramps up (for example witness Geemack's performance just in the two pages 51 & 52), MY questions go unanswered, people refuse to acknowledge my answers to their questions (witness RoboTimbo in a tailspin about “aliens” -even when I have answered his questions SO many times...), people just stop debating the evidence I present - to replace debate with childish assertions such as “No you can’t”, “You’re wrong” etc. (Akhenaten).

We have Astrophotographer now pretending that eyewitness testimony is 100% unreliable (eg; citing Sagan “No witness’s say-so is good enough”).

According to Astrophotographer people hoax, lie, misperceive, hallucinate… we are preset computers subject to interpretive error, our observations are the lowest form of evidence, we are wildly wrong, imperfect sensors, error prone…

But we’ve heard all this before. AND I have answered the argument before as well.

When it comes to hoaxing or lying I have therefore presented cases where the evidence shows that the witnesses are about as reliable as you can get! But of course even THAT is not good enough and the skeptics, who must then resort to claiming the witnesses are 100% unreliable!

But note also that they DO give back a little when they claim that the descriptions match a “mundane” event – the witnesses then become selectively reliable. That is they are reliable ONLY in those parts of their descriptions that match the mundane event and unreliable ONLY in those parts that do NOT match the mundane event. This is laughable and this is about as irrational a position on the subject of witness reliability as you are likely to see.

As to the claims about misperception, I have stated MANY times that the conditions for such have been extensively studied and are well known. We CAN account for such conditions in any eyewitness account. For example some atmospheric conditions cause “illusions” (inversions layers, heat haze close to the ground, etc), but when objects are sighted on a clear blue sky day with the sun low at the witnesses back (Rogue River), then these conditions simply are NOT applicable.

If the skeptics want to claim conditions exist to cause misperceptions in such a case then they have to SHOW that such conditions exist. Merely stating that such conditions apply does not make them applicable. And of course they do not provide evidence for such conditions because they cannot – even when the research on the subject is comprehensive!

And because they cannot - they try to shift the burden of proof away from themselves, as if suddenly when they hypothesise explanations, the rules of science and logical debate are suddenly thrown out the window so that they do not have to provide evidence to support their own assertions, even while they demand evidence in support of their opponent’s hypotheses!

Then they allow that eyewitness testimony might be good enough for a court of law, but pretend that science has different standards…as if (for example) the decision to condemn someone to death or send someone to jail for a very long time should not have the highest degree of rigour attached! That the death penalty is somehow an easier, more relaxed, decision to reach on their 100% unreliable eyewitness testimony than it is to merely lend support to a scientific theory!

Moreover, the sceptical position on this of course also means that all the great discoveries from Galileo, through Newton to Darwin, according to the skeptics, MUST be discounted because they relied on the eyewitness observations of one single eyewitness observer! On the Origin of Species? Throw it out…it is entirely based on the fallible, unreliable eyewitness testimony of a single person!

No, the sceptical position on this is irrational. It defies logic and the scientific method. It is antiscience; antilogic, antirationality at its extreme.

The simple fact of the matter is that many UFO reports exist, from reliable sources, that cannot be attributed to mundane sources. This is a fact that sticks in the craw of the skeptics and they then resort to ANY tactic they can to avoid even acknowledging such cases exist, let alone explore the evidence provided in those cases.

To show an example of just how irrational the skeptic’s arguments have become we have Vortigern stating that he is an expert in visual phenomena (“As a semi-professional illustrator and degreed artist…”) and yet according to him the vertical fins of a blimp (which are linked top and bottom and remain in the same plane at all times) …“the lower and upper fins are positioned at different angles relative to a viewer”!

We have him proposing that the upper and lower fins of blimps were manufactured of different material!

That because the witnesses did not describe aspects of an object that matches his proposed mundane explanation that those aspect, because of a trick of light, were merely “invisible” to the observers! That just because an eyewitness does not report something, does not mean it was not there! (Unicorns anyone?)

And finally we get to the REAL reason for the sceptic’s irrationality. Vortigern states: “ No single craft could possibly encompass all the contradictory details as reported.”

And THERE ladies and gentlemen is the nub of the matter. The faith based belief stated in its raw form. The plaintiff cry… “It just cannot be…” This is denial at it’s most basic. Here we have it stated loud and clear. The evidence is to be ignored because it just cannot be!

Then we come to Stray_Cat posting pictues of blimps in comparison to the drawings from Rogue river…and what do we see in the photos? Fins, gondolas…all the things that are MISSING in the drawings…(shrugs)

And finally we come to just plain ignoring of the evidence with Correa Neto stating “…I want to focus- not on dissecting the links Rramjet presented. Been, there, done that…”

So what are we left with?

