UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

He's good at that, eh?

 

[Jocce]

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).

But you have not produced any kind of evidence for alien presence! You present a number of eyewitness accounts and claim that what they have observed can not be of human origin. That is not evidence, it's an unsupported claim based on ignorance (i.e. I know of no manmade craft that can perform like the eyewitnesses report). I'm sorry Rramjet, but that is not good enough.

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…

And that my friend, is absolutely correct.

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

That doesn't make it less correct. You have not been able to substantiate your claims.

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!

This is a lie.

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.

We have shown, for example, that there is a greater than 0% chance that a blimp is a possible explanation för the Rouge river sighting. That's all it takes to prove you wrong.

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.

This statement is yet to be substantiated with relevant scientific studies.

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!

A number of problems in judging distance, size, shape and speed under the conditions present at Rouge river f ex has been presented. If you don't want to accept that, it is your problem.

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!

Shift the burden of proof? You come here with an original claim that an observed event is indicative of alien presence. Then you deman that we disprove that claim rather than prove it yourself? You lie here again. Noone is trying to shift the burden of proof, just place it were it belongs. On you.

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!

The original observations led to the formulation of hypotesis which later were substantiated by gathering evidence.. You have presented observations and formulated a hypothesis. You are now requested to prove your hypothesis true. And no, you can't prove it by saying "I know of no human made things that can do this". That's an argument from ignorance or incredulity. You know this but pretend that it doesn't apply to you.

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

You make a claim, you provide the proof. It's very simple.

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.

Argument from ignorance bolded.

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!

You mean when you cry "it just cannot be human!" right?

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)

I don't see 4 fins on every blimp in that photo. This is again a case of you claiming that the witnesses accounts are in this particular case 100% reliable. Go ahead and prove it if you like.

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…”

Yeah, we get a bit frustrated with your lying, misrepresentations, burden of proof shifting and when all else fails, you make a post like this claiming your victory.

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!

You mean like flying and emitting light? I also strongly object to your capitalization of EVIDENCE in reference to eywitness statements. Fact is, you have nothing to prove your claims.

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.

I figure you have enough problems substantiating your claims in the first three cases but by all means. Provide some evidence that aliens anywhere had the technology necessary to perform in Brazil as the eyewitnesses describe. If you have som physical evidence too, it would really be a nice change.

I also notice that you keep posting different newspaper- and webarticles as evidence. It is not! Post original sources or don't post anything at all. My guess is that you have to resort to this or you wouldn't have anything to post at all.

 

[Jocce]

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.

Amen!

 

[catsmate]

I was going to post this last night but couldn't as I was traveling and I haven't read the last few pages of this thread; apologies if there's any confusion.
As Rramjet remains on my ignore list, due to his refusal to allow mere facts to interfere with his preconceived beliefs I haven't seen his reply to my earlier post, but as some parts of it were quoted I feel a response to some of his points might be useful, so here goes.

In the Iranian case we have BOTH types of proof. The capabilities and characteristics are certainly beyond the limits of any known human technologies AND we CAN rule out such things as catsmate1 suggested (cutting edge technology…) and also such things as balloons, blimps, meteors, stars or planets, birds, wind blown debris, etc, etc …

Unfortunately for this assertion the exact capabilities of the object(s) seen in 1976 (and 1978) are unknown; eye witness testimony is both contradictory and confused ranging from "bird-like object in the sky" to "a helicopter with a bright light" We're unlikely to ever see the other reports from the period, even if they survived the 1979 revolutions.
However from my examination of the IIAF transcripts (probably the best source) the capabilities of the intruding aircraft do not appear beyond human capability of the period. Please note there is no confirmation that the launched/detached objects actually docked with the launching aircraft, they merely appeared to rejoin it.

To believe a Soviet incursion over Tehran with the MiG-25 ignores the initial reports of a hovering object seen by numerous ground witnesses... they reported it to the tower. The object was certainly not moving like a “Foxbat” at that time!

<Sigh> I made no such assertion. I suggested a Soviet reconnaissance mission. I did not specify what could have been used, the Foxbat was an example of a platform that the Soviet Union (and allies) used for aerial reconnaissance. Not all the Soviet toys have become public since the wall came down. Also please note that, as I stated above, eye witness account vary widely in what they describe.

There is also a question mark surrounding whether the Foxbat could outrun the F-4 in a straight on chase.

No, there isn't. The recon Foxbat was capable of sustained speeds of Mach 2.6 to 2.8 and (if engine wear wasn't a consideration) up to Mach 3.2. The F-4 Phantom II maxed out at Mach 2.23. The Foxbat was great in a straight line; it sucked at dogfighting. It’s speed was measured on several occasions by ground and aerial radar of many countries, e.g. US, Israel, Pakistan.
Israeli air force attempts to intercept overflying Foxbats using the F-4 did not succeed, remember; the MiGs flew too fast and too high.

As for the powerful radar and jamming: Does catsmate1 think that radar could jam the internal communications within the airplane (remember the pilot lost communication with the backseat copilot also "…lost all communications (UHF and Interphone)”)?

Well gee, I do actually. You see I've worked in the avionics/ATC field and have experience with such electronics and radar systems. I even emailed a colleague from the old days and he's confirmed that powerful radio emissions have caused problems with intercom systems.
I've wasted a few more minutes looking over the transcripts from the Tehran/1976 incident and they state:

each time they passed through a Mag. bearing of 150 degrees from Mehrabad they lost their communications (UHF and Interphone) and the INS [Inertial Navigation System] fluctuated from 30-degrees to 50-degrees.

and

The one civil airliner that was approaching Mehrabad during this same time experienced communications failure in the same vicinity

this is suggestive of a somewhat directional emitter of considerable power; possibly elements of the Interphone and INS systems were being overloaded when it entered the field.
It's struck me that's it's also possible that the EMF effect described may not have emanated from the aircraft being intercepted but that's speculation.
Actually a former co-worker was a flight engineer on Phantom's for the Luftwaffe, I might ask him. I do remember that the Phantom's Interphone was battery powered and somewhat susceptible to flak damage.


And finally........... I notice a lot of references to "cutting edge technology" in Rramjet's posts. This I feel to be highly disingenuous; as I stated in my original post most of these parasite aircraft projects weren't particularly cutting edge, e.g. FICON used standard fighters and bombers with some modifications. In 1952. The Goblin flew three years earlier. While the Tehran incident Rramjet is so fond of happened 24 years later. The D-21 drone was cutting edge when it was developed in 1966 but it was retired in 1971.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

My my… we are getting a little hot under the collar aren’t we…

The statement you subscribe to from guru Sagan (“No witness’s say-so is good enough”) is a categorical. It clearly contends that the witnesses are 100% unreliable. YOU subscribed to it - you own it… unless of course you are now backing down and are willing to answer my question to you. HOW unreliable are the witness statements?

I stated:
”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.

REAL scientists? Good for you. But you are yet to address my point that we CAN account for the conditions that make eyewitness testimony unreliable and factor them into our assessments of the sightings. The skeptics contend, in Rogue River for example, that there are factors that make perception unreliable. I pointed out that the “glare” hypothesis can be proved a nonsense simply by noting that the object was observed over more than a minute and a half (with binoculars) while it turned through various angles, both on its axis and in its plan view in relation to the observers…while the light source and observers remained stationary. THAT puts the lie to THAT particular misperception hypothesis. YET NO-ONE has bothered to note the death of it. IF you have any other conditions that might make the witnesses prone to misperceptions on a clear blue sky day with the sun low at their backs…then I’d like to hear about it. Otherwise, given the evidence against “hoax” we simply MUST accept that the witnesses had a clear view of the object and their descriptions were accurate. It is as simple as that.
So IN FACT it is YOU who are dismissing my arguments “with the wave of a hand”. You don’t even bother to pay them “lip service”. I present evidence, you merely present unfounded assertions. I represent a scientific point of view, You merely resent a scientific point of view.

I stated:
”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.

WHERE have you demonstrated “time and time again” that the eyewitnesses in the Rogue River case have made mistakes? WHERE? Of course you have NOT, because you have nothing. ON THE EVIDENCE they are reliable witnesses observing an object in near perfect viewing conditions WITH the aid of binoculars. HOW could they have been mistaken under such conditions? WHERE is your evidence that they could have been mistaken. Merely stating that they could have been does NOT mean that they were.

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?