GOOD UFO cases, supported by reliable observers that describe objects with characteristics outside the limits of what we take to be the bounds of the known, and natural world. That provide EVIDENCE that “aliens” are here amongst us. Yet the skeptics, because for their faith based beliefs simply ignore all that, to wave away the evidence proposing to explain the unknown by proposing unknown solutions, unfounded assertions, shifting the burden of proof and claiming to need “extraordinary evidence” when they cannot even define what that means!

The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)

Notice how the skeptics have studiously ignored the Brazilian thing! I invite all readers to look at the document in the first link and after reading about the case, take a moment just to quietly reflect on what the commander’s conclusions about the incident actually mean.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I missed where you said how affecting it's surroundings meant it was alien. Which of your posts had that answer?

Thanks in advance.

 

[GeeMack]

You know I really find all this quite amusing [...]

[*Snipped a lot of crying about his arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies being flushed down the toilet. All relevant, legitimate evidence to support the claim that aliens exist left intact.*]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if your arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and lies are actually enough to support your claim that aliens exist, why do you suppose you haven't been able to convince a single soul that you're correct? Could it be you're just such a poor communicator that you haven't been able to get through to anyone? Could it be that you're wrong? Have any other ideas why, after you've blathered on in over 500 posts, not a single person here has said, "Aha! He's right. That is evidence to support his claim that aliens exist?" Come on, Rramjet, even Tapio, who very much wanted to buy into your argument based on nothing but a fantasy, has realized you haven't got a single thing to support it.

Which is, as you mentioned at the beginning of your post, really quite amusing.

 

[Astrophotographer]

We have Astrophotographer now pretending that eyewitness testimony is 100% unreliable (eg; citing Sagan “No witness’s say-so is good enough”).!

That is such a BS statement! I never stated they were 100% unreliable! I stated they are prone to error. One can often apply the following rule to such testimony, "the more exotic the description, the less probable it is accurate". If you were a real scientist, you would know this. Pretending to be one in some internet forum is no substitute for practicing real science.

According to Astrophotographer people hoax, lie, misperceive, hallucinate… we are preset computers subject to interpretive error, our observations are the lowest form of evidence, we are wildly wrong, imperfect sensors, error prone…

But we’ve heard all this before. AND I have answered the argument before as well.

No you haven't. You have dismissed it with a wave of the hand as you always do by proclaiming yourself the ultimate authority. I guess this is why you can pretend to play scientist here and can't cut it in the real world of science. Tell me, how many papers have you submitted to various journals regarding the "reality" of UFOs? How many have been accepted?

It is not "according to me". I gave quotes from REAL scientists, who have examined the problems with such testimony. These are actual individuals, who are discussing the very thing that you find critical to your UFO cases. Instead of listening, you simply ignore them and refuse to accept the possibilty that your "pet" cases could be subject to error. How scientific of you.

When it comes to hoaxing or lying I have therefore presented cases where the evidence shows that the witnesses are about as reliable as you can get! But of course even THAT is not good enough and the skeptics, who must then resort to claiming the witnesses are 100% unreliable!

No you haven't. You proclaim you have but you haven't. I have demonstrated time and time again, that eyewitnesses make mistakes. Otherwise, ALL UFO reports would be inexplicable. Instead, it is accepted that 75-95% of all UFO reports can be explained despite the inaccuracy of the testimonies involved. Your failure to acknowledge the problem of eyewitness testimony is based solely on your will to believe what they report is true. This is VERY BAD science. You are placing belief over reason and knowledge.

You still have yet to answer my questions. I will cut it down to one for you.

Why is it that your scientific credentials find this testimony so reliable that it must be 100% accurate and these gentlemen disagree with that conclusion?

Perhaps you can stop playing games and answer the question. Present your evidence that eyewitness testimony is 100% reliable all of the time. I don't want "because I said so". I want to hear actual case studies in eyewitness perception done by actual scientists that everyone can examine and you can present as proof that eyewitnesses are reliable 100% all of the time. Failure to respond indicates you have no proof and this claim is false.

 

[Akhenaten]

You know I really find all this quite amusing;

I find it absolutely hilarious, but then, I'm not the one creating the joke, so I can understand that you're just being modest.

 

[Paul2]

And here he demands, again, that others be responsible for his burden of proof. Add to that his double standard of evidence. He claims that the intelligent sane people here need to provide every detail of every possible mundane explanation in order for them to be considered, yet he hasn't once, in all these thousands of exchanges, not once has he provided us with any details about the characteristics and properties of alien craft.

Please don't make me review the 56,349 pages of this thread, but I don't think this has been said in quite this way before.

GeeMack's comment made me intellectually hard.