I don’t contend that they were 100% accurate. All I contend is that they observed substantial macro details, like the lack of fins, gondolas and engines and general shape that would have allowed them to identify what they saw as a blimp. They DO NOT have to be 100% accurate to do that. Even a “blurry” image can supply such macro details. So your question:

Perhaps you can stop playing games and answer the question. Present your evidence that eyewitness testimony is 100% reliable all of the time.

Your question is absolutely irrelevant because I do NOT contend 100% accuracy – I don’t need to.

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.

Not only don’t I contend 100% reliability (as YOU claim 100% unreliablity)- you are again irrationally shifting the burden of proof. Why must I describe the fallacy behind this every time you raise it?

I make a claim – you demand evidence (and rightly so)
You make a claim – and then pretend that somehow the rules no longer apply and that you need produce NO evidence.
THAT is a double standard. THAT is hypocritical.

Now, will you address yourself to my arguments and questions to you above – or will you again ignore them?

But you have not produced any kind of evidence for alien presence! You present a number of eyewitness accounts and claim that what they have observed can not be of human origin. That is not evidence, it's an unsupported claim based on ignorance (i.e. I know of no manmade craft that can perform like the eyewitnesses report). I'm sorry Rramjet, but that is not good enough.

HOW many times must I explain it to you… I merely hypothesise from the evidence that the objects described represent “alien” craft. I do this based on the fact that no known mundane solutions have been forthcoming that fit the object’s characteristics. I am therefore free to hypothesise what I like! Now if I hypothesised Unicorns, you would be able to knock that down very quickly by showing that unicorns do not exist. Unfortunately the problem you have is that you CANNOT show that “aliens” do not exist because e it is entirely within the realms of possibility (more it is entirely probable) that “aliens” DO exist. THAT is what gets you into trouble here.

So, discovering that you cannot deny that aliens COULD exist, you are forced into coming up with plausible “mundane” hypotheses that might explain the sightings. At the point those explanations fail (ON THE EVIDENCE) I am again free to hypothesise aliens. A further difficulty you have is that even thought there might seem to be a world of mundane hypotheses to choose from, in fact, the possibilities are severely restricted by the eyewitness evidence. Hence in Rogue River, the hypotheses were restricted to JUST ONE: the infamous blimp. BUT even THAT hypothesis does NOT fit the evidence. Therefore you are forced into claiming the eyewitnesses COULD have been mistaken. BUT, given the viewing conditions, THAT hypothesis is unlikely, thus we are left with “UFO” - and so I am again free to hypothesise “aliens”. Now, the EVIDENCE for aliens in the Rogue River case is weak, because the object did not perform any manoeuvrers that might be considered outside the range on human technology. And I am willing to concede that. Ideed, I argued from the VERY BEGINNING that Rogue River represented a UFO and nothing more (or less).

The White Sands case was presented so that people could see that there was MORE THAN ONE case that had extremely high observer reliability.

But as for my “alien” hypothesis, THAT is why I then introduced the Iranian UFO case. HERE was an object that DID perform “outside the bounds” of human technology. THIS case then lends support to my “alien” hypothesis. IT does not PROVE the hypothesis, merely adds weight to the proposal. And every time a mundane hypothesis is put up and then knocked down, the hypothesis looks more and more likely. When we finally run out of plausible mundane hypotheses, THEN my “alien” hypothesis looks even better. THAT is NOT to say that it IS the correct hypothesis, just that it IS plausible in the face of the positive EVIDENCE (extraordinary manoeuvrers) AND the negative EVIDENCE (lack of plausible alternatives).

NOW, I HAVE answered “WHY “alien” question. I HAVE also answered “WHAT evidence have you presented" question. The cases stand as I have presented them. The ball is now in your court. CAN you come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses) to “aliens”. THAT is your challenge! I have presented (some of the) the evidence to support my hypotheses and I have noted the logical arguments in favour of that evidence representing “aliens”. It is now up to you. WILL you address my arguments and questions to you now?

 

[Jocce]

HOW many times must I explain it to you… I merely hypothesise from the evidence that the objects described represent “alien” craft. I do this based on the fact that no known mundane solutions have been forthcoming that fit the object’s characteristics. I am therefore free to hypothesise what I like!

Of course you are, but I am free to dismiss your hypothesis as unsubstantiated. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. Your claim should rest on it's own evidence but alas, you got none.

Now if I hypothesised Unicorns, you would be able to knock that down very quickly by showing that unicorns do not exist. Unfortunately the problem you have is that you CANNOT show that “aliens” do not exist because e it is entirely within the realms of possibility (more it is entirely probable) that “aliens” DO exist. THAT is what gets you into trouble here.

Excuse me but I'm not getting into any trouble at all. I'm just sitting here waiting for you to privide evidence of alien visitation. Alas, none is forthcomming and all you can say is "it's alien because I know of no human craft that could behave as reported". I don't care what you believe, it doesn't affect me at all. However, I feel obliged to point out the glaring logical errors in your reasoning.

Btw, I can't prove that Unicorns do not exist. Noone can.

So, discovering that you cannot deny that aliens COULD exist, you are forced into coming up with plausible “mundane” hypotheses that might explain the sightings. At the point those explanations fail (ON THE EVIDENCE) I am again free to hypothesise aliens. A further difficulty you have is that even thought there might seem to be a world of mundane hypotheses to choose from, in fact, the possibilities are severely restricted by the eyewitness evidence.

Again, I'm not FORCED to do anything. Is that hard for you to understand?

Hence in Rogue River, the hypotheses were restricted to JUST ONE: the infamous blimp. BUT even THAT hypothesis does NOT fit the evidence. Therefore you are forced into claiming the eyewitnesses COULD have been mistaken. BUT, given the viewing conditions, THAT hypothesis is unlikely, thus we are left with “UFO” - and so I am again free to hypothesise “aliens”. Now, the EVIDENCE for aliens in the Rogue River case is weak, because the object did not perform any manoeuvrers that might be considered outside the range on human technology. And I am willing to concede that. Ideed, I argued from the VERY BEGINNING that Rogue River represented a UFO and nothing more (or less).

Great, I agree that it is not yet positively identified.

The White Sands case was presented so that people could see that there was MORE THAN ONE case that had extremely high observer reliability.

You mean the case where an actual scientific investigation was performed that couldn't find any aliens?

But as for my “alien” hypothesis, THAT is why I then introduced the Iranian UFO case. HERE was an object that DID perform “outside the bounds” of human technology. THIS case then lends support to my “alien” hypothesis. IT does not PROVE the hypothesis, merely adds weight to the proposal. And every time a mundane hypothesis is put up and then knocked down, the hypothesis looks more and more likely. When we finally run out of plausible mundane hypotheses, THEN my “alien” hypothesis looks even better. THAT is NOT to say that it IS the correct hypothesis, just that it IS plausible in the face of the positive EVIDENCE (extraordinary manoeuvrers) AND the negative EVIDENCE (lack of plausible alternatives).

It has been shown over and over again that the reported object DID NOT perform outside the bounds of human technology. That's only in your deluded mind and your hypothesis still looks like a pile of poo.

NOW, I HAVE answered “WHY “alien” question. I HAVE also answered “WHAT evidence have you presented" question. The cases stand as I have presented them. The ball is now in your court. CAN you come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses) to “aliens”. THAT is your challenge! I have presented (some of the) the evidence to support my hypotheses and I have noted the logical arguments in favour of that evidence representing “aliens”. It is now up to you. WILL you address my arguments and questions to you now?

I don't care much about your challenge and several people has been pointing out flaws in your argumentation since page one. Not my problem if you refuse to listen. Your arguments boil down to:

"I say it's alien and therefore it is! Prove me wrong if you can...ha!"

Not a very clever tactic around people who can think for themselves I might add.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I missed where you said how radar confirmation meant it was alien. Which of your posts had that answer?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Not only don’t I contend 100% reliability (as YOU claim 100% unreliablity)- you are again irrationally shifting the burden of proof. Why must I describe the fallacy behind this every time you raise it?

I make a claim – you demand evidence (and rightly so)
You make a claim – and then pretend that somehow the rules no longer apply and that you need produce NO evidence.
THAT is a double standard. THAT is hypocritical.

Now, will you address yourself to my arguments and questions to you above – or will you again ignore them?

You continuously state the witnesses could not be mistaken at Rogue river based on belief and no proof that they were accurate. This is the contention. Case histories have shown (read Hendry, bluebook, Condon, etc) that people do err in observations. I have demonstrated this time and time again (contrary to what you state) about how eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Since witnesses are mistaken a large percentage of the time in UFO reports, it is more probable they were mistaken as well in this case (more probable than an alien spaceship). You have yet to prove your claim that the witnesses at Rogue River (or for that matter any UFO case you have presented) are reliable enough to accurately describe what they saw. It is all based on your belief they must have seen exactly what they reported. You have shown no scientific case studies about eyewitnesses being 100% reliable.

Your arguments are based solely on belief and not evidence. It is ALL your opinion. Every case has been simply links to various websites that push the ETH (including a link to a scientist who has been taken in by several hoaxes over the years siimply because he wants to belief). What arguments do you really have? What real research have you done other than repeat what others have written on the Internet? Keep pretended to be a scientist. I am more likely to trust somebody with real credentials than fake ones.

As far as the glare issue, I addressed this and pointed to the Catalina film. The photographer thought he was filming a disc and the film shows a disc. Hundreds/Thousands saw the film and agreed. UFOlogists watched it hundreds of times and analyzed it over and over. They concluded it was an "unknown". Only when modern science took over that it was shown to be a simple aircraft. Therefore, it is possible to see an airplane as a disc shaped object. This is my evidence for probability of it being an aircraft. Where is yours that the witnesses were 100% reliable that day? Oh that's right, it is because you simply say it is so.

 

[Rramjet]

Of course you are, but I am free to dismiss your hypothesis as unsubstantiated. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. Your claim should rest on it's own evidence but alas, you got none.

But you have NOT addressed the issues I raise and the evidence I present. The Iranian UFO for example exhibited shape-shifting and splitting apart and rejoining behaviour. THAT is direct EVIDENCE against mundane hypotheses. THAT is the type of evidence I base my claims on. And the evidence for this is also FIRST-HAND eyewitness account evidence. You simply FAIL to address the evidence…and then have the temerity to suggest my hypothesis is unsubstantiated. All I can say is that at least I AM presenting evidence…you on the other hand… well… WHAT evidence to support your own assertions have you presented?

Excuse me but I'm not getting into any trouble at all. I'm just sitting here waiting for you to privide evidence of alien visitation. Alas, none is forthcomming and all you can say is "it's alien because I know of no human craft that could behave as reported". I don't care what you believe, it doesn't affect me at all. However, I feel obliged to point out the glaring logical errors in your reasoning.

Umm… what logical errors might those be? Merely stating there are logical arrors does not make the statement true.

Again I reiterate…I present Lots of evidence to support my contentions. In fact I am one of a VERY select few here who do so. I repeat: WHERE is the evidence to support your own assertions?

Btw, I can't prove that Unicorns do not exist. Noone can.

Now THAT IS an interesting admission! You claim not to be able to prove unicorns do not exist. I contend that is exactly the problem you have with my “alien”hypothesis and you dismiss that suggestion! That just shows you are more interested in “opposition for opposition’s sake” rather than taking each argument on it’s merit. It shows you have a faith based believe system and you will argue at cross purposes merely in order to support that faith.

Again, I'm not FORCED to do anything. Is that hard for you to understand?

No…and I certainly cannot force you to present evidence for your assertions can I. THAT much is patently obvious.

Great, I agree that it is not yet positively identified.

So you agree that the Rogue River case supports my contention that UFOs exist? That is: NOT a possible mundane object and NOT a possible “alien” object. Just a UFO?

You mean the case where an actual scientific investigation was performed that couldn't find any aliens?

White sands was a case where the military were puzzled by observed objects they could not identify. They set up observational research in attempt ot find out what the objects were. They found the objects alright, but all they could say was that they were 30ft diameter objects speeding around 150000 ft up – a place where they knew nothing manmade could be at the time. Of course they refused to speculate on what that might actually MEAN…but hey…at least they found what they were looking for!

It has been shown over and over again that the reported object DID NOT perform outside the bounds of human technology. That's only in your deluded mind and your hypothesis still looks like a pile of poo.

So you think that shapeshifting and splitting apart are within the bounds of human technology… where exactly has it been shown that human technology can achieve such feats?

Then I simply ask you to provide evidence for that assertion…but of course you will not…because you cannot. So the only recourse you then have is that you will merely shift the burden of proof back to me by claiming you do not have to provide evidence for your assertions… while in the SAME BREATH you will claim that I MUST. Bunk!

I don't care much about your challenge and several people has been pointing out flaws in your argumentation since page one. Not my problem if you refuse to listen. Your arguments boil down to:...

Actually, WHAT flaws in my argument? Your merely stating that people have been doing this does not make the assertion true. Again…you provide NO evidence!

"I say it's alien and therefore it is! Prove me wrong if you can...ha!"

Huh...so I guess you missed my last post. Here is the part that you should have read.

HOW many times must I explain it to you… I merely hypothesise from the evidence that the objects described represent “alien” craft. I do this based on the fact that no known mundane solutions have been forthcoming that fit the object’s characteristics. I am therefore free to hypothesise what I like! Now if I hypothesised Unicorns, you would be able to knock that down very quickly by showing that unicorns do not exist. Unfortunately the problem you have is that you CANNOT show that “aliens” do not exist because e it is entirely within the realms of possibility (more it is entirely probable) that “aliens” DO exist. THAT is what gets you into trouble here.

So, discovering that you cannot deny that aliens COULD exist, you are forced into coming up with plausible “mundane” hypotheses that might explain the sightings. At the point those explanations fail (ON THE EVIDENCE) I am again free to hypothesise aliens. A further difficulty you have is that even thought there might seem to be a world of mundane hypotheses to choose from, in fact, the possibilities are severely restricted by the eyewitness evidence. Hence in Rogue River, the hypotheses were restricted to JUST ONE: the infamous blimp. BUT even THAT hypothesis does NOT fit the evidence. Therefore you are forced into claiming the eyewitnesses COULD have been mistaken. BUT, given the viewing conditions, THAT hypothesis is unlikely, thus we are left with “UFO” - and so I am again free to hypothesise “aliens”. Now, the EVIDENCE for aliens in the Rogue River case is weak, because the object did not perform any maneuvers that might be considered outside the range on human technology. And I am willing to concede that. Ideed, I argued from the VERY BEGINNING that Rogue River represented a UFO and nothing more (or less).

The White Sands case was presented so that people could see that there was MORE THAN ONE case that had extremely high observer reliability.

But as for my “alien” hypothesis, THAT is why I then introduced the Iranian UFO case. HERE was an object that DID perform “outside the bounds” of human technology. THIS case then lends support to my “alien” hypothesis. IT does not PROVE the hypothesis, merely adds weight to the proposal. And every time a mundane hypothesis is put up and then knocked down, the hypothesis looks more and more likely. When we finally run out of plausible mundane hypotheses, THEN my “alien” hypothesis looks even better. THAT is NOT to say that it IS the correct hypothesis, just that it IS plausible in the face of the positive EVIDENCE (extraordinary maneuvers) AND the negative EVIDENCE (lack of plausible alternatives).

NOW, I HAVE answered “WHY “alien” question. I HAVE also answered “WHAT evidence have you presented" question. The cases stand as I have presented them. The ball is now in your court. CAN you come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses) to “aliens”. THAT is your challenge! I have presented (some of the) the evidence to support my hypotheses and I have noted the logical arguments in favour of that evidence representing “aliens”. It is now up to you. WILL you address my arguments and questions to you now?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This has already been addressed several times. And again more recently.
But I'll re-post the photo anyway because we haven't had a good Blimp photo on the thread for a while now:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Blimps.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Blimp.jpg[/qimg]

Tell me Rramjet... in these photos, which fin is the most easy to see?

Rramjet, do you see two alien vessels chasing six blimps from the pic in post #2091? Why or why not?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, I missed where you said how intelligent control meant it was alien. Which of your posts had that answer?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Akhenaten]

But you have NOT addressed the issues I raise and the evidence I present.

I have, but you have me on ignore (how pathetic am I, writing this then?).


Just in case you have a quick peek at this post though, your issues and evidence are complete driffel.

 

[Stray Cat]

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)

Yes, what I find compelling about this is that there is NOTHING on the drawings which isn't on the Blimp. It makes me wonder if the witnesses just couldn't see certain details. They state it was made out of a reflective metalic material (aluminium) afterall and remembering how far away it was (hardly more than a dot in the distance), even through the binoculars as shown by the earlier trig drawing of the relative size in the eye piece of standard issue 8x binoculars, it was small.

And all your wriggling/denying doesn't make it any less true that the overall shape of BOTH drawings has more than a passing resemblance to the two photos of blimps here:

You may also notice that even on the relatively clear bottom photo of the Goodyear blimp, you can not really make out the gondola clearly so why would you think that a distant (smaller angular size) object seen from a fishing boat would render a clearer view of it?

 

[Rramjet]

You continuously state the witnesses could not be mistaken at Rogue river based on belief and no proof that they were accurate.

Lets put the lie to THAT little misconception immediately.

I stated:
”I don’t contend that they were 100% accurate. All I contend is that they observed substantial macro details, like the lack of fins, gondolas and engines and general shape that would have allowed them to identify what they saw as a blimp. They DO NOT have to be 100% accurate to do that. Even a “blurry” image can supply such macro details.”

AND YOU even QUOTED the following statement by me from the SAME post!

”Not only don’t I contend 100% reliability (as YOU claim 100% unreliablity)- you are again irrationally shifting the burden of proof…

So, again for the benefit of those in the back row. I DO Not contend the eyewitnesses were 100% accurate. Got it? (see my first statement above for my reasons).

This is the contention. Case histories have shown (read Hendry, bluebook, Condon, etc) that people do err in observations. I have demonstrated this time and time again (contrary to what you state) about how eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Since witnesses are mistaken a large percentage of the time in UFO reports, it is more probable they were mistaken as well in this case (more probable than an alien spaceship). You have yet to prove your claim that the witnesses at Rogue River (or for that matter any UFO case you have presented) are reliable enough to accurately describe what they saw. It is all based on your belief they must have seen exactly what they reported. You have shown no scientific case studies about eyewitnesses being 100% reliable.

Sure, eyewitnesses CAN be mistaken. BUT you have NOT commented on the countering statements by me (again from the very post you quote from):

”But you are yet to address my point that we CAN account for the conditions that make eyewitness testimony unreliable and factor them into our assessments of the sightings. The skeptics contend, in Rogue River for example, that there are factors that make perception unreliable. I pointed out that the “glare” hypothesis can be proved a nonsense simply by noting that the object was observed over more than a minute and a half (with binoculars) while it turned through various angles, both on its axis and in its plan view in relation to the observers…while the light source and observers remained stationary. THAT puts the lie to THAT particular misperception hypothesis. YET NO-ONE has bothered to note the death of it. IF you have any other conditions that might make the witnesses prone to misperceptions on a clear blue sky day with the sun low at their backs…then I’d like to hear about it. Otherwise, given the evidence against “hoax” we simply MUST accept that the witnesses had a clear view of the object and their descriptions were accurate. It is as simple as that.
So IN FACT it is YOU who are dismissing my arguments “with the wave of a hand”. You don’t even bother to pay them “lip service”. I present evidence, you merely present unfounded assertions. I represent a scientific point of view, You merely resent a scientific point of view.”

Your arguments are based solely on belief and not evidence. It is ALL your opinion.

Ahem…I have a belief in the evidence – you merely find evidence in belief.

For example it was not I who invented the Iranian UFO shapeshifting or splitting apart and rejoining…THAT is the EVIDENCE in the case…

Every case has been simply links to various websites that push the ETH (including a link to a scientist who has been taken in by several hoaxes over the years simply because he wants to belief).

I present cases with eyewitness EVIDENCE…FIRST HAND accounts. What people might have written about them is merely explaining and supporting that evidence (or not). The EVIDENCE does NOT rely on the people doing the explaining. It stands for itself. Oh, and you have NEVER been fooled by ANYTHING in your life? But I thought eyewitnesses were ultimately compromised…so perhaps you have yet to realise you have been fooled…?

What arguments do you really have?

READ the cases I present then. THERE is your evidence.

What real research have you done other than repeat what others have written on the Internet?

I present the cases, then I research the evidence to supply answers. For example if anyone had told me going in to this that I would come to know intimately nearly every possible detail about blimps on the East Coast of the USA in the mid-twentieth century I would have stated they were dreaming… yet I had to appraise myself of as much knowledge as I possibly could to refute the blimp hypothesis. Of course, there were gaps in the history that made blimps possible (even though highly unlikely…implausible even…but nevertheless possible – and the mere possibility was enough to let the skeptics in). So THERE is an example of research right here in this forum.

Keep pretended to be a scientist. I am more likely to trust somebody with real credentials than fake ones.

Sure… whatever you say.

As far as the glare issue, I addressed this and pointed to the Catalina film. The photographer thought he was filming a disc and the film shows a disc. Hundreds/Thousands saw the film and agreed. UFOlogists watched it hundreds of times and analysed it over and over. They concluded it was an "unknown". Only when modern science took over that it was shown to be a simple aircraft. Therefore, it is possible to see an airplane as a disc shaped object. This is my evidence for probability of it being an aircraft. Where is yours that the witnesses were 100% reliable that day? Oh that's right, it is because you simply say it is so.

You seem to have not read about the “glare” hypothesis. I really wish people would acquaint themselves with the arguments before leaping in like this. It was contended that a bright, spherical “glare” obscured the lower fins and gondola and engines while leaving visible the upper fin. I countered this by showing that this was a HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE hypothesis (blimp in motion through various angles, etc). The contentions in the case were VERY specific TO the case…yet you talk about a FILM that fooled some people…? Not even close Astrophotographer!

…and what the… are you now contending Rogue River to be an aircraft?

 

[Belz...]

You know I really find all this quite amusing;

What I find amusing is that you don't seem to read posts in this thread.

Oh, look! More spamming!

 

[Belz...]

My my… we are getting a little hot under the collar aren’t we…

The statement you subscribe to from guru Sagan (“No witness’s say-so is good enough”) is a categorical. It clearly contends that the witnesses are 100% unreliable.

Ah, so it's really a reading comprehension problem, then.

Hint: What Sagan said doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Belz...]

No…and I certainly cannot force you to present evidence for your assertions can I. THAT much is patently obvious.

Ramjet, you can't honestly claim that you haven't been told already how the burden of proof works in science. My only conclusion is that you are being dishonest about it.

 

[Stray Cat]

But you have NOT addressed the issues I raise and the evidence I present. The Iranian UFO for example exhibited shape-shifting and splitting apart and rejoining behaviour. THAT is direct EVIDENCE against mundane hypotheses.

No it's not... it's evidence that some people thought it exhibited those behaviours.

Now THAT IS an interesting admission! You claim not to be able to prove unicorns do not exist. I contend that is exactly the problem you have with my “alien”hypothesis and you dismiss that suggestion! That just shows you are more interested in “opposition for opposition’s sake” rather than taking each argument on it’s merit. It shows you have a faith based believe system and you will argue at cross purposes merely in order to support that faith.

This is so wrong I nearly didn't even bother with a response. But it's crucial to point out that proving a negative is impossible. As a self proclaimed scientists (with papers published apparently), you would know this.
Which is the main problem here. You challenge people to be able to PROVE you wrong when in reality, it is down to YOU to prove to us that you are right. Something which you haven't been able to do.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, what I find compelling about this is that there is NOTHING on the drawings which isn't on the Blimp.

Ummm... I think you will find that the smooth rounded bottom is NOT on the blimp photos.

I think you will find that the circular shape when seen at an angle from the bottom is not in the blimp photos.

I think that the thinness of dimension in the drawings is not represented by the FAT cigar shape in the photos...

I am sure you can work out the rest for yourself - and one glaringly obvious thing...I think you will find that "GOOD YEAR" is not on the drawings... but of course THAT would be TOO obvious a thing for you to have missed? How could the eyewitnesses have missed such a detail I wonder. After all they got the drawings of the Good Year blimp WITHOUT the logo?

 

[Rramjet]

Ramjet, you can't honestly claim that you haven't been told already how the burden of proof works in science. My only conclusion is that you are being dishonest about it.

I make a claim - you ask for the evidence to support that claim (and rightly so).

You make a claim - but then contend you do NOT have to provide evidence to support that claim.

THAT is NOT science. It is not even logic. It is merely a double standard. Hypocrisy in other words.